ATTACHMENT 10
CALFED WATERSHED PROGRAM
(PROPOSITION 13 and 50)
Project Selection Criteria
To be most competitive, use the following general points to frame your presentation. They outline the major points of interest to the Watershed Program. More detailed criteria are listed below. The Watershed Program is most interested in projects that:
1. Address multiple CALFED Program Objectives, with primary emphasis on the goals and objectives of the Watershed Program;
2. Directly address each of the CALFED Watershed goals;
3. Utilize the CALFED Watershed Program Plan Principles – available for review in the Program Plan at www.baydeltawatershed.org;
4. Describe adequate methods used to determine project costs, including comparisons with similar projects, salary comparison, and other commonly listed costs;
5. Are clearly developed in a watershed context, with recognition of related activities in the watershed;
6. Show substantive partnerships among a diverse group of active stakeholders, and show diverse involvement in determining the needs, methods, and outcomes of the proposal; and
7. Have adequate performance and success measurements related to local and CALFED Watershed Program objectives. Proposed performance measurements are clearly described.
Review of individual projects will include the following:
· The directness and degree to which the proposed activity will address multiple CALFED objectives in an integrated fashion, with emphasis on the objectives of the Watershed Program Plan.
· The degree to which your proposal clearly outlines how the proposed project addresses each of the CALFED Watershed goals.
· The degree to which the proposal will help the CALFED Watershed Program define and illustrate relationships between watershed processes (including human elements), watershed management, and the primary goals and objectives of CALFED.
· The technical feasibility of the proposed project.
q Similarity of content and/or process to previously implemented successful projects in this community or elsewhere, whether or not the applicant participated in the other program(s).
q The likelihood that any proposed new approach or new method would add new knowledge or techniques to the body of watershed management science, including the potential to fill identified gaps in existing knowledge.
· For projects intended to develop specific watershed conservation, maintenance or restoration actions, the validity of the scientific basis for the action(s) described in the proposal.
q Status of existing assessments of local watershed condition(s) already developed by the applicant or others.
q The degree to which previous assessment(s) were used to establish project goals and objectives.
q The accuracy of description and validity of the scientific assumptions used to develop the project goals, objectives and proposed actions, and the degree to which those assumptions are widely accepted both in the science community as a whole, and in the specific watershed community.
q If scientific uncertainties are investigated, how the project will address the uncertainties, and how it will contribute to informing dialogue about the issue.
q Completeness of description of how the proposed actions are or are not consistent with the scientific assumptions and previous assessments completed in the watershed, or why they may be necessary if they are contrary to or in conflict with those previous assessments.
q The level of baseline knowledge used to support the management actions described in the proposal, or the likelihood that the management actions will generate more robust baseline knowledge than presently exists.
· The completeness of the monitoring component of the project, and the degree to which it will help determine the effectiveness of project implementation. Also of interest will be the degree to which the monitoring proposal will inform and assist the project proponent and CALFED with adaptive management processes.
q The degree of coordination and mutual support with other local and regional monitoring efforts.
q Appropriateness and adequacy of any citizen monitoring programs that will be part of the project.
q The usefulness of the type and manner of data collection, analysis and reporting for informing local decision making.
· The degree to which the approach and methods described in the project carry an effective cost relative to anticipated benefits.
q Adequacy of the methods used to determine project costs, including comparisons with other similar projects, salary comparisons, and other commonly listed costs.
q Applicant qualifications and readiness to implement the proposal.
· Level of ability and experience to conduct the project and administer funds.
· Availability of appropriate technical support, including support needed for environmental compliance and permitting necessary to begin and complete the project in a timely manner.
· Experience with previously implemented projects of this type, funded either by CALFED* or other programs. For first time applicants, the criterion will be whether successful implementation can be reasonably expected based on the qualifications of the applying parties.
q Level of assurance that needed long term operation or maintenance of the project or program will be done, and to what degree it will be supported with funding from inside the community.
* For proponents who have previously received CALFED funding, the progress, requirements, restrictions and recommendations of the prior funding will be considered when assessing the project for funding by the Watershed Program.
Criteria for the Complete Set of CALFED WATERSHED PROGRAM Proposals. Those proposals that best address the evaluation criteria will be pooled for recommendation for final funding selection. The following criteria will be used in making the funding recommendations. These criteria apply to the entire set of proposals selected for funding, rather than to each proposal individually:
· Does the set of proposals represent a balance of diverse watershed activities that demonstrate potential to improve the Bay Delta system?
· Does the set of proposals represent a variety of watershed settings, such as forested, agricultural, urban, mixed, snow-based or rainfall-based hydrology, etc.?
· Does the set of proposals represent a diverse geographic distribution?