FRGP P SN 2021 /2022

2021 F i sher ies Restorat ion

Grant Program Proposal

So l ic i tat ion Not ice

North Fork of South Fork Noyo R iver

Photo Credit : P re -Pro ject Andrea Garc ia (CDFW) and

Post -Pro ject Mimi Caddel l (Amer iCorps Water shed Stewards Program)

App l icat ion dead l ine : Apr i l 13 , 2021

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022

California Department of F ish and Wildl ife

Ecosystem Conservation Div ision

Watershed Restorat ion Grant s Branch

In partnership with

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ rat ion ’s

Pacif ic Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 3

Overv iew

The Ca l i forn ia Department of F i sh and Wi ld l i fe (CDFW) i s p leased to

announce funding opportun i t ie s under the 2021 F i sher ie s Restorat ion

Grant Program (FRGP) P roposal Sol ic i ta t ion Not ice (So l ic i tat ion) for

project s that lead to process -based restorat ion , enhancement , or

protect ion of anadromous sa lmonid hab itat . The pro ject s wi l l

add it iona l ly contr ibute to the object ives o f the Ca l i forn ia Water

Act ion P lan , Cal i forn ia Water Res i l ience Port fo l io, State Wi ld l i fe Act ion

P lan, and ful f i l lment o f CDFW’s mi s s ion . A l l qual i f ied , e l ig ib le ent i t ie s

are encouraged to submi t proposa l appl icat ions .

The F i sher ies Restorat ion Grant Program Grant Guidel ines (Guidel ines)

prov ide detai led informat ion on assoc iated laws, regula t ions , and

genera l grant requi rement s that the Program uses to estab l i sh

processes, procedures , and cr i ter ia for admin i ster ing the grant s

programs. However , the in format ion in th i s Sol ic i tat ion super sedes any

d i screpanc ies among the two documents .

Funding for F isca l Year 202 1/2022

Tota l funding avai lable under th is so l ic i tat ion i s an t ic ipated to be

approximately $14 mi l l ion , cont ingent upon a l locat ion f rom the

Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospher ic Admin i st rat ion’s (NOAA) Pac if ic

Coasta l Sa lmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) . There are no ant ic ipated

funds for the T imber Regula t ion and Forest Restorat ion Fund fo r F orest

Land Anadromous Restorat ion in 2021/2022 .

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 4

Proposa l Sol ic i ta t ion Schedule

Act iv i ty Dates

Re lease Proposal So l ic i tat ion Not ice March 2 , 2021

App l icat ion Work shops See FRGP’s Webs i te (Var ious)

P roposa ls due by 3 :00 p.m. , Pac if ic

Day l ight T ime

Apr i l 13 , 2021

Proposa l Eva luat ion A p r i l 1 6 t o J u ne 2 2 , 2 0 2 1

F ie ld Rev iews May 3 to June 22 , 2021

D i rector Approval/Announce Award December 2021 or January 2022

Execute Grant Agreements Spr ing 2022

Complete a l l p ro ject work and

submi t del iverab les/ f ina l invoice

Apr i l 1 , 2026

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 5

Sol ic i ta t ion Workshops

Workshops h igh l ight ing updates to the Sol ic i tat ion and app l icat ion

submiss ion requi rement s w i l l be he ld throughout the sta te . Work shop

attendance i s not a requi rement for submi t t ing appl icat ion . Work shops

may be recorded and made ava i lab le on l ine. Locat ions and dates w i l l

be posted on CDFW’s Pub l ic Meet ings and Not ices websi te . S ign up to

get not i f icat ions about upcoming work shops .

Appl icat ion Proposa l Package

Complete appl icat ions must be submi t ted on l ine a t CDFW WebGrant s .

The proposal app l icat ion i s l i s ted under the WebGrant s Funding

Opportun i ty "FRGP 2021 Fund ing Opportun i ty” . Appl icant s must have

an act ive WebGrant s user account to apply . In st ruct ions for us ing the

onl ine process are on the FRGP PSN Webs i te . When us ing the on l ine

app l icat ion process , you are requi red to prov ide a l l mater ia ls

requested in th is Sol ic i ta t ion and comply w ith a l l requi rements l i s ted in

the FRGP Guidel ines for your project type.

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 6

Table o f Contents

2021 FISHERIES RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM PROPOSAL SOLICITATION NOTICE

.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

O V E R V I E W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

F U N D I N G F O R F I S C AL Y E A R 202 1/20 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

P R O P O S AL SO L I C I T A T I O N SC H ED U L E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

S O L I C I T A T I O N WO R K S H O P S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A P P L I C A T I O N P R O P O S A L P AC K A G E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

T A B L E O F C O N T EN T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1 .0 E L I G I B I L I T Y C R I T E R I A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1 .1 A ppl i can t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1 .2 P ro ject s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 .0 P R O J EC T TY P ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 .1 P r io r i ty 1 P ro ject Ty pe s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 .2 P r io r i ty 2 P ro ject Ty pe s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 .3 P r io r i ty 3 P ro ject Ty pe s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 .0 FRGP Ove rv iew and B ackg ro un d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 .0 P R O G R A M R EQ U I R E M E N T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 . 1 T r ib a l Con su l t at ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5 .0 P R O P O S AL E V AL U A T I O N A N D SC O R I N G P R O T O C O L S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5 .1 A dmin i s t ra t ive Rev iew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 7

5 .2 Te chn i cal rev iew c r i te r ia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5 .3 Co st Ana ly s i s Ev al uat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5 .4 C DFW an d NM FS Eng ineer ing and Ge oTe chn i ca l Leve l Rev iew . . . . 19

5 .5 P rog ram C r i te r ia Re v iew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6 .0 R E F E R EN C E S A N D R E S O U R C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

P rog ram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

P lan s an d G u i des . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Co de s an d Reg u la t ion s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Pe rm i t t ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 8

1 .0 E l ig ib i l i ty cr i ter ia

1.1 Appl icants

E l ig ib le appl icant s inc lude state and loca l government agenc ies,

publ ic ent i t ies , Nat ive Amer ican Indian Tr ibes , and nonprof i t

o rgan i zat ions. P roposa l s f rom pr ivate ind iv idual s or for -prof i t

enterpr i ses w i l l not be accepted.

1.2 P ro jects

E l ig ib le pro ject s for th is so l ic i tat ion are those for imp lementat ion or

des ign project s that restore, enhance, o r protect sa lmon id hab itat in

anadromous water sheds or project s that support implementat ion

project s th rough p lanning, out reach , and/or educat ion. P roject s can

inc lude mult ip le pro ject typ es l i s ted in Sect ion 2 .0 .

2 .0 Project Types

Proposa l app l icat ions wi l l be accepted for the types o f pro ject s l i s ted

be low, subject to the fund ing program cr i ter ia . E l ig ib le pro ject types

are l i s ted below with in the NOAA PCSRF Fund ing Pr ior i t ie s. CDFW has

developed a two - let ter cod ing sys tem for pro ject types ( see FRGP

Guide l ines , Part IV for deta i led descr ipt ions).

2.1 P r io r i ty 1 Project Types

Project s that restore, enhance, or protect sa lmon id habitat in

anadromous water sheds through implementat ion or design project s

that lead to implementat ion . Approx imately 65% of the PCSRF grant

award wi l l fund P r ior i ty One Pro ject s.

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 9

FP* + F i sh Passage at S t ream

Cross ings

HB 1* + In st ream Bar r ier

Modi f icat ion for F i sh

Passage

H I* + In st ream Hab itat

Restorat ion

HR* + R ipa r ian Restorat ion

HS* + In st ream Bank

Stab i l i zat ion

HU* + Water shed Resto rat ion

(Ups lope)

PD* Project Des ign (100%

des ign)

RE + Cooperat ive Rear ing

SC* + F i sh Screening of

D iver s ions

WC* + Water Conservat ion

Measures

2.2 P r io r i ty 2 Project Types

Project s that mon itor status and t rends and d i rect ly contr ibute to

populat ion v iabi l i ty assessments for ESA - l i s ted anadromous sa lmonids

w i l l be admin i stered th rough a separate so l ic i tat ion process outs ide of

th i s 2021 FRGP Sol ic i ta t ion . Approx imately 25% of the PCSRF grant

award wi l l fund P r ior i ty Two Project s .

2.3 P r io r i ty 3 Project Types

Project s that support imp lementat ion project s through p lann in g,

out reach , and/or educat ion . Approx imately 10% of the PCSRF grant

award wi l l fund P r ior i ty Three Project s. P roposa ls for FRGP

programmat ic permit requi red e f fect iveness mon itor ing are ine l ig ib le .

MO Monitor ing Water shed

Restorat ion (Pro ject -

sca le)

OR Water shed and Reg ional

Organi za t ion

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 0

PD* P roject Des ign (Feasib i l i ty

s tudy)

P I Pub l ic Invo lvement and

Capac ity Bui ld ing

( Inc ludes Amer iCorps pro ject s )

PL* Water shed Evaluat ion,

Assessment , and P lanning

(Pro ject -Sca le)

TE* P r ivate Sector Technica l

T ra in ing and Educat ion

WD* + Water Measur ing Dev ices

( In st ream and Water

D iver s ion)

*Pro jects may requi re the serv ices o f a l icensed profess ional engineer

o r l icensed profess iona l geolog i st to comply w ith the requi rements of

the Bus iness and Profess ions Code sect ion 6700 et seq. (Profess iona l

Engineers Act ) and sect ion 7800 et seq . (Geologi st s and Geophysic i st s

Act ) . I f a proposed pro ject requ ires the serv ices o f l icensed

professionals , these ind iv iduals and thei r a f f i l iat ions must be ident i f ied

in the proposal appl icat ion. I f th i s in format ion cannot be prov ided with

the appl icat ion , an explanat ion must be prov ided.

+ Al l imp lementat ion type pro ject s must have a l l des igns and p lans

100% completed pr ior to grant execut ion i f the proposal i s funded.

Project s requi red for mit igat ion or used for mit igat ion (such as under

the Ca l i forn ia Env i ronmental Qua l i ty Act (CEQA), Ca l i fo rn ia

Endangered Species Act (CESA) , Federa l Endangered Spec ies Act

(ESA), Nat ional Env i ronmental Pol icy Act (NEPA), Ca l i forn ia Forest

P ract ices Act (FPA) or Sect ion 404 of the C lean Water Act (CWA) ) w i l l

not be considered for fund ing. P ro ject s under enforcement act ion by

a regulatory agency w i l l not be cons idered for funding.

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 1

3.0 FRGP Overview and Background

The goa l o f the F i sher ie s Restorat ion Grant Program (FRGP) i s to

recover and conserve Cal i forn ia ’s sa lmon and steelhead t rout

populat ions through process -based restorat ion act iv i t ie s that restore

se l f - susta in ing ecosystems . The Program ob ject ive i s to fund project s

that restore , enhance, or protect sa lmon id habitat in anadromous

water sheds o f Cal i forn ia or project s that lead to restorat ion ,

enhancement , or protect ion of anadromous sa lmonid hab itat .

P ro ject s are determined to be accompl i sh ing th i s ob ject ive by

complet ing, in part or in whole, a task f rom a State or Federal

recovery p lan. A genera l overv iew of the geographic area covered by

FRGP i s shown on Map 1 in the FRGP Guidel ines . See FRGP Guide l ines

Tab le 1 : FRGP Focus Water sheds for the spec if ic water sheds e l ig ib le

under th i s Sol ic i tat ion .

4 .0 Program Requirements

Spec i f ic program requi rement s and deta i led speci f icat ions for each

project type are avai lable in the FRGP Guidel ines . In add it ion to the

informat ion requi red under Part I I and I I I in the Guidel ines . In fo rmat ion

requested under each project type must be submit ted in deta i l w i th

the proposa l appl icat ion . The app l icant w i l l ident i fy the pr imary

project type that best descr ibes the proposed project . Forms and

examples o f supp lemental documents can be found at the FRGP

Guidance Too l s webs i te . See FRGP Guide l ines , Part V for more

informat ion and def in i t ions of supplementa l documents .

Imp lementat ion type pro ject s must have a l l des igns and p lans 100%

completed pr ior to g rant execut ion , i f the proposal i s funded. Pro ject s

that have not been des igned to meet a l l requi remen t s o f the

Cal i forn ia Sa lmon id St ream Hab itat Restorat ion Manua l , 4 th Ed it ion

(Ca l i forn ia Department o f F i sh and Game) (“CA Restorat ion Manua l”

o r other approved guide l ines and manua l s for sa lmon and stee lhead

hab itat restorat ion wi l l have the responsib i l i ty o f deve lop ing the

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 2

appropr iate documentat ion for CEQA, ESA, and CESA compl iance,

inc lud ing f inancia l a ssurances under CESA (See FRGP Guidel ines ,

Env i ronmental Compl iance and Permit t ing in Part V) .

4 . 1 T r iba l Consul ta t ion

CDFW recogn i zes the need for consu l tat ion regard ing projects that

a f fect Ca l i forn ia t r ibal commun it ie s . As such , appl icant s should make

every e f for t to involve Nat ive Amer ican Tr ibes or s takeholder groups as

appropr iate.

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 3

5 .0 Proposa l Eva luat ion and Scor ing Protocols

5.1 Admini s t rat ive Review

FRGP sta f f wi l l conduct an admin i st rat ive rev iew on a l l proposa l s . The

rev iew w i l l determine i f the proposa l i s complete and meets a l l the

submiss ion requi rement s . I f any “No” box i s checked below, the

proposa l w i l l be cons idered incomplete and wi l l not rece ive fur ther

cons iderat ion.

P roposa l Number & Type: Yes No N/A

Proposed project i s wi th in the So l ic i tat ion focus . ☐ ☐ ☐

The proposal as wr i t ten addresses the ident i f ied Recovery Task

and can accompl i sh the Task in part or in who le . ☐ ☐ ☐

1 . In termediate P lans inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : FP , SC) ☐ ☐ ☐

2 . Conceptua l P lans inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : HU) ☐ ☐ ☐

3 . In termediate or Conceptua l P lans inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : HB , H I , HS , WC, WD ☐ ☐ ☐

4 . Project Locat ion Topographic Map inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : FP , HB, H I , HR, HS , HU, MO, PD, PL , RE , SC,

WC, WD) ☐ ☐ ☐

5 . Water shed (or County ) Map inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : H I , HU, MO, OR, PD, P I , PL , RE , TE , WD) ☐ ☐ ☐

6 . Prov i s iona l Landowner Access Agreement/Prov i s iona l

Reso lut ion .

(Pro ject Types : FP , HB, H I , HR, HS , HU, MO, PD, PL , RE , SC, TE ,

WC, WD)

☐ ☐ ☐

7 . App l icab le Detai led Project Budget s ( inc luding

subcontractor s ) .

(P ro ject Type: A l l ) ☐ ☐ ☐

8 . Federal Approved Ind i rect Rate Letter inc luded.

(Pro ject Type: A l l ) ☐ ☐ ☐

9 . Water Law Compl iance documents inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : FP , HB, PD, SC, WC, WD) ☐ ☐ ☐

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 4

P roposa l Number & Type: Yes No N/A

10 . Photographs inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : FP , HB, H I , HR, HS , HU, PD, RE , SC, WC, WD) ☐ ☐ ☐

11 . Status Repor t inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : OR, P I ) ☐ ☐ ☐

12 . Fence Maintenance P lan inc luded.

(Pro ject Type: HR) ☐ ☐ ☐

13 . Ripar ian Restorat ion P lan inc luded.

(Pro ject Type: HR) ☐ ☐ ☐

14 . Qual i ty Assurance and Qual i ty Contro l (QA/QC) P lan

inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : MO) ☐ ☐ ☐

15 . Exi st ing Cond it ions Sketch inc luded.

(Pro ject Type: PD) ☐ ☐ ☐

16 . F ive Year Management P lan .

(Pro ject Type: RE ) ☐ ☐ ☐

17 . Eva luat ion P lan inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : TE) ☐ ☐ ☐

18 . Invasive Species Prevent ion Protocol s inc luded.

(Pro ject Types : A l l ) ☐ ☐ ☐

19 . Reference Documents inc luded.

(Pro ject Type: MO, PL) ☐ ☐ ☐

20 . Program Permit In format ion Tab le – Appendix E .

(P ro ject Type: FP , HB, H I , HR, H S , HU, SC, WC, WD) ☐ ☐ ☐

21 . In st ream Benef i t s and Impact Ana ly s i s inc luded.

(Pro ject Type: PD, WC) ☐ ☐ ☐

22 . Water Account ing and Consumpt ive Use Ana ly s i s inc luded.

(Pro ject Type: PD, WC) ☐ ☐ ☐

23 . Th i s proposa l requi res the Grace Per iod for fur the r rev iew. ☐ ☐

Grace Per iod Condit ions : I f rece iv ing th i s rev iew dur ing the Grace Per iod

p lease supp ly the mi ss ing document(s ) , marked “No” , to WebGrant s before the

deadl ine or the proposa l wi l l be cons idered incomplete and re jected f rom

fur ther cons iderat ion.

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 5

5.2 Technical review cr i ter ia

See FRGP Guidel ines for deta i l s o f the rev iew cr i ter ia for each pro ject

type .

The techn ica l rev iew consi st s of a Program Rev iew Scoresheet , a

B io logica l Rev iew Scoresheet and an Eng ineer ing and Geotechn ical

Rev iew Scoresheet i f appl icab le . The Program Rev iew i s un i form for a l l

proposa ls and rev iews program requi rement s l ike qua l i f icat ion s , cost

share , and budget s. The B io logical Rev iew i s speci f ic to each pro ject

type and rev iews project deta i l s to evaluate the need and success o f

a pro ject . The techn ica l rev iew typ ical ly inc ludes a s i te v i s i t w ith the

app l icant and rev iewer s. The Engineer ing and Geotechn ical Rev iew

eva luates concerns to the sa fety o f the publ ic and the success o f the

project .

App l icants should p lan to be ava i lab le f rom May 3 , 2021 through June

22 , 2021 . Rev iewer s rev iew severa l s i te s a day and there i s l i t t le

f lex ib i l i ty .

5.3 Cost Analys is Eva luat ion

Eva luat ion of pro ject cost ana ly s i s w i l l i nc lude the fo l lowing:

1. Compar i son of wages , equipment rates, mater ia l cost s , and

other pro ject cost s for s imi lar completed and proposed pro ject

work with in s imi lar geograph ic regions .

2. Rev iew of labor cost s ident i f ied by Depar tment o f Indust r ia l

Re lat ions General P reva i l ing Wage Determinat ions , Dav i s-Bacon

labor rates , and recent Cal i f orn ia Emp loyment Development

Department wage data .

3. Rev iew of regional equipment renta l cost in format ion , inc lud ing

the most cur rent ver s ion of Cal i forn ia Department o f

T ranspor tat ion’s (Ca lTrans) Labor Surcharge and Equipment

Renta l Rates pub l icat ion .

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 6

4. Restorat ion cost s , labor requi rement s, and product ion rates

ident i f ied in Append ix I o f the Recovery St rategy for Cal i forn ia

Coho Salmon , DFG 2004 .

Cost analy s i s eva luat ion w i l l cons ider project log is t ic s (e .g . , s i te

remoteness , access ib i l i ty , coord inat ion requi red wi th mult ip le land

hold ings) , rev iew of product ion rates/ lab or requi rement s in the

regional area, and benef i t to the recovery o f anadromous sa lmonids .

The tota l project cost does not a ffect the rev iew score .

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 7

5 .3 .1 Cost Share Scor ing Matr ix

Proposa l#: P ro ject Type: Reg ion : Rev iewer : Date : / /

P roposa l Name:

(Hard Cost Share / Tota l P ro ject Cost) x 100 = % Hard Cost Share

( / ) x 100 =

(Soft Cost Share / Tota l P ro ject Cost ) x 100 = % Soft Cost Share

( / ) x 100 =

Cost Share Categor ies

1 . Cost share not sui tab le : P ro ject s , per sonne l , or suppl ie s and equipment

prev ious ly funded by CDFW; resources expended pr ior to the term of the

grant ; sa lar ies of permanent ly funded employees work ing for the CDFW or

NOAA F i sher ie s ; ind i rect charges ; mit igat ion funds ; cost share funds that wi l l

not be conf i rmed by December 1 , 2021 ; cost share be ing used as match for

o ther grants or ent i t ie s .

2 . Hard cost share: A l l hard cost share must be Non -Federa l sourced money or

in -k ind contr ibut ions wh ich do not come from a Federal source . Hard cost

share can be prov ided by the app l icant and/or the appl icant ’ s partner s

i nvo lved in the implementat ion of the proposed project conf i rmed pr ior to

August 1 , 2021.

3 . Soft cost share: A l l so ft cost share i s Federa l sourced money or in -k ind

contr ibut ions wh ich come from a Federa l source . Soft cost share can be

prov ided by the app l icant and/or the app l icant ’ s partner s invo lved in the

implementat ion of the proposed pro ject . Cost sha re funds that w i l l be

conf i rmed a fter August 1 , 2021 up unt i l December 1 , 2021.

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 8

Cost share scor ing matr ix :

90 -99%

Hard

80 -89%

Hard

70 -79%

Hard

60 -69%

Hard

50 -59%

Hard

40 -49%

Hard

30 -39%

Hard

20 -29%

Hard

10 -19%

Hard

5 -9%

Hard

0 -4%

Hard

90 -99%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

80 -89%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

70 -79%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

60 -69%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50 -59%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 .25

40 -49%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 .25 -0 .25 -0 .50

30 -39%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 .25 -0 .25 -0 .50 -0 .50

20 -29%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 .25 -0 .50 -0 .50 -0 .75

10 -19%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 .25 -0 .25 -0 .50 -0 .75 -1 .0

0 -9%

Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 .25 -0 .25 -0 .50 -0 .75 -1 .0

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 1 9

5.4 CDFW and NMFS Engineer ing and GeoTechn ical Level Review

Proposal # : P ro ject T i t le :

CDFW or NMFS Rev iew Engineer / Geologist :

Quest ion YES NO N/A Comments

1 . Are the problems to be addressed

cor rect ly ident i f ied and adequate ly

character i zed?

☐ ☐ ☐

2 . Does the des ign approach, inc luding the

O&M, address the ident i f ied problems? ☐ ☐ ☐

3 . Are the techniques proposed appropr iate

for the channel type (according to the CA

Restorat ion Manual , Part I I I or accepted

methods)?

☐ ☐ ☐

4 . Are the pro ject mater ia l s ut i l i zed the

appropr iate s i ze , type, and spec ies for the

s t ream zone (act ive channel and

f loodpla in) and water shed?

☐ ☐ ☐

5 . Does the proposal ident i fy a l l necessary

surveys requi red to complete the des ign? ☐ ☐ ☐

6 . Does the Intermediate or Conceptua l P lan

Report descr ibe the set o f cond it ions,

const ra int s , and requi rement s necessary

for project design and are the p lans >65

percent p lan development for the

fo l low ing pro ject categor ies : FP , HB, HS ,

WD (and some H I and HU)?

☐ ☐ ☐

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 0

Quest ion YES NO N/A Comments

7 . Are any re f inement s that need to be made

to the design reasonab le to make between

the 65% and 100% des ign? Does the

project p roponent / des igner seem wi l l ing

to, capab le of , and have funds for making

the necessary changes before the project

i s executed ( i f fun ded)?

☐ ☐ ☐

8 . I f the pro ject i s l ike ly to requi re future

consu l tat ion or evaluat ion of a

conceptua l/ intermediate p lan as i t i s

be ing developed i s th i s consul tat ion

re f lected in the pro ject t ime l ine and

budget or can i t be accompl i shed w ith in

the project t imel ine/budget?

☐ ☐ ☐

9 . Do the l icensed eng ineer s and/or

geo logi st s have the exper ience and

exper t i se requi red for pro ject success

(e .g . , demonst rated exper ience on s imi lar

project s; technica l expert i se appropr iate

to the pro ject ; commun icat ion,

coord inat ion , and log i st ica l capab i l i t ies )?

☐ ☐ ☐

10 . I f the pro ject i s l ike ly to requi re the

part ic ipat ion of a l icensed engineer or

geo logi st , i s the l icensed profess ional

ident i f ied or the se lect ion cr i ter ia for the

l icensed profess ional prov ided?

☐ ☐ ☐

11 . From an eng ineer ing per spect ive , should

the proposa l be considered for funding?

Note : I f any of the above quest ions were

answered “NO”, then the proposa l should

not be considered for fund ing at th is t ime.

I f there are other eng ineer ing / feas ib i l i ty

reasons why the p roposa l should not be

funded, state them here .

☐ ☐ ☐

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 1

5.5 P rogram Cri te r ia Review

Proposal# : Region: Rev iewer : Date :

Proposal Name:

In i t ia l score i s 5 for the combined Program Cr i ter ia Rev iew and pro ject type B io log ical Rev iew score sheet s.

Point s deducted f rom the Program Cr i ter ia Rev iew w i l l be added to the po int deduct ion on the B io logica l

Rev iew to determine the f ina l score . For scor ing cr i ter ia not app l icab le to a proposal , in the “Yes” co lumn

indicate “N/A” in l ieu of “0” .

P rogram Cr i ter ia Rev iew Proposal # Yes Med Low No Comments

1. Proposa l demonst ra tes the pro ject app l icant or

o rgan i zat ion has the qua l i f icat ions , exper ience,

and capac ity to per form the proposed task s . Yes

= appropr iate level of qua l i f icat ions , exper ience,

capac ity , and success fu l ly completed prev ious ly

funded grant ( s) (no mi ss ing del iverab les , no

invo ic ing prob lems, no mi ssed t imel ines) ; Med =

lacks some qual i f icat ions , exper ience, capac ity ,

o r 1 minor documented problem w ith complet ing

funded grant ( s) ; Low = lacks s ign i f icant

qua l i f icat ions, exper ience, ca pac ity , or more

than 1 documented problem wi th complet ing

funded grant ( s) ; No = unqual i f ied ,

inexper ienced, uncooperat ive , or many

documented problems with complet ing funded

grant (s ) .

0

☐

N/A

☐

-0 .5

☐

-1

☐

DNF

☐

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 2

P rogram Cr i ter ia Rev iew Proposal # Yes Med Low No Comments

2. Proposa l demonst ra tes the ident i f ied

subcontractor ( s ) has the qual i f icat ions,

exper ience, and capac ity to per form the

proposed task s ; i f subcontractor( s ) not ident i f ied,

the se lect ion cr i ter ia a re descr ibed to ensure

subcontractor s w i l l be appropr iate to the work .

Yes = appropr iate level of qua l i f icat ions ,

exper ience, capac ity , se lect ion cr i ter ia

descr ibed, or no subcontractor s needed; Med =

lacks some qual i f icat ions , exper ience, capac ity ,

o r one minor documented prob lem with past

work under funded grant( s ) , or se le ct ion cr i ter ia

needs some c lar i ty ; Low = lacks s ign i f icant

qua l i f icat ions, exper ience, capac ity , or many

documented problems with past work under

funded grant ( s) , or se lect ion cr i ter ia inadequate;

No = unqual i f ied, inexper ienced, uncooperat ive ,

named subcontractor s not appropr iate for work

proposed and se lect ion cr i ter ia mi s s ing.

0

☐

N/A

☐

-0 .5

☐

-1

☐

DNF

☐

3. Project Descr ipt ion inc ludes requi red deta i l s a s

descr ibed in the PSN (Part IV int roduct ion and

Project Type speci f ic s ) , necessary to wr i te a

s tatement o f work for the grant agreement . Yes =

descr ipt ion inc ludes requi red deta i l s descr ibed in

the PSN to wr i te a grant agreement; Med =

descr ipt ion i s mis s ing requi red detai l s descr ibed

in the PSN and needs some c lar i f icat ion before a

grant agreement can be wr i t ten ; No =

descr ipt ion i s mis s ing detai l s , i s genera l , and/or a

l i s t o f act iv i t ie s with no deta i l , lack ing the deta i l

necessary to wr i te a grant agreement .

0

☐

N/A

☐

-1

☐

DNF

☐

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 3

P rogram Cr i ter ia Rev iew Proposal # Yes Med Low No Comments

4. Project budget i s appropr iate fo r the work

proposed. Yes = budget i s appropr iate; Med =

budget has 1 l ine i tem inappropr iate for the work

proposed; Low = more than 1 budget l ine i tem i s

inappropr iate for the work proposed; No =

budget i s inappropr iate for the work proposed.

0

☐

N/A

☐

-0 .25

☐

-0 .5

☒

DNF

☐

5. Project budget i s cost e f fect ive . Yes = budget i s

cost ef fect ive ; Med = 1 or 2 budget i tems are not

cost ef fect ive but overa l l the budget i s

acceptable ; Low = more than 2 budget i tems are

not cost e f fect ive but overa l l the budget i s

acceptable ; No = overa l l budget i s not cost

e f fect ive .

0

☐

N/A

☐

-0 .25

☐

-0 .5

☐

DNF

☐

6. Project budget i s detai led in descr ib ing pro ject

costs . Yes = budget has no unspec i f ied lump

sums; Med = budget has 1 unspec i f ied lump sum

w ithout supp lementa l deta i l or adequate budget

jus t i f icat ion; Low = budget i s lack ing detai l wi th

more than 1 unspeci f ied lump sum without

supplementa l deta i l or adequate budget

jus t i f icat ion, mak ing i t d i f f icu l t to wr i te a budget ;

No = budget has mult ip le lump sums lack ing

detai l necessary to wr i te a grant budget .

0

☐

N/A

☐

-0 .25

☐

-0 .5

☐

DNF

☐

7. In format ion supp l ied a l lows for a f ie ld rev iew to

be conducted. Yes = landowner (s ) cooperat ive

and s i te v i s i t poss ib le; No = landowner (s )

uncooperat ive , s i te v i s i t not poss ib le .

0

☐

N/A

☐

DNF

☐

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 4

P rogram Cr i ter ia Rev iew Proposal # Yes Med Low No Comments

8. Project addresses wi ld f i re impact s Yes = Pro ject

addresses substant ia l ecolog ica l impact s to the

water shed and sa lmonids caused by w i ld f i re or

w i ld f i re suppress ion and/or prov ides benef i t s to

the water shed and sa lmon ids quick ly a fter

implementat ion in a f fected wi ld f i re areas.

W i ld f i re Pr ior i ty Just i f icat ion i s inc luded as a

supplementa l document. No = Project does not

improve ecologica l funct ion in an area

immediate ly a f fected by w i ldf i re or Wi ld f i re

Pr ior i ty Just i f icat ion supp lementa l document i s

not inc luded.

Add

0 .5

☐

0

☐

9. Leve l o f match ing funds and resources ( f rom

matr i x ) .

P rogram Cr i ter ia Rev iew Poin t Deduct ions :

Comments :

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 5

6 .0 References and Resources

Program

CDFW’s Pub l ic Meet ings and Not ices

FRGP Sol ic i tat ion Documents

FRGP Guidance Too l s

PCSRF Data Dic t ionary ( se lect “Def in i t ions” at top r ight )

CDFW WebGrant s

P lans and Guides

Cal i forn ia Department of F i sh & Game. Recovery St rategy for

Ca l i forn ia Coho Salmon . S tate of Ca l i forn ia , Resources Agency ,

Department of F i sh and Game, 2004. (PDF)

Coho Salmon Recovery Tasks

F los i , Gary , Scott Downie , James Hopela in , M ichae l B i rd , Robert Coey ,

and Bar ry Col l in s . Cal i forn ia Sa lmon id St ream Habi tat Restorat ion

Manua l , 4 t h ed it ion . State of Ca l i forn ia , Resources Agency ,

Department of F i sh and Game, 2010.

Volume 1 (PDF) ; Volume 2 (PDF)

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . F inal Coasta l Mul t i spec ies Recovery

P lan: Ca l i forn ia Coasta l Ch inook Sa lmon, Northern Ca l i fo rn ia

S teelhead, Centra l Ca l i forn ia Coast S tee lhead . NMFS West Coast

Region, Santa Rosa , 2016 .

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 6

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . F inal Recovery P lan for the Southern

Oregon/Northern Ca l i forn ia Coast Evo lut ionar i ly S ign i f icant Un i t

o f Coho Salmon (“SONCC p lan”) . NMFS West Coast Regi on ,

Arcata, 2014 .

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . 1997. F i sh Screen ing Cr i ter ia for

Anadromous Sa lmon ids . NMFS Southwest Reg ion , 1997. (PDF)

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . Guide l ines for E lect rof i sh ing Water s

Contain ing Sa lmon ids L i sted Under the Endangered Species Act .

2000 . (PDF)

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . Guide l ines for Sa lmon id Passage at

S t ream Cross ings . NMFS Southwest Region, 2001 . (PDF)

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . Recovery P lan for Evo lut ionar i ly

S ign i f icant Un i t o f Centra l Ca l i fo rn ia Coast Coho Sa lmon (“CCC

p lan”). NMFS Southwest Reg ion, Santa Rosa, 2012 .

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . Recovery P lan for the Evolut ionar i ly

S ign i f icant Un i t s o f Sacramento R iver Win ter -Run Chinook Sa lmon

and Centra l Va l ley Spr ing -Run Ch inook Sa lmon and the D is t inct

Populat ion Segment o f Ca l i forn ia Centra l Val ley S tee lhead. NMFS

West Coast Reg ion , Sacramento, 2014 . (PDF)

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . South -Centra l Ca l i forn ia Stee lhead

Recovery P lan . NMFS Southwest Reg ion, Long Beach, 2013. (PDF)

Nat ional Mar ine F i sher ie s Serv ice . Southern Cal i forn ia Steelhead

Recovery P lan . NMFS Southwest Reg ion, Long Beach, 2012.

Ca l i forn ia Water Act ion P lan

Ca l i forn ia Water Res i l ience Port fo l io

S tate Wi ld l i fe Act ion P lan

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 7

Coasta l Water shed P lanning and Assessment Program (CWPAP)

Codes and Regu lat ions

Cal i forn ia Code of Regulat ions (CCR), T i t le 14 , D iv i s ion 6 , Chapter 3 ,

Ar t ic le 5 , Sect ion 15064 .4 : Greenhouse Gas Emi ss ions Impact s

Ca l i forn ia Emp loyment Deve lopment Department wage data

Ca l i forn ia Endangered Spec ies Act (CESA)

Ca l i forn ia Env i ronmental Qua l i ty Act (CEQA)

Ca l i forn ia Forest P ract ices Act (FPA) , AKA, Z’Berg -Ne jed ly Forest

P ract ice Act or Cal i forn ia Forest P ract ice Ru les (PDF)

Code of Federal Regulat ions

Federal Un i form Grant Gu idance 2 CFR sect ion 200

Modi f ied Tota l Di rect Cost (MTDC) 2 CFR sect ion 200 .68

Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Nat ional Env i ronmenta l Po l icy Act (NEPA)

Permi t t ing

CDFW Document L ib rary – prev ious year s ’ permit documents

CDFW Scient i f ic Co l lect ing Permi t (SCP)

Ca l i forn ia Rapid Assessment Method

FRGP P SN 2021 /2022 P age 2 8

Coasta l Deve lopment Permit ( s ) f rom the Ca l i forn ia Coasta l

Commiss ion

Hab itat Restora t ion and Enhancement Act

Lake and St reambed Al terat ion Agreement (1600 permit )

FRGP M it igated Negat ive Declarat ion

NMFS B io logica l Opin ions

S tate Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Amended Genera l 401

Water Qual i ty Cert i f icat ion Order fo r Sma l l Hab itat Restorat ion Pro ject s

U .S . Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) CWA Sect ion 404 permit t ing

USACE Reg iona l General P ermit s (RGP) (PDFs)

• RGP 12 (North Coast count ies o f A lameda, Contra Costa , De l

Norte , G lenn , Humboldt , Lake, Mar in , Mendoc ino, Monterey ,

Napa, San Beni to , San F ranci sco, San Lui s Obi spo (northeast ,

non-coasta l) , San Mateo, Santa C lara, Santa Cruz , S i sk iyou,

So lano, Sonoma, and Tr in i ty ) .

• RGP 16 (port ions o f the fo l low ing Centra l Va l ley count ies:

A lameda, Amador , But te , Calaveras , Co lusa, Contra Costa, E l

Dorado, F resno, Glenn , K ings , Madera, Mar iposa , Merced,

Nevada, P lacer , Sacramento, San Ben ito , San Joaquin, Shasta ,

So lano, Stan i s laus , Sut ter , Tehama, Tu lare , Tuo lumne, Yo lo , and

Yuba Count ies) .

• RGP 78 (South Coast count ies o f Los Angeles Di st r ict : Los

Angeles, Orange, River s ide , San Bernard ino, San D iego, San

Lu i s Ob i spo, Santa Barbara , and Ventura) .