Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />To the maximum extent possible, the results of any previous studies and investigation <br />should be utilized and incorporated into the proposed water activity. The application for <br />funding should include a brief summary of the results of previous studies and how they <br />will be utilized. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. Scope of Work <br /> <br />The application must provide a summary of the scope of work. The scope of work is a <br />detailed summary of how the project or water activity will be accomplished. The scope <br />of work must include a description of the activities and tasks that will be undertaken, <br />logistics, and final produc1Jdeliverables to be produced at the completion of the loan or <br />grant activity. <br /> <br />Information that should be in the scope of work includes the following: <br /> <br />. Detailed swnrnary of the water activity. <br />. Description of the goals of the water activity and how the project will <br />accomplish those goals. <br />. Description of how the work will be accomplished and major <br />deliverableslproducts. <br />. A list of participants and their qualifications to accomplish the project/water <br />activity. <br />. A detailed budget by activity, level of effort, and rates. The budget shall also . <br />detail the source of matching funds, if any. .j <br />. A detailed project schedule including key milestones. <br /> <br />PART 3 <br />Prioritization Process by the CWCB for AUocation of Funds <br /> <br />The subcommittee did not have adequate time to fully review and discuss Part 3. There was <br />consensus that all applications be prioritized before and allocation of funds is made. The <br />subcommittee recommended that threshold criteria be established but did not complete their <br />discussion of whether additional threshold criteria would be added (beyond what is shown in <br />redline). The threshold criteria establish the minimum requirements which need to be met to be <br />eligible for funding. There was some discussion of requiring a match for grants as a threshold <br />criteria but no consensus was reached. The subcommittee began some discussion of whether to <br />weight individual criteria but there was not adequate time to complete the discussion. There was <br />general consensus to not be overly restrictive and to allow an appropriate level of discretion (but not <br />too much discretion) to ensure that the "best" water activities are funded. There was discussion that <br />applicants who do not have readily available funding sources should be a priority; others felt that the <br />merits of water activity should be the primary determining factor. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Preliminary Draft <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />July 12, 2006 <br />Rev. 1 Julv 17. 2006 <br />