Request for Proposals The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council and the Puget Sound Partnership are developing a ranked list of large, high priority capital projects to fund as a regional package of habitat acquisition and restoration projects. Proposed projects should be ready to advance as soon as funds are available and cost more than what Puget Sound salmon recovery lead entities are typically able to support through the standard funding process (see glossary - project cost). Attached to this Request for Proposals is a glossary of key terms that have been defined to assist in the understanding of their usage. This ranked list will be an important component of the 2015 -2017 Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) budget request. The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council has approved the approach, eligible project types, prerequisites and criteria listed below.
Each Puget Sound salmon recovery lead entity may submit up to three projects by the deadline August 15, 2014. Project sponsors must have completed SRFB applications submitted in PRISM and reviewed through the sponsoring lead entity’s local process. All policies for SRFB projects in Manual 18 apply to these project proposals except where there is a narrowing of what is eligible for the PSAR large capital proposal process. Project sponsors must also submit in PRISM as an attachment to their project proposal answers to the supplemental proposal questions listed below. Because of the project limit per watershed, project sponsors must work with their lead entity and have approval as described below, to apply.
Eligible project types Restoration Acquisition Planning projects (Assessments, Designs, Inventories, and Studies) – the results of this type of project must directly and clearly lead to preliminary or final project design. Combination Projects (Acquisition and restoration OR acquisition and planning) Phased projects
Prerequisites for proposed PSAR Large Capital projects Each project must: 1. Address a high priority need identified in: a. A watershed chapter of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan; or b. The Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan; or c. A clear, science-based strategy, submitted as part of a watershed’s 3 year workplan update, to benefit a Treaty rights salmon population or other ESA-listed species population. 2. Demonstrate significant benefit to one or more listed salmon populations and/or salmon populations that benefit Treaty rights. 3. Require only funding for implementation (i.e. no other barriers with respect to authorizing environment or project implementation exist) and be consistent with lead entity priorities and/or the three-year work plan.
1 4. Begin implementation during the 2015-2017 biennium. Implementation is defined as beginning work on one of the eligible project types above. 5. For restoration projects, conceptual and preliminary design is complete, final design is complete or anticipated to be complete within the first six months of the award, and permit applications are started. Project construction must commence within one year of contract award or the next available fish window. 6. For engineering and design projects, at a minimum, a conceptual design as described in SRFB Manual 18 (Appendix D) will have been completed and meet all appropriate requirements as identified in the SRFB process. 7. Be approved through the lead entity SRFB review process in 2014. Proposal Elements Project Sponsors will complete the RCO PRISM Application process. Project Sponsors will submit answers to the standard SRFB questions and to the PSAR Large Capital Supplemental Questions as provided in RCO Manual 18 Appendix C (copy attached to this document).
Review Process Final proposals must be completed in PRISM no later than 11:59pm (PST) on August 15, 2014. The review process will be conducted to develop a regionally ranked list of projects using the following steps:
1. PSP project staff review proposals for completeness and eligibility. Proposals are packaged and sent out to reviewers for scoring. 2. The following entities will be requested to score various aspects of the proposals: a. Puget Sound Science Panel representatives a.i. Review Action Agenda Targets Criteria b. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Implementation Technical Team (RITT) b.i. Review the VSP Parameters c. the Watershed Leads and PSP staff c.i. Review all criteria with the exception of the VSP criterion. d. Additional reviewers may include representatives from NOAA, USFWS, WDFW or other regional experts to assist with scoring of VSP and Action Agenda Targets Criterion. 3. The Executive Committee reviews and evaluates the ranked list based on scores and develops a recommendation for the full Recovery Council. 4. The Puget Sound Recovery Council will review and make a decision on the final ranked list at the September 25 meeting. 5. The ranked list is packaged for use by OFM, the Governor’s office and the legislature as part of the full PSAR request of $80M for the region ($30M for the allocation formula and $50M for the ranked project list). 6. Following final approval of funds by the legislature, project sponsors above the funding cutoff line will be notified. 7. If a project can be funded only partially, the Recovery Council will offer that partial funding to the relevant project sponsor. The project sponsor may decline the funding. If the project sponsor chooses to accept the funding, the sponsor also must commit to completing the full project scope within the timeframe allotted to capital funds (two biennia, or four years). 8. Funding for the remaining projects on the list will be sought via other sources.
2 Criteria and Scoring Guidelines ******************************* Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:
1. (40 points) Expected to result in an improvement in abundance, productivity, diversity, and/or spatial distribution for one or more populations from listed Puget Sound Chinook or Summer Chum ESUs or a Treaty rights salmon population or other ESA-listed species population as defined in Prerequisite 1, above. a. (40): The proposal clearly describes a significant improvement in one or more VSP parameters that will result if project is executed; the populations for which the changes are expected to occur are identified; the proposal documents a high level of certainty that the VSP parameters will improve as predicted, and the hypothesis is testable. b. (0-39): points will be awarded depending on the degree to which the above criteria are present. Point allocation should represent much of the range from 0 to 39, and should clearly discern most projects in rank order of magnitude of improvement to VSP.
2. (20 points) Makes progress toward a Puget Sound Action Agenda target for protection and restoration of habitat, such as Shoreline Armoring, Eelgrass, Land Cover and Land Development, Floodplains, Estuaries, or Water Quantity/Quality. Proposals should clearly describe this connection. a. (20): The proposal clearly describes how the project will significantly advance at least one of the Action Agenda targets for protection and restoration of habitat in the region using quantitative metrics. b. (0-19): points will be awarded depending on the degree to which progress is made. Point allocation should represent much of the range from 0 to 19, and should clearly discern most projects in rank order of magnitude of improvement to Vital Signs.
3. (10 points) The proposal should identify the link to a strategy in the results chains of the watershed's draft monitoring and adaptive management framework or the clear science- based strategy to benefit Treaty rights populations or other ESA-listed species populations that were submitted as part of a watershed’s 3 year workplan update. a. 0 - Points if no linkage is made b. 10 points for demonstrating this linkage
4. (10 points) Project Readiness (shovel, acquisition, design or appraisal ready). Projects that claim to be Shovel or Acquisition ready will automatically receive 10 points added to their overall score. Projects that claim to be Design or Appraisal ready will automatically receive 5 points. Project readiness will be evaluated throughout the contracting process, and projects that do not truly meet the Readiness Criteria (consult glossary of terms) may have their project deemed ineligible for funding. a. (10): Shovel Ready or Acquisition Ready b. (5): Design Ready or Appraisal Ready
5. (5 points) Match funding** a. (5): Project sponsor can provide at least 15% match. b. (3): Project sponsor can provide match from 6 to 14%. c. (1): Project sponsor can provide 1 to 5% match.
3 c.i. Match should be documented and broken out as to what funds are currently secured and those that are pending (i.e., positive success in another grant application or from a project partner donation etc.)
**Match will be defined using SRFB Manual 18 to include cash, bond funds, grants (unless prohibited by the funding entity), labor, equipment, materials, staff time, and donations. See http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/manuals&forms/Manual_18.pdf. Project scoring: Final scores will be represented as sum total of points earned (coded (i.e., blind) individual scores are also available) for review. Upon completion of project scoring by reviewers the partnership staff will compile results and place projects into rank order. The Ranked List will be presented to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will review the ranking and make a recommendation to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council to accept the list as ranked by the scoring or provide a recommended change to the order of the ranked list. The ranked list is the culmination of a significant amount of thorough scientific review and investigation of the merits of each project proposed. This ranked list would not be “re-ordered” unless there was a strong policy reason to do so. This type of policy review is consistent with the charge of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council. If changes are suggested they will be done in a transparent fashion and will accompany a written explanation as to why the policy change was recommended. The full Recovery Council will be presented with both the original ranked list and the adjusted list (if one was created) for discussion and a final decision at the September 25, 2014 Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council meeting.
Questions/Contact information Project sponsors must coordinate with the Lead Entity Coordinators for submission: http://www.psp.wa.gov/SR_lead_entities.php
Please contact the PSAR Program Manager or the appropriate Ecosystem Recovery Coordinator at the Puget Sound Partnership with any questions:
Michael Blanton 360.464.2007 | [email protected] Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Program Manager
Suzanna Stoike 360.701.4604| [email protected] Island
Bruce Wulkan 360.339.4626 | [email protected] Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish/Green/Duwamish
Heather Cole 360.464.1232 | [email protected] Stillaguamish and Snohomish Watersheds
Tristan Peter-Contesse 360.464.2002 | [email protected] West Sound Watersheds and Puyallup/White-Chambers/Clover
4 Stephanie Suter 360.464.2013 | [email protected] Nisqually, South Puget Sound,
Leah Kintner 360.464.2010 | [email protected] Skagit
Stacy Vynne 360.464.2012 | [email protected] Hood Canal Watershed
Scott Williamson 360.464.2003| [email protected] San Juan and Whatcom/Nooksack Watersheds
Gretchen Glaub 360.464.1219 | [email protected] North Olympic Peninsula Watersheds
**Submit final proposals in PRISM by 11:59pm Friday, August 15, 2014**
Attachments
1. Glossary of Terms 2. Appendix C from Manual 18 2014
5 PSAR Large Capital Project Glossary
Project Readiness – PSAR Large Capital funds are intended to be used for projects that have already completed their due diligence, i.e., they have completed feasibility studies; and land owners and project partners understand and are in agreement with the project feasibility and conceptual design. This understanding and agreement is documented in writing and provided with the proposal. PSAR Large Capital funds are not intended for project development and feasibility analysis. Thus, Restoration projects should be “Shovel Ready” as defined below.
Shovel Ready – Is a term for capital construction projects. A project is considered to be Shovel Ready if it meets conditions described below: gone through the SRFB process and approved by the SRFB for funding has a significant amount of engineering and design work already completed, such that final engineering and design can be completed and permits in place so that construction can commence within one year of contract award or the next available fish window.
Acquisition Ready – Is a term for Acquisition projects. A project is considered to be Acquisition Ready if it meets conditions described below: gone through the SRFB process and approved by the SRFB for funding has an appraiser’s estimate of value.
Design Ready - Is a term for capital construction projects. A project is considered to be design ready if meets the conditions described below: gone through the SRFB process and approved by the SRFB for funding has completed conceptual (feasibility) and Preliminary design by the time of contract award.
Appraisal Ready - Is a term for Acquisition Project. A project is considered to be appraisal ready if meets the conditions described below: gone through the SRFB process and approved by the SRFB for funding has already had positive discussions with landowners and has secured a signed Land Owner Acknowledgement form uploaded to PRISM
* Project readiness will be evaluated throughout the contracting process, and projects that do not truly meet the Readiness Criteria described above may have their project deemed ineligible for funding.
Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Program (PSAR Program) – The Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration program (PSAR) was created in 2007 to help implement the most important habitat protection and restoration priorities. Funding is appropriated by the Legislature through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The Puget Sound Partnership works
6 with local entities to identify and prioritize projects. This funding is critical to advancing the most effective projects throughout our region. The PSAR program is comprised of two different funding programs termed Regular PSAR and PSAR Large Capital Program (or PSAR Large Cap.). Both programs have their own unique set of criteria and operating procedures.
Regular PSAR – Funding for the PSAR Program is a biennial appropriation from the Washington State Legislature. The Regular PSAR program receives first priority for funding. The first $30M of funding appropriations is devoted to the Regular PSAR Program. The Regular PSAR program provides funding to the 15 Puget Sound Lead Entities based upon a percentage formula approved by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PSSRC). This funding is then used to fund restoration and acquisition projects through the Lead Entity - SRFB process.
PSAR Large Capital – A Capital Project that is a high priority in a watershed’s 3 year workplan with respect to its benefit to ESA listed or Treaty right priority salmon populations but, due to the complexity and cost of the project, it cannot be easily accomplished by the lead entity with the allocated funds available to them within the Regular PSAR funding round. Large Capital Projects costs should approach or exceed what a given watershed receives in a PSAR - SRFB round of $30 million.
Project sponsors can apply for PSAR Large Capital Funds for: 1) Engineering and Design only (for Design Ready projects) – no construction funds; due diligence is already performed with conceptual (feasibility) and Preliminary design completed by the time of the contract award; and anticipated engineering and design costs should be more than a lead entity is typically able to fund in a $30 million PSAR regular round allocation 2) Restoration Construction Funds only (for Shovel Ready projects) 3) Acquisition funds 4) Both Final Engineering/Design and Construction funds under the category of a Phased Project as defined in Manual 18 (for Shovel Ready Projects) Project Cost (PSAR - Large Capital) - Large Capital Projects costs should approach or exceed what a given watershed receives in a typical PSAR - SRFB round. Watersheds Lead Entity Coordinators are aware of the budget limitations and understand the intent of the PSAR Large Capital project funds. Lead Entity coordinators will be able to determine if a project being brought forward meets the intent of the PSAR Large Capital Project program or if it should be funded with their existing PSAR regular + SRFB funds. Project sponsors should assume a Lead Entity funding scenario similar to what was received in 2013 (i.e., $30M in PSAR Regular project funds distributed using the existing allocation formula + standard SRFB allocation).
PSAR Large Capital Funding Sequencing and Cost Over-Run Fund - The top ranked 2015- 17 PSAR Large capital projects will receive funding in rank order until 90% of the PSAR Large Capital project funds have been obligated. The remaining 10% of the funds are held for a minimum period of one year and are to be used as a cost overrun account. The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council will oversee the obligation of these funds. 7 Ranked List – A Ranked List* is a list of projects or acquisitions that have been scored and ranked in order of watershed level (Regular PSAR) or regional level (PSAR Large Capital) priority. PSP-PSAR Program works with the lead entities and the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council to develop and manage the PSAR Large Capital Project list. This list is reviewed by PSP staff, NOAA’s Regional Implementation Technical Team (RITT), the SRFB and the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PSSRC). Although not all the groups and organizations previously identified are necessarily directly involved in scoring of a Large Capital project, they all have reviewed the projects in some fashion. In addition, all projects on the PSAR Large Capital (or Regular PSAR) project list will also have gone through a local watershed Lead Entity-Salmon Recovery Funding Board (LE-SRFB) review process. Projects are not eligible for PSAR funding unless they have gone through the LE-SRFB process. The final ranking of the projects is done by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council.
PSAR Biennial Funding – Funding is provided by the WA State Legislature through its biennium Budget.
Obligated Funds – Funds are considered Obligated when a contract has been agreed to between the Project Sponsor and RCO.
PSAR Program funds expire by: Biennium initially funded 2007-2009 2009-2011 2011-2013 2013-2015
Recipient of Returned Puget Sound Puget Sound Partnership Lead Entity Regular Funds: Lead Entity Partnership Funds Large Capital Funds: Puget Sound Partnership
Funds Expire 2011 2013 2015 2017
June 30 of
PSAR – Eligibility - Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration projects must meet the same eligibility requirements as SRFB projects described Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants. Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration funding must be directly in support of implementing capital projects. Eligible project types include: Restoration Acquisition Planning projects (Assessments, Designs, Inventories, and Studies) – the results of this type of project must directly and clearly lead to a conceptual, preliminary or final project design. Combination Projects (Acquisition and restoration OR acquisition and planning) Phased projects
Return Funds – If an approved Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Large Capital project cannot be implemented due to a change in circumstances or is completed under budget within the allowable timeframe, the remaining funds will return to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council for reallocation. PSP Large Capital Project Return Funds Reallocation Priority:
8 1. Funds will be used to fund existing PSAR (Large Capital) projects that have cost overruns/funding gaps due to unforeseen circumstances. Cost overruns must be approved and are subject to criteria outlined in Manual 18 Appendix B.
2. Funds may be used to fund further down the PSAR Large Capital list. Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) - The Washington State Legislature established the SRFB in 1999 to administer state and federal funding and to assist with a broad range of salmon-related activities. Its primary goal is to recover salmonids (salmon, trout, and steelhead) by providing grants.
The SRFB funds riparian, freshwater, estuarine, near-shore, saltwater, and upland projects that protect existing, high quality habitats for salmon. It also funds projects to restore degraded habitat to increase overall habitat health and biological productivity of the fish. Projects may include the actual habitat used by salmon and the land and water that support ecosystem functions and processes important to salmon.
The SRFB is composed of five voting members who are appointed by the governor, and five non-voting, state agency directors. The SRFB believes that projects must be developed using scientific information and local citizen review. Projects must demonstrate, through an evaluation and a monitoring process, that they can be effectively implemented and that they provide a sustained to benefit fish.
The complete text of the SRFB’s statement of its mission, scope, and funding strategy is available on its Web site at www.rco.wa.gov/boards/srfb_mission.shtml.
Lead Entity - Lead entities use their strategies and the regional plans to identify a sequence of habitat restoration and protection projects. Those projects are reviewed by lead entity technical advisory groups to ensure they are scientifically valid. Using information from the technical advisory groups as well as social, economic, and cultural values, the citizen committees, composed of people with diverse community interests, adopt ranked lists of projects and submit them to the SRFB for funding consideration. Contact information for both lead entities and RCO staff can be found in RCO Manual 18 in Appendix A.
Lead Entity - SRFB process – Regular PSAR and PSAR Large Capital projects are required to go through the Lead Entity - SRFB process. Specifically, all projects will have been reviewed and approved by: 1) the Lead Entity’s Technical and Citizen’s review team; 2) the Regional Implementation Technical Team for consistency with the recovery plan chapter for the watershed (Chinook, chum, or other) or other strategies submitted in the 3 year workplan process; 3) the SRFB Review Panel; and 4) the SRFB during one of its public meetings. When the PSAR Program states that a project must have gone through the LE – SRFB process prior to being eligible to receive PSAR funding, it is the above four step process that is being
9 referred to. Additional details can be found in RCO Manual 18, with specific information regarding the PSAR program provided in Appendix B.
10 Appendix C From RCO Manual 18 2014
PSAR Large Capital Supplemental Questions are near the end of this section. *PLEASE NOTE - Wording of Questions A and D (Science Based Strategy and VSP Parameters) have been updated here from what is printed in Manual 18.
Restoration Large Capital Projects
13 Planning Project Proposal
Project Number Project Name Sponsor Planning Type Choose preliminary design, final design, assessment
2014 Project Proposal for Planning Projects Please respond to each question individually – do not summarize your answers collectively in essay format. Local citizen and technical advisory groups will use this information to evaluate your project. Limit your response to ten pages (single-sided) You may delete the italicized portion of the questions and inapplicable supplemental questions to shorten the proposal).
RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants section and appendix references are available at www .r c o. w a.gov/do c _ pages/ma n ua l s_ b y _nu m ber.shtml .
Submit this proposal as a PRISM attachment titled “Project Proposal.”
NOTE: Sponsors of barrier inventory projects should NOT fill out this proposal. They should instead use the Barrier Inventory Project Proposal.
1. Problem Statement
Provide an overview of fish resources, current habitat conditions, site or reach conditions, gaps in knowledge, and other key salmon recovery problem(s) in the watershed that this project is intended to address. Include the scale of the problem and current and historic factors important to understanding the need for this project. Be specific – avoid general statements. When possible, list your sources of information by citing specific studies, reports, and other documents. (Fish passage design/feasibility studies should concisely
11 describe the passage problem (outfall, velocity, slope, etc.), the current barrier (age, material, shape, and condition), whether it is a complete or partial barrier, and the amount and quality of habitat to be opened if the barrier is corrected.
2. Project Purpose
When answering the questions below, please refer to Chapter 4 of the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines ( w df w . w a.go v /pub l ic at i ons/pub.php? i d = 0 00 4 3 ) for a definition of restoration goals and objectives.
A. State the project goal(s). The goal of planning projects should be to remedy observed problems, ideally by addressing their root causes, or to fill gaps in knowledge. Goal statements should articulate desired outcomes (your vision for desired future condition) and what species benefit from those outcomes.
B. List the project’s objectives. Objectives are statements of specific outcomes that typically can be measured or quantified over time. Objectives are more specific than goals and less specific than tasks (the specific steps that would be taken to accomplish each of the objectives).
3. Project Context
A. Describe the location of the project in the watershed, including the name of the water body(ies), upper and lower extent of the project (if only a portion of the watershed is targeted), and whether the project occurs in the nearshore, estuary, main stem, tributary, off channel, adjacent uplands, or other location.
B. List the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project. Life History Current Population ESA Life History Present (egg, Trend (decline, stable, Coverage Target (egg, Species juvenile, adult) rising) (Y/N) juvenile, adult)
C. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan and local lead entity’s strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat in the watershed (i.e., Does the assessment fill a data gap identified as a priority in the lead entity’s strategy or regional recovery plan? Does the project address a priority action, occur in a priority area, or target priority fish species?) D. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of at a later date. Consider its sequence relative to other needs in the watershed and the current level and imminence of risk to habitat in your discussion.
12 E. If any part or phase of this project has previously been reviewed or funded by the SRFB, please fill in the table below.
Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship Project # or Name Status to Current Proposal? Completed In Process Not Funded*
Completed In Process Not Funded*
Completed In Process Not Funded* * If previous project was not funded, describe how the current proposal differs from the original.
4. Project Description
NOTE that projects that include acquisition have supplemental questions at the end of this proposal. Please answer the questions below and all pertinent supplemental questions.
A. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project and how it will address the problem described above. (Proposals that include an assessment or inventory should describe its design and methodology.)
B. Clearly list and describe all products that will be produced (i.e., project deliverables). If the project will produce a design, please specify the level of design that will be developed (conceptual, preliminary, or final); design deliverables must comply with those described in RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Appendix D-1, D-2, and D-3.
C. If the project will occur in phases or is part of a larger recovery strategy, describe the goal of the overall strategy, explain individual sequencing steps and which steps are included in this application. Attach a map in PRISM that illustrates how this project fits into the overall recovery strategy, if relevant
D. If your proposal includes an assessment or inventory (NOTE: project may extend across a wide area and cover multiple properties):
i. Describe any previous or ongoing assessment or inventory work in your project’s geographic area and how this project will build upon rather than duplicate completed work.
13 ii. Describe how the assessment or inventory addresses the stages and elements in Guidance on Watershed Assessment for Salmon (Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, May 2001, www .d i g i ta l ar c h i ves. w a.gov/gover n or l o c k e/g s ro / w atershed/ w aters hed.pd f ).
E. If your proposal includes developing a design:
i. Will the project design be developed by a licensed professional engineer? If your project will not be designed by a professional engineer, please describe the qualifications and experience of your project design team.
ii. For final design projects, if you do not intend to apply for permits as part of this project’s scope of work, please explain why and when permit applications will be submitted.
iii. Has Washington Department of Natural Resources confirmed that your project is or is not on state-owned aquatic lands? Please refer to RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Section 6 for information on state-owned aquatic lands and who to contact at Department of Natural Resources. Projects on state-owned aquatic lands must attach a Landowner Acknowledgement Form (RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Appendix F) in PRISM signed by Department of Natural Resources. If the location of your design is not yet known in order to make this determination, write N/A).
F. If your proposal includes a fish passage or screening design:
i. Has the project received a Priority Index (PI) or Screening Priority Index (SPI) number? If so, provide the PI or SPI number and describe how it was generated: Physical survey, reduced sample full survey, expanded threshold determination, or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife generated (list source, such as a study or inventory). Refer to the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual at w df w . w a.go v / p u bli c a t i o n s/ p u b.p h p ? id = 0 0 0 6 1 for g u ida n c e .
ii. For fish passage design projects:
1. If a culvert or arch is proposed, will it employ a stream simulation, no slope, hydraulic, or other design?
14 2. Describe the amount and quality of habitat made accessible if the barrier is corrected.
3. Identify if there are additional fish passage barriers downstream or upstream of this project.
G. Describe other approaches and design alternatives that were considered to achieve the project’s objectives and why the proposed alternative was selected.
H. Describe your experience managing this type of project.
I. Explain how the project’s cost estimates were determined.
J. List Project Partners and their role and contribution to the project. Attach a Partner Contribution Form (Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Appendix G) from each partner in PRISM, when required (refer to Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Section 3 for when this form is required).
K. List all landowner names. If the proposed project occurs on land not owned by the grant applicant, attach a signed Landowner Acknowledgement Form (Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Appendix F) in PRISM from each landowner acknowledging that his or her property is proposed for SRFB funding consideration. (Refer to Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Section 3 for exclusions to this requirement.)
L. Contingency Planning: State any constraints, uncertainties, possible problems, delays, or additional expenses that may hinder completion of the project. Explain how you will address these issues as they arise and their likely impact on the project.
M. List and describe the major tasks and schedule you will use to complete the project. (Planning projects should typically be completed within two years of funding approval).
Supplemental Questions for Projects that Include Acquisition
(Applies to combination projects; These are not included in the ten-page limit)
A. Provide a detailed description of the property. Describe the habitat types, size and quality on site (forested riparian/floodplain, wetlands, tributary, main stem, off-channel, bluff-backed beach, barrier beach, open coastal inlet, estuarine delta, pocket estuary, uplands, etc.), critical areas on site, and any other features that make the site unique. Describe existing land use.
15 B. State what type of acquisition is proposed (e.g., fee title, conservation easement).
C. Describe the size of the property to be acquired. Attach a site map in PRISM showing the property boundary, habitat features, easements, roads, and buildings, as appropriate.
D. Describe the property’s proximity to publically owned or protected properties in the vicinity. Attach a map in PRISM that illustrates this relationship.
E. If uplands are included on the property to be acquired, state their size and explain why they are essential for protecting salmonid habitat.
F. State the percentage of the total project area that is intact and fully functioning habitat.
G. Explain property restoration needs. Explain the degree to which habitat on site is impaired and the nature and extent of required restoration. Are there levees, riprap, infrastructure, or other features on this or nearby properties that inhibit channel migration or floodplain-stream interaction? Describe the likely prioritization, timeframe, and funding sources for proposed restoration activities.
H. List structures (home, barn, outbuildings, fence) on the property and any proposed modifications. Note: In general, buildings on SRFB-assisted acquisitions must be removed. Refer to RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Section 2 for information about ineligible project elements.
I. Describe adjacent land uses (upstream, downstream, across stream, upland).
J. Describe the proximity of the property to other protected or functioning habitats, and the size and quality of those protected properties.
K. Describe the:
i. Zoning/land use
ii. Shoreline Master Plan designation
iii. Portion of site within 100-year floodplain
iv. Portion of site within designated floodway
L. Explain why federal, state, and local regulations are insufficient to protect the property from degradation.
Page | 16 M. For projects that have a goal of saving water:
i. Describe the mechanism that you intend to use to conserve water (trust, etc.) and explain why this is the preferred approach.
ii. Which steps in the water conservation process will be completed under this project proposal?
iii. How much water, if any, will be saved as a result of this project? By what methods are you calculating the amount of water conserved?
N. If buying the land, explain why acquiring a conservation easement to extinguish certain development, timber, agricultural, mineral, or water rights will not achieve the goals and objectives of the project.
O. For acquisition projects intending to purchase multiple properties within an area, identify all the possible parcels that will provide similar benefits and certainty of success and provide a clear description of how parcels will be prioritized and how priority parcels will be pursued for acquisition.
P. Describe your approach to long-term stewardship of the land. Identify any planned use of the property, including the upland areas.
Supplemental Questions for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Large Capital Projects
**Eligible projects for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration large capital funding in the planning type may include only preliminary or final design projects.
A. Fit to Puget Sound / Hood Canal strategy. Discuss how this project fits within the Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer chum salmon recovery plans, or a clear science based strategy, submitted as part of a watershed’s 3 year workplan update to benefit a Treaty rights salmon population or ESA listed steelhead *. Include whether the project addresses a priority action, occurs in a priority area, and addresses a key limiting factor identified in the recovery plan or submitted strategy. *PLEASE NOTE - Wording of “science based strategy…” has been updated here from what is printed in Manual 18.
B. Progressing Action Agenda. Discuss how this project contributes to progress toward implementing the Puget Sound Action Agenda. How does this project make progress toward a Puget Sound Action Agenda target for protection or restoration of habitat (e.g. shoreline armoring, eelgrass, land cover and land development, floodplains, estuaries, or water quantity)? Describe which targets are impacted and how much progress will be made through implementing this project using the Page | 17 metrics (acres, miles, etc.) provided in the Puget Sound Ecosystem Recovery Targets document found online at: www .p s p. w a.go v / i n t e r im _ t a r g e t s .p h p .
C. Readiness to Proceed. Discuss whether this project has any opposition or barriers to completion outside of funding. Have members of the community, recreational user groups, adjacent landowners, or others been contacted about this project? Describe your public outreach, and the public’s reaction, that has occurred to date.
D. VSP Parameters*. How does this project address VSP parameters for the target salmonid population(s)? Please describe the expected results to an improvement in abundance, productivity, diversity and/or spatial distribution for one or more populations from listed Evolutionarily Significant Units. * PLEASE NOTE - Wording of “VSP Parameters question”,,, has been updated here from what is printed in Manual 18.
E. Additional Information (optional). If not addressed in the previous answers, please describe how the project meets the other eligibility criteria and prerequisites for the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Large Capital projects.
F. Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Large Capital Attachments. Please attach a Puget Sound vicinity map showing your project’s location within the Puget Sound watershed. This map may satisfy the SRFB vicinity map requirement.
Response to Review Panel Comments
Use this section to respond to the comments you will receive after your initial site visits, and then again after you submit your final application.
Response to Site Visit Comments
Please describe how you’ve responded to the review panel’s initial site visit comments. We recommend that you list each of the review panel’s comments and questions and identify how you have responded. You also may use this space to respond directly to their comments.
Response to Post-Application Comments
Please describe how you’ve responded to the review panel’s post-application comments. We recommend that you list each of the review panel’s comments and questions and identify how you have responded. You also may use this space to respond directly to their comments.
Page | 18