Funding Priorities, Evaluation Criteria and Scoring

CWM Grant Funding Priorities

The King County Flood Control District has allocated $897,324 in 2018 for Snoqualmie Watershed Forum recommended projects. The Forum’s 2018grant funding priorities (listed below) guide the selection criteria for the 2018Cooperative Watershed Management grant program.

  • The Forum encourages a geographic balance of funded projects across the Snoqualmie and SF Skykomish Watersheds.
  • Projects and programs that implement recommendations in the Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan.
  • Habitat restoration projects with an emphasis on Chinook salmon and Steelhead Trout (including 3-5 years of maintenance and monitoring).
  • Habitat protection via fee simple acquisition, conservation easements, programs, regulations or incentives that are consistent with existing watershed plans.
  • Implementation of watershed protection measures through important stewardship, incentives, landowner assistance, planning, outreach and education efforts.
  • Implementation of regional flood hazard reduction projects unable to secure adequate King County Flood District or FEMA funding, with an emphasis on projects that have multiple watershed benefits (e.g. acquisition of undeveloped flood prone properties that provide habitat benefit)
  • Projects listed in or consistent with the Snoqualmie Watershed Water Quality Synthesis Report and/or the Snohomish Forum adopted supplement of the Snohomish Basin Protection Plan (Appendix B).
  • Leveraging local, state and federal funding, including Salmon Recovery Funding Board and Department of Ecology grants.
  • Projects that create or foster partnerships between government entities, private businesses, non-profit organizations and private landowners.
  • Restoration project maintenance more than 3 years after project installation due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g. flood damage, invasive weeds)

Funding Allocation Guidance

The Forum’s Project Review Committee has faced challenges associated with ranking various project types (capital, planning, monitoring, etc.) and the lack of guidance regarding allocations across these project types. For example, committee members have regularly ranked education and monitoring grants alongside of large capital grants leading to inconsistent scoring. The committee will utilize funding allocation guidance in the CWM grant round to provide the committee with some general direction. These allocations are not meant to be prescriptive earmarks of funding but rather guide grant decisions.

The committee will use the following funding allocation guidance by project type:

  • Site-specific restoration and acquisition capital projects (feasibility through maintenance) – approximately 70% or more
  • Watershed planning and coordination – approximately 15%, includes Forum’s staffing grant and other jurisdictional planning efforts
  • Monitoring– approximately 10%
  • Education and outreach – approximately 5%

The Project Review Committee will use their discretion to balance funding recommendations based on the Forum’s guidance, scoring criteria and actual applications submitted.

Snoqualmie Forum Historic Grant Allocations (1998-2016)

The Forum’s historic grant allocations (listed below) reflect a similar allocation structure.

Use of Criteria in Ranking Process

These criteria are simply an evaluation tool.The Project Review Committee will usetechnical analysis and group consensus to develop the final prioritized grant list.

  • Reviewers consist of one representative from each jurisdiction with a seat on the Forum and one Forum staff. Additional staff from other relevant agencies may attend to provide input.
  • Final grant applications will be sent to reviewers to evaluate. Reviewers should score grants individually before the ranking meeting.
  • All reviewers will score all projects but for each project, the highest and lowest scores will be dropped.
  • Scores are draft and to be used for discussion purposes during the project review committee scoring meeting. Scoring as a group will help share technical knowledge of projects and limit geographic biases.
  • The Committee’s final ranked list of grants will be forwarded to the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum for the final grant allocation decision.

Scoring Guidance

  • Benefit and certainty categories will be scored based on the definitions explained in the below section.
  • Criteria listed below describe the ideal highest scoring project. Projects that meet these criteria should receive a score of 5 for each criteria category. Projects that do not achieve a specific set of criteria within each category should score a number less than 5.
  • Projects will be scored by category on a whole number scale from 1-5 (e.g., a project must receive a score of 3 or 4, not 3.5).
  • Each project will have two scores (one benefit, one certainty, not a combined score)
  • For each project, the highest and lowest scores for benefits and certainty will be dropped.
  • All categories will be given a multiplier based on their relative importance as listed above.
  • Scores are draft and to be used for discussion during the committee’s scoring meeting.

Criteria: Benefit to Salmon & Watershed Health
Categories / High Benefit Project Definition (Score=5)
Note:Scores should range between 1 and 5

Watershed Processes and Habitat Features

/ All projects:
  • Addresses high priority habitat features and/or watershed processes that significantly influence salmonid productivity in the basin.
  • Addresses high priority water quality problem
Restoration:
  • Restores habitat features, watershed processes, or water quality problems that are known to significantly limit productivity of priority species and populations in the basin.
  • Restores habitat or watershed processes rather than replaces a missing structural element. (i.e.,placement of large wood that encourages river processes is the priority over placement of wood in an armored riverbank)
Acquisition (of land, access, rights):
  • Protects areas with intact habitat processes and high quality habitat
  • If project involves flood hazard reduction, emphasis is given to undeveloped parcels that will also provide water quality or habitat benefits and that are unable to secure FEMA or Flood District funding
  • If project includes restoration, the restoration phase is expected to be complete within 10 years.
Non-capital (assessment, design, inventory, study, education and outreach):
  • The project is crucial to understanding or disseminating information regarding watershed processes, is directly relevantto project development or sequencing, and will clearly lead to new projects that addresshigh priority habitat features, watershed processes, and/or water quality.

Areas and Actions

/ All projects:
  • Follows the action priorities outlined for the Snohomish River Basin SalmonConservation Plan (including 3-Year Work Plan)sub-basin strategy groups and referenced in the EASC Step 6 Table 6-1 (Ecological Analysis for Salmonid Conservation Appendix). It is a project that also is listed in Snoqualmie Watershed Water Quality Synthesis Report, the Snohomish Basin Protection Plan and/orlocal flood hazard plans.
Restoration:
  • Restoration actions focused on identified limiting factors for listed species.
  • Targets high-priority restoration actions in the Mainstem – primary restoration sub-basin strategy groups.
  • For projects not located in the Mainstem – primary restoration sub-basin strategy groups, project targets highest priority actions identified for the applicable strategy group listed in the Salmon Plan.
Acquisition (of land, access, rights):
  • The acquisition will occur in high-priority protection areas as identified in the Salmon Plan and/or local flood hazard plan;or the acquisition will occur in high-priority restoration areas as identified in the appropriateplan and will contribute to implementation of a critical restoration project.
Non-capital (assessment, design, inventory, study, education and outreach):
  • Fills a high priority data gap identified in the appropriate watershed plan and/or serves to inform target audience in a high priority area.

Species and Life History

/ All projects:
  • Project is a high priority for one or more ESA-listed species and benefits multiple species or distinct populations of salmonids.
  • Addresses an important life history stage or habitat type that limits the productivity of listed salmonid species in the area and/or project addresses multiple life history requirements
  • Benefits to non-listed species emphasize populations primarily supported by natural spawning.
  • Use of area by target species or populations has been documented.
Restoration:
  • In the case of barrier removals, use of area by target species or populations is highly likely, based on documented habitat conditions and proximity of occupied habitat.

Costs

/ All projects:
Has a low cost relative to the predicted benefits for that project type in that location.
  • Costs seem reasonable for the project
  • Watershed benefits for the cost are specific

Page 1 of 9

Criteria: Certainty of Success
Category / High Certainty Project Definition (Score=5)

Appropriate

/ Project is consistent with Forum’s Funding Principles. Scope is complete and appropriate to meet the project’s goals and objectives
  • Project has a clearly stated project hypothesis, goals and objectives.

Approach

/ Restoration:
Is consistent with proven scientific methods.
  • Scope, methods, and materials are appropriate in scale and complexity to efficiently accomplish the work
  • Other approaches and opportunities were considered and most appropriate approach is proposed
Acquisition (of land, access, rights):
  • Proposal clearly describes why project goals and objectives are best achieved through acquisition in place of other actions.
Non-capital (assessment, design, inventory, study, education and outreach):
  • Methodology effectively addresses a high-priority information/data gap that clearly limits project identification or development, or
  • Leads to effective implementation of prioritized projects within three years of completion

Sequence

/ Restoration:
  • Is in the correct sequence and is independent of other actions being taken first.
  • Ecological value of restoration largely independent of other actions that have not yet been completed.Builds on previous work.
Acquisition (of land, access, rights):
  • Proposed acquisition is a high priority relative to other potential acquisitions by same entity.
  • Ecological value of acquisition is largely independent of other actions.
  • If site restoration is required following acquisition, the likely prioritization, timeframe, and funding sources for proposed restoration activities are clearly described.
Non-capital (assessment, design, inventory, study, education and outreach):
  • Is a necessary precursor to future restoration or protection actions.
  • There are no known major barriers to subsequent capital project implementation.

Threat

/ Restoration:
  • Project alleviates imminent threat(s) to habitat-forming processes.
Acquisition (of land, access, rights):
  • Development of the property is imminent (within 1-5 years).
Non-capital (assessment, design, inventory, study, education and outreach):
  • Informs project development or addresses high priority data gap where threats to habitat are imminent.

Stewardship

/ Restoration:
  • Clearly describes and funds stewardship of the area or facility for >10 years.
  • Self-sustaining or requires low maintenance
  • Monitoring plan or plan outline is related to project objectives
  • Funding for monitoring and maintenance for at least 3 yearsis identified
Acquisition:
  • Long term responsibility and funding for stewardship of acquired site is secure.
Non-capital (assessment, design, inventory, study, education and outreach):
  • Not considered for this type of project

Landowner

/ Restoration:
  • Landowner(s) is willing to have proposed work done.
Acquisition:
  • Landowner(s) willingness to sell is documented.
Non-capital (assessment, design, inventory, study):
  • If an assessment/acquisition combination project, determination of landowner willingness is a project deliverable.
  • If a design project, landowners willing to follow through with construction, pending final designs.
  • If an assessment, inventory or study, landowner willingness for access to perform project (if required) has been secured.

Community Values

/ As appropriate, community values and interests described in Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan are incorporated into the project. These will vary by project and could include:
  • Outlining a clear public involvement strategy to provide information about the project and solicit input. Input may be through one-on-one meetings, public meetings, signs, or other methods to build support, enhance a conservation ethic, and increase the understanding and need for salmon recovery.
  • Working cooperatively with private landowners to provide technical assistance and create innovative solutions
  • Using plant materials important to the Snoqualmie Tribe and Tulalip Tribes.
  • Providing multiple benefits such as improved public access or recreational opportunities and protection of public health and safety, flood hazard reduction, water quality or reduced maintenance costs.
  • Coordinating and integrating with other efforts (e.g., working with appropriate partners).
  • Leveraging funding and/or resources and partnerships (acquisitions with flood hazard benefits must first attempt to secure King County Flood District or FEMA funds).
  • Maintaining viable rural communities and economics (including agriculture and forestry)

Implementation

/ If awarded a grant, actions are scheduled, fully funded, and ready to take place and have few or no known constraints to successful implementation.
  • Sponsor is qualified to do the work

Benefit to Salmon Categories / Category Scoring (0-5) / Multiplier / Total Possible Points (100)
Watershed Process and Habitat Features / 5= high
4
3= medium
2
1= low
0 / 7 / 35
Areas and Actions / 7 / 35
Species and Life History / 3 / 15
Costs / 3 / 15
Restoration
Certainty of SuccessCategories / Category Scoring (0-5) / Multiplier / Total Possible Points (100)
Appropriate / 5= high
4
3= medium
2
1= low
0 / 3 / 15
Approach / 3 / 15
Sequence / 3 / 15
Threat / 3 / 15
Stewardship / 2 / 10
Landowner / 2 / 10
Community Values / 3 / 15
Implementation / 1 / 5

Acquisition

Certainty of Success Categories / Category Scoring (0-5) / Multiplier / Total Possible Points (100)
Appropriate / 5= high
4
3= medium
2
1= low
0 / 3 / 15
Approach / 2 / 10
Sequence / 3 / 15
Threat / 3 / 15
Stewardship / 3 / 15
Landowner / 2 / 10
Community Values / 3 / 15
Implementation / 1 / 5

Non-Capital

Certainty of Success Categories / Category Scoring (0-5) / Multiplier / Total Possible Points (100)
Appropriate / 5= high
4
3= medium
2
1= low
0 / 3 / 15
Approach / 4 / 20
Sequence / 4 / 20
Threat / 3 / 15
Stewardship
Landowner / 2 / 10
Community Values / 3 / 15
Implementation / 1 / 5

Page 1 of 9