CCRGO_ranking_criteria_FY22.pdf

MASSWILDLIFE CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE

GRANT OPPORTUNITY (CCRGO)

FY2022 RANKING CRITERIA WORKSHEET

PROJECT TITLE:

□ Private Landowner □ Land Trust/NGO □ Municipal

CRITERIA RANK

1 Project site protection status

2 Project map

3 Project budget

Net benefit of habitat enhancement activities to resilience of the habitat to climate change and overall climate adaptation

5 Net benefit of habitat enhancement activities to State Wildlife Action Plan species

6 Appropriateness of Treatment Unit / project size

7 Landscape context

8 Project feasibility

9 Partnerships and outreach

10 Environmental Justice

Total

CCRGO RANKING CRITERIA (TOTAL 160 POINTS)

1) CCRGO Management Area’s protection status:

• Conservation restriction, Town Conservation Land, or other permanent conservation status under Article XCVII = 15 points

• Agricultural Protection Restriction or private conservation organization ownership/restriction lacking Article XCVII protection = 10 points

• Chapter 61/61A or 61B= 5 points

• Other temporary protection including previous LIP covenant = 2 points

• No protection = ineligible for program

2) Application map(s) is detailed showing the location of the parcel and identifies

CCRGO Treatment Unit area(s) (“TUs”) that correspond to the TUs described in the application. Maps are provided at the appropriate scale for the TUs and show the context of the site within the landscape:

• Excellent: Maps have detailed locus and clearly outline CCRGO TUs;

included maps are appropriately scaled, have detailed legends, and clearly delineate both the TUs and the entire parcel. Management access routes into TUs are shown, and the location of the property within the town(s) is clearly and accurately shown = 10 points

• Satisfactory: Able to determine the location of the project, but map(s) lack some details relative to scale, legend, and/or management access routes. =

5 points

• Insufficient: Unable to determine the location of the project. = 0 points

3) The proposed budget is detailed, itemized, reasonable for the services provided;

quotes provided for sub-contracted work; shows the cost and explanation of the work needed to achieve project goals:

• Detailed and itemized; quotes are included for sub-contracted work and costs are reasonable for proposed work. If NRCS rates are used, sufficient detail of the Treatment Unit habitat type(s) are provided, the work that is to be done is clearly specified, and the correct NRCS rate is selected. = 10 points

• Satisfactory, lacking detail and/or quotes (if needed) are not provided, but budget is reasonable for proposed work. If NRCS rates are used, not enough detail is provided to determine if correct rate(s) are selected, or incorrect rate is chosen. = 5 points

• Insufficient budget information or proposed budget is unreasonable for the scope and scale of the proposed work = 0 points (earning 0 points on this criteria may result in the rejection of the entire application as

MassWildlife reserves the right to reject all proposals, or portions of proposals, that it determines do not provide the best value overall to achieve the goals of the program.)

4) Net benefit of habitat enhancement activities to resilience of the habitat to climate change and overall climate adaptation:

• Habitat enhancement contributes highly to climate resilience based on the vulnerability of the habitat types to climate change and the anticipated benefits of the management actions = 30 points

• Habitat enhancement contributes moderately to climate resilience based on the vulnerability of the habitat types to climate change and the anticipated benefits of the management actions = 20 points

• Habitat enhancement contributes minimally to climate resilience based on the vulnerability of the habitat types to climate change and the anticipated benefits of the management actions = 5 points

• No contribution to climate resilience= 0 points

5) Net benefit to Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) identified in the

State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). The grantee must provide an accurate list of

SWAP species that will benefit from the proposed habitat enhancement activity

(the species must occur in the vicinity of the TUs), and the species must benefit from the habitat type resulting from the proposed enhancement (the grant ranking committee will be the final arbiter of the species list that is evaluated in relation to this criterion):

• Habitat enhancement activities provides a high degree of net benefit to species that are on the SWAP list and applicant adequately described the direct connection between the habitat enhancement being conducted and the benefit to the identified species on the SWAP list = 15 points

• Habitat enhancement activities provides a moderate degree of net benefit to species that are on the SWAP list and applicant adequately described the direct connection between the habitat enhancement being conducted and the benefit to the species on the SWAP list = 10 points

• Habitat enhancement activities provides minimal net benefit to species that are on the SWAP list and applicant adequately described the direct connection between the habitat enhancement being conducted and the benefit to the identified species on the SWAP list = 5 points

• Habitat enhancement activities provides no net benefit to species that are on the SWAP list, grantee fails to provide an accurate list of SWAP species that will benefit from the proposed habitat enhancement activity, applicant does not adequately describe the direct connection between the habitat enhancement being conducted and the identified species on the

SWAP list, or the identified species do not occur in the area, or does not rely on the habitat type being enhanced = 0 points

• Additional five (+5) points for projects that benefit Massachusetts

Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species as listed in 321 CMR

10.90.

6) Treatment Unit area(s)(“TUs”) are at the appropriate scale(s) for species/habitat management:

• TUs are at the appropriate size(s) for the species/habitat(s) being managed for = 20 points

• TUs are partially appropriate for the species/habitat(s) being managed for

= 10 points

• TUs are not appropriate for the species/habitat(s) being managed for = 0 points

7) Geographic and ecological landscape context of the proposed Treatment Unit area(s). The proposed treatments are assessed relative to geological and ecological factors such as slope, aspect, soil type, adjacent land use types and http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/wildlife-habitat-conservation/state-wildlife-conservation-strategy.html interior forest habitat (the grant ranking committee will be the final arbiter of the landscape contest that is evaluated in relation to this criterion):

• TUs are highly complementary to local landscape features = 15 points

• TUs are moderately complementary to local landscape features = 10 points

• TUs are minimally complementary to local landscape = 5 points

• TUs are not complementary to local landscape features = 0 points

8) Management objectives and tasks are likely to be achieved within the grant agreement period:

• Proposed management objectives and tasks are likely to be achieved within the grant agreement period and will meet stated habitat goals = 20 points

• Proposed management objectives and tasks may be achievable within the grant period, and if achieved would meet stated habitat goals, but there may be limiting factors (weather, ecological, logistical or regulatory) that would prohibit the management from being completed within the grant period. Applicant has addressed the long-term plans for the TUs being managed in a way that may mitigate some of the limiting factors in their proposal. = 10 points

• Proposed management objectives and tasks may be achievable within the grant period, but even if achieved may not fully meet stated habitat goals.

There may be limiting factors (weather, ecological, logistical or regulatory) that would prohibit both the management tasks and goals from being completed within the grant period. Applicant has not fully addressed the long-term plans for the TUs being managed in a way that may mitigate some of the limiting factors in their proposal = 5 points

• Proposed management objectives and tasks are unlikely to be achieved within the grant agreement period = 0 points

9) The landowner has established ongoing, written partnership agreements with other organizations and/or individuals in the habitat management process to further enhance both habitat management efforts and public awareness of habitat benefits. The landowner fully describes the nature of these partnerships in relation to both the development of the current proposal and achieving public awareness following completion of the proposal.

• The landowner has established written partnerships/collaborates with other organizations or individuals in the habitat management activities described herein to both substantially enhance habitat management and public awareness of habitat benefits = 10 points

• The landowner has established written partnerships/collaborates with other organizations or individuals in the habitat management activities described herein to moderately enhance both habitat management and public awareness of habitat benefits = 5 points

• The landowner has not established written partnerships/collaborates with other organizations or individuals in the habitat management activities described herein that resulted in significant enhancement to the habitat management or to public awareness of habitat benefits = 0 points

10) The project benefits an Environmental Justice (EJ) community as defined and mapped on the Environmental Justice web page at https://www.mass.gov/environmental-justice. The application includes the https://www.mass.gov/environmental-justice census block group, tract, town, and county of the relevant EJ community, as shown on the EJ map.

• Treatment units are within an Environmental Justice community = 10 points

• Treatment units are not within an Environmental Justice community = 0 points https://mass-eoeea.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=535e4419dc0545be980545a0eeaf9b53