Table 1 GLFWRA Proposal Review Criteria Final 11-19-20_ 508.pdf

Importance of Problem or Opportunity

Project Impact and Scale

Target Species/Habitats Affects both Fish and Wildlife

General Project Merit For Each Criteria Level

Possible points = 12 Possible points = 12 Possible points = 12 Possible points = 4 Total Points 40 10-12 pts. - Project directly addresses a specific management objective or task identified in a State, Tribal, or Federal management plan OR addresses a critically important emerging need as recognized by State, Tribal, or Federal Agencies.

10-12 pts. - Project will result in large ecological benefits with broad regional/multistate or basin-wide implications.

10-12 pts. - Project focuses on a Federal or State threatened or endangered species OR project focuses on rare occuring habitat or habitat critical to the life cycle/function of a species.

4 - Project provides clear benefits to both fish AND wildlife communities.

Excellent

7-9 pts. - Project addresses a goal or general action(s) (i.e. a stated goal is to implement a type of action, without specific plans for specific projects) identified in a State, Tribal, or Federal management plan.

7-9 pts. - Project will result in large ecological benefits with local (not larger than a single lake or state) scale implications only.

7-9 pts. - Project focuses on a native species targeted for rehabilitation or a species of economic importance OR project focuses on habitat supporting the life cycle/function of a species.

3 - Project provides clear benefits to either fish OR wildlife communities.

Good

4-6 pts. - Project addresses the vision or a broad, far reaching action(s) (i.e. a stated goal is to restore a species or to restore watershed health) identified in a State, Tribal, or Federal management plan.

4-6 pts. - Project will result in small-medium ecological benefits with broad regional/multistate or basin-wide implications.

4-6 pts. - Project focuses on a native species not targeted by a specific rehabilitation plan or of economic importance OR project focuses on important (but not critical) habitat.

2 - Project provides clear benefits to specific fish AND wildlife populations

Fair

1-3 pts. - Project does not address an action(s) identified in a State, Tribal, or Federal management plan but has some value to resource managers.

1-3 pts. - Project will result in small-medium ecological benefits with local (not larger than a single lake or state) scale implications only.

1-3 pts. - Project focuses on a non-native species or of economic importance OR project focuses on abundant, less important habitat.

1 - Project provides clear benefits to specific fish OR wildlife populations Sub-par

0 pts. - Project does not link to management plans or to any needs of resource managers.

0 - Project will result in minimal ecological benefits at any spatial level.

0- Project has no linkages to particular species or habitats of importance to resource managers.

0- Project has dubious value to any fish or wildlife species.

Poor

Objectives and Methods Cost/Value (see footnotes at bottom)

Likelihood of Success Potential for Negative Impacts

General Project Merit For Each Criteria Level

Possible points = 12 Possible points = 12 Possible points = 12 Possible points = 4 Total Points 40 10-12 pts. - Proposed objectives are appropriate to address the problem; methods are unique, innovative, and advance the state of knowledge in this area.

10-12 pts. - Project costs provide exceptional value for proposed work. (For habitat projects, unit costs are below target level.)

10-12 pts. - Proposed timeline is easily attainable and appropriate, applicants are very well qualified for proposed project and there are no anticipated impediments (e.g.

permits, etc.) to implementation.

4 - There are no foreseeable negative impacts (e.g.

invasive species issues, disease, contaminants, etc.)

from this project.

Excellent

7-9 pts. - Proposed objectives are appropriate to address the problem; methods are consistent with known standards and techniques.

7-9 pts. - Project costs provide very good value for proposed work. (For habitat projects, unit costs are below target level.)

7-9 pts. - Proposed timeline is acceptable, applicants are qualified for proposed project, and there are no apparent impediments (e.g.

permits, etc.) to implementation.

3 - The project clearly and adequately addresses all potential negative impacts (e.g. invasive species issues, contaminants, disease etc )

Good

4-6 pts. - Proposed objectives are appropriate to address the problem;

however, the methods need minor improvement to be consistent with known standards and techniques.

4-6 pts. - Project costs provide appropriate value for proposed work. (For habitat projects, unit costs are at target level.)

4-6 pts. - Proposed timeline is reasonable, but there is a serious impediment (e.g. qualification of applicants, permits, etc.) to implementation.

2 - The project vaguely or not adequately addresses potential negative impacts (e.g. invasive species issues, contaminants, disease etc )

Fair

1-3 pts. - Proposed objectives are appropriate to address the problem;

however, the methods are inconsistent with known standards and techniques.

1-3 pts. - Project costs are more costly than average for proposed work. (For habitat projects, unit costs are above target level.)

1-3 pts. - There are at least two barriers (e.g., time, qualification of applicants, permits, etc.) to implementation.

1 - The project does not address potential negative impacts (e.g. invasive species issues, contaminants, disease, etc.).

Sub-par

0 - Proposed objectives and methods are inappropriate to address the problem and are inconsistent with known standards and techniques.

0 - Project costs are excessive and not appropriate for proposed work. (For habitat projects, unit costs are well above target level.)

0 - Proposed timeline is not reasonable and there are one or more probable barriers (e.g.

qualification of applicants, permits, etc.) to implementation.

0 - Potential negative impacts (e.g. invasive species issues, contaminants, disease, etc.)

clearly outweigh any positive benefits from this project.

Poor

Management Significance and Relevancy to the Act

Project Characteristics

Table 1. Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act Proposal Review Criteria

Specific