FY24 Southern Region LSR Grant Evaluation Criteria Scoring Matrix.pdf

Fiscal Year 2024

Last Updated 06/15/23 1

Southern Region and International Institute of Tropical Forestry Landscape Scale Restoration Program Grant Evaluation

In Collaboration with the Southern Group of State Foresters

All project proposals will be screened and evaluated based on the following:

Screening Criteria

Excludes Research and Development Yes = Eligible No = Ineligible

Meets the 1:1 Non-Federal Match Requirement1 Yes = Eligible No = Ineligible

Excludes Capital Improvements (Facilities and Infrastructure) Yes = Eligible No = Ineligible

Excludes Small Business Start-up and Economic Development Projects Yes = Eligible No = Ineligible

Includes at least one Quantitative Accomplishment (QA) target Yes = Eligible No = Ineligible

Multi State (plus 5 points) Yes No

8 pts 6 pts 4 pts 2 pts 1 pt 0 pts State Forester Priority

1 2 3 4 5 No priority

Evaluation Criteria2 In addition to the below, high rankings have a description that includes all elements requested on the template; medium descriptions contain some of the requested elements; and low has descriptions with many elements missing.

3-4 pts – High 2 pts – Medium 0-1 pts - Low

Project Overview/Purpose Statement Description should include:

• Location and importance of landscape;

• Landscape need;

• High level overview of main goals, objectives, and deliverables;

• Collaboration, boundaries, jurisdictions;

• Amount of funds requested and total project value; and

• Relationship to Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy) and Landscape Objectives.

• Incorporate program’s purpose statement “to encourage collaborative, science-based restoration of priority landscapes”.

Provides a succinct and relevant overview; could easily be used to communicate critical elements and value of the project.

Summarizes the project but has little communication value.

Does not effectively summarize the proposed project.

13-15 pts – High 5-12 pts – Medium 0-4 pts – Low

Context, Goals, and Objectives Context should clearly identify priority landscapes and issues that are the focus of the project. Goals and objectives should be explicitly explained and

Context clearly identifies priority landscapes and issues that are the focus of the project.

Project context, vision, goals and objectives are present, but underdeveloped.

Project context, vision, goals, and objectives are unclear.

(1) The allocated grant amount must be matched in full and along program authorities by the recipient using non-federally funded sources, except as authorized for the Insular Areas in 48USC1469a and Amendment of Subsection (d). Matching requirements for dollars awarded through the competitive allocation process may be met through consolidation as currently handled through consolidated payment grants for State Forestry Agencies.

(2) Only full point scores will be assigned; no zeroes will be assigned unless a field is left blank. The maximum total score may exceed 100.

Last Updated 06/15/23 2 linked to state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy) priorities and to the Landscape Objectives. The need for treatment of the landscape should be clearly explained, and the goals of the project should be clearly addressed and linked to the needs. Project objectives should be clearly identified, developed, and linked to project goals.

Successful projects will prioritize funding and other resources towards one or more landscape/resource objectives identified below, hereinafter referred to as Landscape Objectives.

Landscape Objectives:

• Reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires;

• Improve fish and wildlife habitats, including for threatened and endangered species;

• Maintain and improve water quality and watershed function;

• Mitigate invasive species, insect infestation, and disease;

• Improve important forest ecosystems;

• Measure ecological and economic benefits including air quality and soil quality and productivity.

Successful projects will, in many instances, address multiple objectives (see National Guidance and Section 8102(e) of the 2018 Farm Bill).

Goals and objectives should be explicitly explained and linked to the state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy) priorities, and to the Landscape Objectives.

The need for treatment of the landscape is clearly explained, and the goals of the project are clearly addressed and linked to the needs.

Project objectives are clearly identified, developed, and linked to project goals.

13-15 pts – High 5-12 pts – Medium 0-4 pts – Low

Proposed Activities and Budget Clearly describes with specificity, activities to be completed with grant funds and leveraged resources.

Links specific project activities to funding amounts in the Project Budget and to stated project goals and objectives. Match funds, their source, which goals they support, and specific costs should be well detailed.

Projects that leverage funding from multiple entities will be given priority. The financial contributions of partners should be documented clearly under leverage.

Please note: Any research items included in a project description MUST explicitly outline their funding source as non-federal funds. Projects that use SPTF dollars to fund research are considered ineligible.

Clearly describes with specificity, activities to be completed with grant funds and leveraged resources.

Links specific project activities to funding amounts in the Project Budget and to stated project goals and objectives.

Match funds, their source, which goals they support, and specific costs are well detailed.

Activities are well planned with a logical sequence and reasonable timeline to achieve project goals.

Describes project activities and how grant funds and leveraged resources will be used, but lacks detail, and/or some resources included in the Project Budget are unaccounted for.

Links to the stated goals and objectives may be weak.

Planned activities are poorly aligned with the objectives.

Timeline and associated costs are questionable.

Insufficient detail is provided as to what work will be completed using grant funds and leveraged resources.

Little or no link to the Project Budget or stated goals and objectives.

Planned activities are lacking or inadequately communicated.

Last Updated 06/15/23 3

8-9 pts – High 3-7 pts – Medium 0-2 pts - Low Deliverables and Outcomes Deliverables and outcomes are indicated and link to the state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy) priorities, and to the Landscape Objectives.

Clearly describe how the selected objectives will lead to measurable outcomes on the landscape and how applicants will measure progress towards those outcomes.

Clear articulation of the planned results of these efforts and the metrics by which those results will be measured (e.g., acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels, acres treated for insects and disease, acres of trees and seedlings planted to enhance water quality) will be prioritized for funding.

Proposed metrics should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely.

Clearly lays out deliverables and outcomes and links them to achievement of state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy) priorities, and to the Landscape Objectives.

Clearly describes how the selected objectives lead to measurable outcomes on the landscape and how progress toward outcomes will be measured.

Provides clear measures of success that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely.

Project deliverables and outputs are described, though how they are measured is unclear.

Project outcomes are vague or open-ended.

Insufficient detail is provided as to what the project deliverables, outputs, and outcomes are. Unclear or no measures of success.

8-9 pts – High 3-7 pts – Medium 0-2 pts - Low Collaboration/Cross Boundary Proposals should address all elements listed below.

Towards this end, it should demonstrate use of coordination and partnerships with complementary state and federal programs to improve outcomes.

• Describes how the project is cross-boundary and clearly identifies partners that are actively engaged and add value towards project planning and implementation.

• Details collaboration, both qualitative and quantitative.

• Demonstrates partnership.

• Conveys that regular meetings/dialogue of partners will be convened.

• Cultivates organization of partners/landowners around common goals/objectives.

• Shares funding or resources, and

• Generates commitment to working across boundaries for achievement of the project.

High scoring projects may also coordinate with or be proximate to other landscape-scale projects on federal or state land to increase collaboration and overall impact.

Describes how the project is cross-boundary.

Identifies partners that are actively engaged and add value towards project planning and implementation.

Described and explains how the project addresses all elements of collaboration.

Details prior collaborative work.

Collaboration with partners is identifiable but contribution to project proposal or commitment to outcomes is limited.

Discussion of how partners have been engaged is limited.

Integrates SPTF and/or other programs but the contribution of each program is less clear or novel.

Some collaboration appears to exist but is not a meaningful element of the proposal.

Does not appear to integrate SPTF and/or other programs in a meaningful way

8-9 pts – High 3-7 pts – Medium 0-2 pts - Low

Forest Action Plan Integration Clearly describes the need for the proposed project and relates it to one or more priority landscapes, issues, areas, or strategies identified in the state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy).

Clearly describes how the need for the project is directly linked to the state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy) priorities.

Need for the project is apparent but underdeveloped and/or link to Forest Action Plan (or equivalent

Little to no information is provided as to why the project is a priority or how it relates to the Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy).

Last Updated 06/15/23 4

May additionally, use Forest Stewardship Priority Areas and other state or regional assessments and plans, including those completed by other agencies or partners to help strengthen the identification of priority issues or landscapes. Use of these other documents enhance the case for prioritization, but the linkage to the state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy) must still be clearly established.

Explains that the landscape falls within a priority area identified in the state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategies).

Describes how project strategies align with strategies identified in the state Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy).

restoration strategy) is unclear.

Project identifies a few “landscape objectives” as a priority (listed under proposal requirements) for implementation.

Project does not identify “landscape objectives” as a priority (listed under proposal requirements) for implementation.

13-15 pts - High 5-12 pts - Medium 0-4 pts – Low

Innovation May include new or updated technology, outreach methods, restoration, or other systems to enhance or move forward SPTF programs.

May engage non-traditional landowners, communities, partners, or resources in priority areas.

Project is a new approach to addressing landscape objectives and priorities.

Project appears to change and/or improve traditional state forestry programs in delivery and/or implementation.

Project is a continuation of existing state program.

No new idea or change in delivery or implementation (Business as usual)

8-9 pts – High 3-7 pts – Medium 0-2 pts - Low

Sustainability of Outcomes The project will be held up as an example, is replicable, and provides value to others beyond common / typical approaches.

Project clearly results in skills and enhanced capacity that extend beyond the life of the project itself.

Project describe how others will learn from project implementation including the projects potential to inform practitioners and enhance the effectiveness of similar initiatives.

This knowledge and technical transfer need not necessarily be between states but should aim to share innovation across the landscapes of importance as relevant.

Provides rationale for why dollars invested will sustain project outcomes into the future beyond project end date.

Project displays how this investment will lead to a specific, quantifiable, cost effective, replicable benefit that addresses the priority landscape and issues from the Forest Action Plan (or equivalent restoration strategy), as well as the Landscape Objectives.

Please note: While projects may include a component of outreach, education, and training as a means to achieve the project goals, it should not be the sole outcome.

Describes how the project results in skills and enhanced capabilities that extend beyond the life of the project.

Includes plans already in place or being developed to replicate or expand the project, to build on skills, capabilities, and lessons learned.

Clearly outlines replicability to increase future impact.

Explains how development and/or strengthening of partnerships will also be a means of supporting project outcomes beyond the project end date.

Delivery mechanisms are clearly articulated.

Describes how project results in resource sharing and cross-boundary / jurisdictional agreements that extend beyond the project period.

Project may result in some limited skills and enhanced capacity building beyond the life of the project, but it is unclear how, where, or when.

Unclear how project will create lasting skills and capacity; would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.

Last Updated 06/15/23 5

13-15 pts - High 5-12 pts - Medium 0-4 pts – Low

Cost Effectiveness/ Meaningful Scale There is significant leveraging through partner investments and/or previous work.

Details how the scale is sufficient to address the identified relevant priority landscape and issues from the Forest Action Plan (or equivalent state-wide restoration strategy) and the Landscape Objectives being addressed by the project.

A project may also coordinate with or be proximate to other landscape-scale projects on federal or state land as a means of enhancing the scope of the project.

Costs are clearly communicated, reasonable, and consistent with the anticipated activities and outputs.

There is significant leveraging through partner investments and/or previous work. Scale of the project is clearly based on and is appropriate for the stated goals, objectives, and outcomes.

Clearly articulates the rationale for why the scope is meaningful.

Some costs are questionable and appear to be out of line (too low or too high) with the anticipated activities and/or outputs.

Leveraging from partners investments and/or previous work is limited.

Scale of the project appears to be only partially based on or appropriate for the stated goals, objectives, and outcomes.

Costs are not clear and/or excessive for the anticipated activities and outputs.

No leveraging from partner investments and or previous work. Scale of the project does not appear to be based on or appropriate for the stated goals, objectives, and outcomes.

5-6 pts – High 3-4 pts – Medium 0-2 pts - Low

Advancing Equity (Bonus points) The project should benefit and/or engage disadvantaged communities.

Includes a description of the benefiting community or recipient.

Includes a description of how the project benefits or engages disadvantaged communities.

Provide an overview of the benefitting community and partners engaged in the project; and how they will be impacted by the project.

Description of the benefitting community (scale) is clear and contains relevant supporting data.

Quantitative and qualitative description of how communities will be engaged to participate in /benefit from the project.

The project has significant positive impacts on disadvantaged communities, and clearly explains how it will be implemented.

Disadvantaged communities will benefit, however exactly who will benefit or how they will benefit is not made completely clear with supporting data and outcomes.

Specific partners are not identified in the implementation of the project.

Disadvantaged communities are mentioned but there is little or no description of who will be helped or how.

No partners identified to implement the project.