NFPP BIL FY24 NOFO Applicant Guidance (Final ao10Oct23).docx

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FWS-Fish and Aquatic Conservation

National Fish Passage Program Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Restoring River, Floodplain, and Coastal Connectivity and Resiliency https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage

Fiscal Year: 2024

F24AS00062

Due Date for Letters of Interest: November 17, 2023

The NFPP is a voluntary program that provides direct technical and financial assistance to partners to remove instream barriers, restore aquatic organism passage, and restore climate resilient aquatic connectivity in rivers, floodplains, and coastal habitats for the benefit of Federal trust resources. The program targets aquatic connectivity opportunities that rebuild productive and sustainable fisheries, contribute to the recovery and conservation of the Service’s aquatic trust species, enhance watershed health, promote resilient ecosystems and communities especially in disadvantaged communities, and improve economic vitality, including local employment. NFPP aims to maintain or increase native fish populations to improve ecosystem resiliency and provide quality fishing experiences for the American people. Activities that restore aquatic connectivity and fish passage also support the modernization of the country’s infrastructure such as road culverts, bridges, and water diversions contributing to enhanced community resilience to the impacts from climate change and other public safety hazards. NFPP funds a variety of project types including, but not limited to dam removals, culvert replacements, floodplain restoration and reconnection, dike breaches, and reconnection of tidal habitats.

The NFPP is delivered through the Service’s Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program (FAC) across all States and territories. FAC staff coordinate with project partners, stakeholders, and other Service programs to identify and collaboratively develop and implement projects within regional priority areas. Project work plans are developed strategically, in coordination with partners, and with substantial involvement from FAC staff. Projects must be based upon sound scientific and technical principles, advance the Service mission, and promote aquatic ecosystem resilience. Applicants seeking funding under this program should contact the regional NFPP Coordinator that corresponds to the location of the project for additional information on regional priorities and coordination with FAC staff prior to applying for funding.

A principal objective of the NFPP is to provide technical assistance to partners in support of projects that aim to restore aquatic connectivity and aquatic organism passage through the removal of instream barriers and the reconnection of floodplains. We use our staff and cooperative partnerships to provide (1) information on native aquatic species habitat needs and methods for aquatic connectivity; (2) technical engineering support to develop or review project designs and recommend the most effective techniques; (3) assistance to partners in planning and prioritizing fish passage projects; and (4) assistance in fulfilling environmental compliance requirements.

The NFPP prioritizes projects that will: (1) maximize benefits to native priority species and habitats; (2) provide sustainable fish passage benefits; (3) contribute to or otherwise leverage regional or watershed priorities for habitat restoration, fish passage, or aquatic connectivity; (4) enhance community resilience to climate change, address other public safety hazards and generally, provide other co-benefits such as job creation or recreational fishing opportunities; (5) involve advance coordination on species and watershed priorities with Tribes and States; (6) provide benefits to or engage with disadvantaged communities; and (7) be supported by partners, affected stakeholders, and the local community.

Activities proposed under this award may include project planning and feasibility studies, engineering and design, permitting, on-the-ground fish passage restoration, near-term implementation monitoring, project outreach, and capacity to manage these project-related activities. Applicants may apply for funding to support any combination of these activities however, priority will be given to applications that can demonstrate a clear timeline and pathway for on-the-ground implementation within a timely manner (i.e., 1-4 years). Proposals that focus on the removal of barriers and natural channel or floodplain restoration will score higher in some evaluation criteria than proposals that focus on establishing passage around a barrier that are reliant on artificial passage structures such as fishways or fish ladders. Proposals are encouraged to maximize largescale ecosystem restoration and should do so by leveraging funding from other sources, with particular emphasis on BIL funding through other Federal agencies or may include multiple project sites throughout a watershed or other geographic area.

Eligible Applicants

For eligible applicants to receive funding, NFPP BIL projects must be developed and implemented in coordination with FAC staff. FAC Program staff work collaboratively with potential applicants to identify common conservation priorities and provide technical assistance to applicants in the generation and development of projects. To be eligible for this funding, potential applicants must work with their local FAC Program staff to ensure the eligibility of their project (see Section D2 for letter of interest and proposal submission process and Section E2 for project review and selection process). Applicants may be, but are not limited to:

· State agencies

· Federal agencies

· Private landowners

· Tribes

· Local municipalities

· Non-governmental organizations

· Special district governments

· Independent school districts

· Public and State controlled institutions of higher education

· Native American Tribal governments (Federally recognized)

· Public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities

· Native American Tribal organizations (other than Federally recognized Tribal governments)

· Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education

· Nonprofits that do not have a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education

· Private institutions of higher education

· Individuals

· For profit organization other than small businesses

· Small businesses

· Other

Percentage of Cost Sharing / Matching Requirement NFPP BIL does not require match. However, NFPP BIL seeks to maximize partner leveraging of NFPP investments by securing 50 percent or more of project costs from partners at the program level. The project evaluation criteria below (see section E) outline how the amount of Leveraged Funds is considered in project review and ranking. Leveraged funds can include any non-NFPP (BIL or annual allocation) funding or in-kind technical services. Applicants may attribute some or all their allowable indirect costs as voluntary committed cost-share, however recipients may only charge to the Federal award the indirect costs calculated against the allowable direct costs charged to the Federal award.

Process To be considered for funding under this funding opportunity, projects must be developed in collaboration with the Service region where the project is located. If you have a proposed project that meets the Proposal Review Information criteria (Section E1), please contact your NFPP Regional Coordinator. NFPP Regional Coordinators serve as points of contact for eligible applicants wishing to initiate or continue the proposal process.

Interested applicants will follow this process:

1) Contact the appropriate NFPP Regional Coordinator (https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage/contact-us),

2) If your project meets NFPP eligibility, submit a Letter of Interest within 30 days of the publication of this funding opportunity, per the deadline and content identified in Section D2,

3) Select applicants will work with Service staff to develop a proposal that addresses the criteria in Section E2 Review and Selection Process.

Only applicants who have successfully completed these steps and have been selected for funding will be invited to submit an application in GrantSolutions.

For programmatic technical assistance, contact:

Pacific (ID, OR, WA, HI, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the territories of American Samoa and Guam,): John Netto, 503-724-8366, John_netto@fws.gov

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX): Trevor Luna, 505-617-5872, Trevor_luna@fws.gov

Midwest (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI): Justin Chiotti, 248-891-0087 Justin_chiotti@fws.gov

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MO, NC, SC, TN, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands): Walter “Tripp” Boltin, 843-819-1229, Walter_boltin@fws.gov

Northeast (CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV): Cathy Bozek, 413-253-8661, Catherine_bozek@fws.gov

Mountain-Prairie (CO, KS, MT, ND, NE, SD, UT, WY): Kevin Johnson, 720-402-9506, Kevin_m_johnson@fws.gov

Alaska (AK): Michael Daigneault, 907-830-9649, Michael_daigneault@fws.gov

Pacific Southwest (CA, NV): Ryan Fogerty, 530-340-7900, Ryan_fogerty@fws.gov

Program Website Link For more information on FAC Program facilities, please visit: https://www.fws.gov/our-facilities. For more information on the National Fish Passage Program (https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage).

Letter of Interest To be considered for NFPP BIL funding, interested applicants must submit a Letter of Interest (LOI) via email to their respective NFPP Regional Coordinator by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on November 17, 2023 (see https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage/contact-us for NFPP Regional Coordinator contact information).

The LOI shall include:

· a statement of interest in receiving funding under this NFPP BIL funding opportunity announcement,

· the project name (Project name should have a 50-character limit. This name will be used in publications and web stories. Consider using geographically descriptive site names.),

· the precise location (latitude/longitude coordinates) of the project; for projects with multiple sites, include coordinates for each site,

· a brief (1-4 sentence) description of the project objectives and benefits,

· requested funding amount and expected total project cost,

· list of expected partners, and

· name and contact information of the interested applicant.

Prior to submitting a LOI, eligible applicants should contact their respective NFPP Regional Coordinator or FAC field staff to discuss how their project aligns with NFPP BIL, regional, and Service priorities. If applicants are already developing NFPP BIL projects in coordination with FAC staff, applicants may continue to do so without coordinating directly with their NFPP Regional Coordinator. However, all applicants are required to submit a LOI by the deadline to express interest in the funding opportunity for a specific project. Eligible applicants shall continue to coordinate with and discuss project information relevant to the criteria and review process steps listed in Section E with their field or regional FAC Program staff after submitting a LOI.

For select projects, the USFWS region will request more detailed project information addressing the Selection Criteria, for further multi-step review.

Criteria and Ranking Factors Reviewers will assign scores to proposals ranging from 0 to 100 points based on the following criteria and respective weights specified below. Proposals that best address these criteria will be most competitive. Partners who submit a LOI by the deadline may be invited to submit a full project proposal responsive to the following criteria. Partners should seek assistance from FAC staff on proposal and budget format.

Ecological Benefits (Total of 55 points) Benefits to Priority Species and Habitats (20 points): this criterion assesses the expected benefits of the project for priority species and habitats, including how the project will enhance climate change resilience for species and habitat. To what extent is the project expected to address, mitigate, or resolve limiting factors or otherwise contribute to the recovery or sustainability of native priority species and their habitats? How significant is the expected impact of the project on the affected species and habitats? Clearly indicate if the project addresses components of established recovery, management, or state wildlife action plans, if applicable, for the species benefited.

· For the purposes of this NOFO, native priority species include Federal trust species, Service regional priority species, as well as species that may be considered Tribal trust resources (as defined in 510 FW 1 The Service's Native American Policy) and Species of Greatest Conservation Need as defined in State Wildlife Action Plans. Indicate species listing status under ESA if it applies to any species benefitted.

· This may include the number of stream miles reopened or acres of wetland or floodplain habitat restored or reconnected. If including stream miles reopened or aquatic habitat connected, please include an explanation of the geographic context, expected species use or benefits, and/or quality of the habitat to be reopened.

· Indicate if the project is expected to benefit several priority species and a variety of life stages including passage to/ restoration of spawning, rearing, and/or foraging habitats or habitats of special significance to the species life history. Projects that will benefit more than one priority species, a variety of life stages, or identified important habitat will score higher on this criterion.

· To what extent is the project expected to enhance natural system ecological resilience (the capacity to recover from or persist through disturbances or changes) for species and habitats vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather events?

Permanence of Fish Passage Benefits (15 points): This criterion focuses on the sustainability of the project benefits. Projects that focus on the removal of barriers and natural channel or floodplain restoration will score higher than projects that focus on establishing passage around a barrier using methods that are reliant on artificial passage structures such as fishways or fish ladders. Natural channel design and floodplain connection projects that restore full fluvial or ecosystem function are expected to have a higher likelihood of long-term success than projects that rely on fishways or other structures that require operations and maintenance or that may need to be modified to continue to provide passage with changing conditions. This criterion also assesses whether there are plans for monitoring the near-term implementation success to ensure the project was built as designed and on an appropriate trajectory for providing sustainable fish passage benefits.

· Describe the fish passage/restoration approach and techniques planned and discuss how the benefits provided by the project are expected to be sustainable into the future considering site and watershed characteristics and possible changing conditions.

· Describe if/how the project aims to restore full fluvial function by adhering to climate-robust design standards that maximize restoration of fluvial, floodplain, or tidal ecosystem processes or by proposing full barrier removal:

· Design guidance examples: USFWS Culvert Design Guidelines for Ecological Function, NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region Anadromous Salmonid Passage Design Manual 2022

· Does the project propose the removal of an instream barrier rather than the installation of a structure that may require regular operations and maintenance in the future (e.g., fishway)? If a structural solution such as a fishway is proposed, the proposal must include a plan to provide the needed short and long-term operations and maintenance capacity and costs. Does the plan adequately address potential adaptive management and maintenance? Does the plan demonstrate appropriate funding and staffing capacity to implement it long-term?

· Does the project include a plan for near-term implementation monitoring to ensure site/structures were constructed according to approved designs and on an appropriate trajectory to ensure permanence of fish passage benefits?

Regional and Watershed Context (20 points): this criterion assesses the project’s importance in the watershed or other geographic context and whether it leverages other investments in ecological restoration in the watershed. Projects that leverage other Federal investments in ecological restoration in the watershed and that are significant in their geographic context will score higher on this criterion.

· How is the project important relative to a watershed, landscape, or other geographic context? How does the project implement restoration priorities or compliment ongoing activities in a larger geographic context?

· Is the project expected to leverage or significantly contribute to regional or watershed restoration efforts including those outlined in a regional or watershed plan or other prioritization established by a Federal, State, local or Tribal fish and wildlife agency?

· Examples of regional or watershed initiatives could include DOI’s Keystone Initiatives, regionally identified priority watersheds, NOAA’s Habitat Blueprint, Bureau of Land Management’s Restoration Landscapes, or Environmental Protection Agency’s Geographic Programs or others.

· In addition to the project’s specific watershed context, how does it leverage other investments in the watershed from BIL, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful Initiative, and other Federally funded programs as appropriate?

· Examples of non-NFPP funding may include the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program (Federal Highway Administration); Restoring Tribal Priority Fish Passage through Barrier Removal under the IIJA (NOAA Fisheries); Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dam Grant Program (FEMA); and Legacy Roads and Trails Program (USFS).

Human Community Benefits (Total of 30 points) Benefits for human community resilience to climate change impacts and other co-benefits (15 points): this criterion assesses how the project will improve resiliency to the impacts of climate change and provide other social/ economic benefits for human communities.

· To what extent will the project improve resilience (the capacity to recover from or persist through disturbances or changes) to the impacts of climate change for the surrounding human community? How will the project actions reduce vulnerability to the specific climate change impacts or hazards that are most threatening to the local community?

· To what extent will the project provide other co-benefits for the community such as improved public safety, benefits to public transportation systems, reduced flood risk, increased recreational opportunities, or long-term job creation?

Achieves Environmental Justice Goals of Investing in Communities (10 points): this criterion assesses whether the project will provide meaningful and measurable benefits to Tribal community or to an identified Disadvantaged community.

· Is the project located within and/or will the project benefit extend into a community identified as “disadvantaged” on the CEQ Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST)? https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/-97.5 If so, proposals should list the community tract number(s) identified as disadvantaged in the CEJST that will benefit.

· The CEJST is the primary tool that should be used in identifying disadvantaged communities, though the following tools provide additional sources of information related to specific factors that impact disadvantaged communities and may be referenced to support narrative responses.

· Communities identified as disadvantaged through tools other than CEJST can receive partial points in this category. See reference variables listed in OMB Memo M-21-28 (Interim Definition of Disadvantaged Communities, p. 2) and supporting data from geospatial tools below for other factors that contribute to disadvantaged communities:

· EPA EJ Screen: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen, to use EJ Screen factors in identifying a community as disadvantaged, list the national percentile of 50th or above for indices relevant to variables listed in OMB memo.

· CDC Social Vulnerability Index: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html, to use CDC SVI factors in identifying a community as disadvantaged, list a 2018 Overall SVI Score of 0.5 or above, or 0.5 or above for individual themes relevant to variables listed in OMB memo.

· If the project will benefit a community identified as disadvantaged, describe the specific, realistic, and meaningful project benefits to the community that will result from the project. Some examples of factors that may provide benefits could include transportation safety or security improvements achieved by addressing failing infrastructure (culverts or dams); removal of legacy structures that have negative impacts to public safety or water quality, reduction of flood or fire potential, improvements to greenspaces that can provide access for recreation or reduce urban heat island impacts, etc.

· Will a Tribal or Indigenous community benefit from the project? Describe clearly the specific, meaningful project benefits to the indigenous community. In addition to the factors described above, when describing benefits to indigenous communities, consider the restoration of tribal treaty rights and resources, activities on tribal lands or throughout traditional use areas, subsistence resources, as well as fish populations that are essential to indigenous culture.

· Indigenous communities may refer to Indian Tribes (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Native Hawaiian Communities, tribal commissions, tribal consortia, and other tribal organizations.

Is this a Tribal Project? (5 points):

· Is an Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)) intended to be the prime recipient of the funding, a substantially involved partner on the project, or the primary beneficiary of project benefits? Substantially involved partner is defined as a Tribe being a project signatory or contributing funding, in-kind match, or material resources to the project. Specific information related to verifying Tribal substantial involvement should be provided or will be requested during the project review and ranking phase.

Partnerships, Funding, and Timeline (Total of 15 points) Leveraged Funds (5 points): this criterion assesses the ratio of leveraged funds to maximize species conservation.

· While there is no mandatory match requirement, projects with a higher ratio of leveraged funds will score higher on these criteria. NFPP encourages cost and resource sharing to build partnerships and demonstrate partner support for the projects. To what extent will the project leverage non-NFPP funds? Leveraged funds can include any non-NFPP funding or in-kind services or materials. List the specific funding sources and funding program, funding amounts, and status (pending, secured).

· Projects where the intended funding recipient is an Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)) will receive full points under this sub-criterion, regardless of the actual leveraged funds.

Community Support (5 points): this criterion assesses whether there is broad stakeholder and community support for the project, demonstrated through contributions of financial and technical resources, prioritization of the project in management plans or other planning efforts, or other commitments to the project’s success.

· To what extent is the project supported by partners and the local community? Include key affected stakeholders, such as state agencies managing affected species/resources and tribes with affected tribal resources.

Estimated Project Duration and Timeline of Project Milestones (5 points): this criterion assesses whether there is a clear and reasonable timeline for project completion. Projects that demonstrate that they can proceed to construction and provide fish passage benefits within 1-4 years will score higher on this criterion.

· Clearly describe what stage/s of the project and key components are being considered for funding.

· Fill out the budget table and clearly indicate the anticipated month / year planned for implementation of each key task as well as the associated NFPP requested funding amount for each task.

· If the proposal primarily includes feasibility and planning activities, does the proposal include an explanation of known or expected technical approaches and key steps and timelines for full implementation of the project? Does proposal demonstrate that the project could proceed to construction in a timely manner (ideally construction complete within 1-4 years, even if outside this funding request / award)?

· For construction projects, does the timeline for key milestones such as the status of relevant permitting and environmental compliance indicate that the project can realistically proceed to construction and provide fish passage benefits in a timely manner (ideally construction complete within 1-4 years)?

Example Budget Table

Project Component (salary, materials, subcontracts for construction, etc.)

Request

Total

E2. Review and Selection Process

Interested applicants will follow this process:

1) Contact the appropriate NFPP Regional Coordinator (https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage/contact-us),

2) if project meets NFPP eligibility, submit a Letter of Interest per the deadline and content identified in Section D2,

3) Select applicants will work with Service staff to develop a proposal that addresses the criteria in Section E2 Review and Selection Process.

Only applicants who have successfully completed these steps and been selected for funding will be invited to submit an application in GrantSolutions.

Regional Review and Proposal Process NFPP BIL projects should be developed and implemented in coordination with FAC field or regional staff. FAC staff work collaboratively with potential applicants to identify common conservation priorities and provide technical assistance to applicants in the generation and development of projects. After projects are discussed with FAC staff, to be eligible for this funding, interested applicants must submit a LOI to the appropriate NFPP Regional Coordinator via email by the deadline. See Section D2 Content and Form of Application Submission for additional information on the deadline and requirements for submitting a LOI.

Projects developed in coordination with field or regional FAC Program staff that have an LOI submitted by the deadline, may be invited to submit a full project proposal responsive to the ranking criteria outlined in Section E1. These eligible projects will be reviewed by and prioritized within each respective Service region, considering the NFPP BIL criteria included herein and other regional priorities. Service regions will submit a ranked project list to the national review and selection process facilitated by FAC headquarters (HQ) as explained below.

Note: Applicants are encouraged to discuss projects with field or regional FAC Program staff as early as possible. NFPP Regional Coordinators serve as key points of contact for the program and can direct applicants to appropriate FAC Program staff contact in the project area. Please refer to https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage/contact-us for a list of NFPP Regional Coordinators. Applicants may also visit our website to find the nearest FAC Program facility: https://www.fws.gov/our-facilities or more information on the National Fish Passage Program https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage.

National Review and Project Selection Projects proposed by Service regions will undergo a national level review and selection process based on how well they meet the program priorities outlined in Section A and the evaluation criteria included in Section E1 of this funding opportunity announcement. Proposed projects will be evaluated and ranked by a national subject matter expert review panel (Panel) consisting of Service employees and other subject matter experts. Panelists will independently review the information for each of the projects proposed by the Regions and score each project according to the project evaluation criteria (see Section E1 Criteria). The Panel will make recommendations regarding which proposals best meet the program objectives and criteria (sections A and E1, respectively). The Panel may convene in person or by teleconference, video conference, or other electronic means to discuss applications.

The ranked project list developed through the Panel will be reviewed by FAC program, Service, and DOI leadership for final project selection and approval. Additional selection factors that reflect FAC program, Service, and DOI leadership priorities may be applied. These selection factors may include consideration of the following:

· Offer special consideration to projects that achieve watershed-scale benefits or fit within larger geographic priority areas as defined by the Service or DOI.

· Provide balance to the distribution of funds by geographic area.

· Provide balance to the distribution of funds by partner type.

· Consider whether the project duplicates other projects funded by or considered by the Service or other funding agencies.

· Consider whether projects meet climate resilient community goals to create long-lasting and transformational benefits, such as reduction of flood or fire risk or permanent removal of a high hazard structure.

Once projects are selected and applicants have been notified that their project has been selected for funding, applicants must submit a formal application in GrantSolutions according to Section D2 Content and Form of Application Submission. Applicants should not submit applications to GrantSolutions until the Project Evaluation and Selection process described above is complete and they have been notified that their project is selected.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) G1. Program Technical Contact For programmatic technical assistance, contact your respective Regional Coordinator: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-fish-passage/contact-us

Pacific (ID, OR, WA, HI, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the territories of American Samoa and Guam,): John Netto, 503-724-8366, John_netto@fws.gov

Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX): Trevor Luna, 505-617-5872, Trevor_luna@fws.gov

Midwest (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI): Jessica Hogrefe, 651-262-8742 Jessica_hogrefe@fws.gov

Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MO, NC, SC, TN, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands): Walter “Tripp” Boltin, 843-819-1229, Walter_boltin@fws.gov

Northeast (CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV): Cathy Bozek, 413-253-8661, Catherine_bozek@fws.gov

Mountain-Prairie (CO, KS, MT, ND, NE, SD, UT, WY): Kevin Johnson, 720-402-9506, Kevin_m_johnson@fws.gov

Alaska (AK): Michael Daigneault, 907-830-9649, Michael_daigneault@fws.gov

Pacific Southwest (CA, NV): Tim Loux, 775-790-3663, Tim_loux@fws.gov

G2. Program Administration For program administration assistance, contact:

Amy Horstman, Headquarters (National) Telephone: 503-704-7508 Email: amy_horstman@fws.gov or nfpp@fws.gov