Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Workshops

Transcription

1 Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Workshops February Belfair Friday Harbor Port Townsend Olympia Seattle Mount Vernon Welcome to the workshop. 1

2 ESRP Workshop Agenda PSNERP Overview Organization Publications Change Analysis WRIA 9 Pilot Project Looking Back ESRP 2006 Looking Forward ESRP Nearshore Project Database We re going to start today with a little background on how the Estuarine and Salmon Restoration program came to be within the Puget Sound Nearshore Project, update you on relevant studies, discuss the first ESRP grant round and then lead you through the process of applying for grants to implement your priority nearshore projects. Go over topics 2

3 Program Relationships Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) While it all began w/ the PSNERP General Investigation Study, our project quickly began to attract the attention and interest of others, including other federal agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA s Community Restoration Program, and others. GI Studies don t easily lend themselves to other sources of federal cash, nor does the approved scope of the GI study allow us to implement on-the-ground restoration projects or pursue scientific studies not directly related to the GI Study. In 2005, we adopted the name Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership to identify this larger partnership of agencies, NGO s, local governments and others, and the larger mission of advancing nearshore restoration and science in Puget Sound. Thus, the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, falls under the perview of the Nearshore Partnership, though we do anticipate that the lessons we will learn along the way will indirectly advance the PSNERP GI study. 3

4 The mission of the Nearshore Partnership is to restore and protect the nearshore habitat of Puget Sound for the benefit of the biological resources and the integrity of the ecosystem, including the functions and natural processes of the basin. Since this mission statement was written, much work has been undertaken by the restoration community under Salmon Recovery, bird conservation, marine resource recovery and other motivations to improve the way we do nearshore protection and restoration to be more strategic and effective. We consider each of you part of that partnership and hope we can continue to learn from each other and help each other accomplish our shared goals. 4

5 PSNERP Organization Executive Committee Corps District Engineer WDFW Director Steering Committee Local & Federal Stakeholders State agencies, Local governments, Tribes, NGO s, Lead Entities Corps, USGS, NOAA, EPA et al. Finance Sub- Committee Nearshore Science Team Project Management Team Fed. Proj. Mgr Local Proj. Mgr. IT Co-lead NST C-lead Implementation Team Change Analysis Work Group Conceptual Model Work Group GIS Work Group 5

6 The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project: A Corps of Engineers General Investigation Study General Investigation Studies (GI) common way for the Corps to help a community solve a water resource problem involve jointly conducting a study with a local sponsor if shown by the study to be feasible, the construction and implementation of the project PSNERP Cost Share Agreement : Signed Sept. 28, 2001 $12 million General Investigation (GI) 50/50 Cost Share for GI Phase Federal Sponsor: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Local Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project or PSNERP, began as a Corps of Engineers General Investigation study. The ultimate purpose of this study is to develop an ecosystem restoration authority of the Corps in Puget Sound. This would allow for us to tap into a new source of major federal funding to help restore Puget Sound. This approach has been used in places like the Florida Everglades and coastal Louisiana to implement very large projects, beyond the capacity of local or state governments. 6

7 Project Timeline Develop PSNERP Program Evaluate NS Ecosystem Restoration Needs Formulate NS Ecosystem Restoration Plan Program Tools & Structure Strategic Needs Assessment Final Feasibility Report Stage 1 Fall 2001 Spring 2004 Stage 2 Spring 2004 Fall 2007 Stage 3 Summer 2007 Winter 2008 The deliverable of a General Investigation Study is a Final Feasibility Report, which identifies a problem of national significance, and describes specific solutions, or projects, that can be delivered by the Corps of Engineers. We expect that our final feasibility report will identify portfolios of projects at multiple spatial scales, from local implementation to those requiring the federal lift. Our current schedule is for completion of the study in This general outline of PSNERP project stages and timelines is optimistic, and assumes a level of funding that we ve not yet achieved. However, we are working to maintain this schedule, and our program funding outlook is good for both WDFW and the Corps in 2007 and Meanwhile, we are spinning off reports and other technical assistance to improve nearshore restoration efforts in Puget Sound even before the study is complete. 7

8 The Puget Sound Nearshore The estuarine delta / marine shoreline and areas of shallow water generally from the top of the coastal bank or bluffs to water at depths associated with the photic zone So what is our definition of the Puget Sound nearshore? In addition to the sandy beach that we would all recognize as a nearshore ecosystem, we would extend that definition landward to include the bluff that contributes sand, gravel, and large trees to the beach ecosystem. Similarly, we would extend the definition waterward to a depth where light is sufficient to support eelgrass, kelp, and other marine vegetation that is part of the nearshore ecosystem. In coastal stream and river systems, we would include the intertidal and subtidal delta areas, and extend the definition of nearshore upstream to the limits of tidal influence that allow for the exchange of riverine and marine material and energy in this estuarine environment. 8

9 Fundamental Hypotheses Natural processes creates structure; Structure produces habitat function; Functioning habitat supports specific biological organisms and communities; These relationships can be confirmed through a conceptual model. structure function process (This slide has each bullet fly in.) The scientific foundations of our technical approach to understanding and restoring nearshore ecosystems is based on this fundamental hypotheses, represented by this 3 legged stool of process, structure and function. 9

10 Nearshore Processes Biomass production Large woody debris movement Coarse sediment delivery (Each circle and associated text are fly in features.) This slide shows examples of some of the process that work to build and sustain nearshore ecosystems. In vegetated marshes, plant matter is processed by microbes to provide the detritus that contributes significantly to food webs. Large wood is delivered from watersheds and adjacent bluffs to add structure to nearshore ecosystems. As bluffs erode over time, they deliver sand and gravel, the life blood of Puget Sound beaches. 10

11 Impacts of Shoreline Armoring on Ecosystem Structure and Processes Loss of littoral sediment Change in beach substrate Wave reflection/scour Change in beach profile Hydrological impacts Changes in groundwater Loss of riparian vegetation Terrestrial insects Detritus Large wood The construction of structures in these ecosystems can adversely effect nearshore processes, as suggested in this example of a bulkhead and some of the possible effects it might have. 11

12 Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Products Technical Document Series Change Analysis WRIA 9 Pilot Project The primary goal of the nearshore partnership is to complete a general investigation under a cost-share agreement signed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Over the last several years, the Nearshore Science Team has completed a series of documents that describe the underlying technical foundation of the General Investigation. These documents are also meant to assist the restoration community in developing projects. All PSNERP publications are available on our web site under the publications tab. Today I ll introduce you to the ones you might find most helpful. 12

13 Identifies high-priority research goals and objectives Delineates critical questions and information gaps Guides effective restoration planning and adaptive management in Puget Sound The document is organized around 6 overarching research goals and lists examples of hypotheses and studies. Because we want to continue to learn from the restoration actions we perform, many of the study questions can help you formulate a restoration hypothesis and scope effective monitoring programs. 13

14 Synthesizes information about Puget Sound beach geomorphology and dynamics Summarizes relevant peer-reviewed literature Assembles information useful to shoreline managers and scientists alike. While the restoration community has significant experience restoring estuaries as part of salmon recovery programs, we have considerably less experience on restoring important beach habitats. David Finalyson s report explains how our beach structures are really slow moving processes that need to be understood in order to affect restoration. 14

15 A synthesis tool designed to better understand: Nearshore ecosystem processes Response of nearshore ecosystems to different stressors Response of nearshore ecosystems to restoration actions Many of us have struggled to get our heads around the concept of using conceptual models to guide our restoration efforts. This document attempts to demystify conceptual models into several levels of our understanding of how processes, structures and biology are interconnected. The importance of using conceptual models to organize our work is also described in the report. 15

16 Provides guidance on: Development Selection Evaluation of projects designed to support recovery of the nearshore ecosystems of Puget Sound Finally, we know that there are lots of different levels of experience out there amongst the groups engaging in nearshore restoration and the number of those groups is growing. Those who pioneered nearshore restoration from the salmon recovery world have been sharing their successes and shortcomings with us as we attempted to take a larger landscape and multiple species view of the nearshore. This document attempts to bring everybody together on the same page in regards to the concepts of process-based restoration and how we might accomplish it through projects of varying scales and to support multiple species. 16

17 Detecting changes in structure Associating changes in structure with process Identifying potential stressors associated with these changes Change Analysis 17

18 Three Tree Point Shoreform Change Historic Closed Lagoon/ Marsh Current Change analysis allows us to detect and document changes in nearshore ecosystems in Puget Sound. This includes the ability to document the loss of features, such as this small lagoon in southern King County, as well as changes in the attributes of these features, such as the construction of bulkheads and overwater structures. 18

19 WRIA 9 Pilot Project Change Analysis and Future Without Project Analysis Our latest studies in the general investigation occurred in central Puget Sound, an area with diverse geography and levels of development. In order to understand the drivers behind changes in nearshore condition, we compared historic and current mapped representations of the WRIA 9 marine shorelines which have changed dramatically over the last 150 years or so. These changes were then explored further by a group of graduate students at University of Washington to describe the human drivers behind observed changes. The results of these pilot studies are being evaluated so that similar studies can be scoped soundwide. 19

20 SEA LEVEL RISE One of several factors likely to affect the future of Puget Sound Craig, 1993 Change analysis and Future Without Project analysis are necessary steps in the final feasibility report to Congress that will demonstrate our full understanding of what has affected Puget Sound s nearshore functions and processes, how those altered processes will affect a Puget Sound of the future and how we can use that understanding to restore some of the lost functions that went along with those alterations. A preliminary view of the factors most likely to affect the future condition of Puget Sound identified 10 different variables, chief among them are human attitudes and climate change. 20

21 Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) An Early Action funding source to implement the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project H. Shipman 21

22 ESRP 2006 Overview Followed specific Goals and Strategies Funding constrained Utilized the Nearshore Projects Database Differed from salmon recovery Thanks to all of you, we successfully negotiated the delivery of a new funding source for nearshore protection and restoration of Puget Sound s nearshore for salmon and many other species. We owe you an explanation of what probably seemed like a frantic process from your perspective and can assure you that it was just as frantic from our perspective. In the next few slides, I ll walk you through some of the opportunities and challenges we had in implementing the first round of this program. 22

23 ESRP Goals and Strategies In fiscal year 2006, the Legislature authorized ESRP to: Fund nearshore estuary and shoreline projects that support Puget Sound salmon recovery Submit project and funding recommendations to the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership, Match ESRP funds with non-state or in-kind contributions, Dedicate the entire appropriation directly to projects, and Fund projects that are identified in a current salmon recovery plan. The Nearshore Partnership used their own strategic goals to provide scientific and institutional context for these specific objectives. In addition, the Nearshore Partnership sought to provide funding for specific phases of projects. The 2006 legislature, under the direction of the Governor s Puget Sound Initiative, realized the need to combine locally prioritized salmon recovery actions that occurred in the nearshore with the regional landscape scale approach being developed by PSNERP and that more money needed to be invested. Working among the Implementation and Science Teams and Steering Committee of PSNERP and staff from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, the ESRP program was created with these goals and objectives. 23

24 ESRP Goals and Strategies Early on, we recognized that projects must be funded in phases and that each phase is a legitimate investment of public funds along the project development timeline and could be defined as Ready to Go. Project proponents can therefore choose to apply for funding for any one or several of these combined phases based on how far their project planning has progressed. 24

25 Constraints of new funding source Project dollars must be allocated very quickly and spent in order to complete this project phase. Long-term monitoring cannot be funded even though the legislature did not forbid it. In other words, the legislature intended for these funds to be the last money in and not be banked to be used along with potential later funding sources. This requires some savvy among project proponents to have developed their projects to the point that match sources are identified and the work can be carried out in the time allotted. It also means that unless long term monitoring was included as part of the project proponent s match, it would likely not be funded because the money needed to be expended in the first year. In this case, some projects used ESRP money to collect baseline data and develop a monitoring plan. 25

26 Use of Nearshore Projects Database To quantify need To pre-screen projects while criteria are in flux PRISM 9.2 To plan longer term restoration in a spatially explicit manner PRISM 2007 Now I know that you all love when someone from a government agency calls you on Friday wanting your prioritized project lists with costs, acreage, number of partners, etc. etc. all by Tuesday. While I understand how painful that was and is, the data collected were used to demonstrate need across Puget Sound leading to the appropriation from the legislature. This collective accounting is also used to demonstrate need to Congress who struggle annually with justifying existing federal salmon recovery appropriations and who will ultimately approve any new money for larger scale ecosystem restoration. Hopefully the pain of all that is largely behind us now as we have worked out several ways to keep the database alive and continually updated. You will hear more on this from Theresa Mitchell later in the program. Because we knew the program may want to slightly alter the criteria from one round to the next, the database was also seen as a way to narrow down a large list of potential projects to those that fit the criteria for each year s funding. We hope that through today s workshop, we will be able to make sure your top priority projects are well represented in the database. Lastly, the nearshore database, unlike that of the existing PRISM datbase allows us to map potential projects and see how well or poorly potential projects offered from the local perspective match soundwide protection and restoration strategies. We will discuss this in more detail later. The second use of the database is to allow pre-screening with the criteria laid out by the legislature and the PSNERP steering committee. Projects were solicited 26

27 How this process differs from Salmon Recovery Local priorities vs. Sound-wide priorities Interactions between projects Enhancements offered to improve projects While it s important to have a competitive process which ensures public dollars are spent wisely, strategic investments may require a more subjective approach. By looking across watershed boundaries in the way the nearshore functions, it becomes clear that projects at the local scale could complement or detract from one another. By looking at the portfolio of actions proposed, we saw economies of scale and how the design of one project might be influenced by the outcome of someone else s project. This allowed us to do something unusual, offer more money than what was requested as enhancements to certain projects that would benefit how the entire portfolio of actions will work together. In this way, ESRP is teaching us how we ll be able to eventually include both local scale and regional scale actions together. 27

28 Summary of Projects Funded 9 projects funded for a total of: $2,270,859 Project enhancements made in the amount of: $229,141 Total ESRP funds allocated: $2,500,000 Project Name Qwuloolt Marsh Restoration Wiley Slough Restoration South Smith Island Union Slough Dike Breach Olympic Sculpture Park - juvenile salmonid utilization Olympic Sculpture Park - interpretive material dev't Belfair State Park Estuary Restoration Cooperator Tulalip Indian Tribe Skagit River Systems Cooperative City of Everett Public Works Seattle Public Utility Seattle Art Museum Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Smuggler s Slough Lummi Indian Restoration Design Business Council Leque Island Feasibility Ducks Unlimited Skokomish West Bank Mason Consevation Dike Removal District Washington Dept. of Natural Skokomish Estuary Resources/Univ. of Restoration Study Washington Normandy Park Acquisition Cascade Land Conservancy ESRP Basic ESRP Project Habitat Approved Project Enhancement Total ESRP Results Enhancements Amount Amount Amount restore 360 acres intertidal marsh and Monitoring plan access to 16 miles of development and stream habitat implementation $385,140 $48,166 $433,306 Programmatic restore 175 acres of Monitoring Plan intertidal habitat Development $241,589 $65,438 $307,027 restore 43 acres of intertidal riverine Interpretive material habitat development $200,000 $15,000 $215,000 create 0.64 acre tidal embayment and 0.70 acre shallow water bench and kelp forest $77,712 $0 $77,712 Expanded outreach program $18,538 $16,962 $35,500 restore 6 acres of salt marsh, 927 feet of restored beach, and 700 feet of stream restoration $200,000 $0 $200,000 reestablish access to 6 miles of tidally influenced slough habitat and 1080 acres adjacent Baseline fish sampling, wetlands engineering alternatives $66,000 $15,000 $81,000 restore 115 acres of estuarine habitat $76,500 $0 $76,500 restore 108 acres of intertidal habitat $940,380 $0 $940,380 Study of effects of dike removal on carbon and nitrogen fluxes $0 $68,575 $68,575 protect 3 acres of unmodified forested bluff and 300 feet of unarmored Puget Sound shoreline $65,000 $0 $65,000 TOTALS $2,270,859 $229,141 $2,500,000 (Refer to handout) 28

29 Qwuloolt Marsh Restoration $433,306 Location: Marysville, Snohomish County Sponsor: Tulalip Tribes of Washington Project Status Category: Feasibility pending Recommended Project Enhancements: Monitoring plan development and implementation. ESRP Funding Results: Funds will be used for completing stream restoration and site preparation activities which must be finished in advance of interior levee construction and dike removal activities scheduled for Programmatic Learning Opportunities: Estuarine restoration processes including native plant community response, tidal channel evolution, and marsh accretion rates. 29

30 Wiley Slough Restoration $307,027 Location: Skagit Wildlife Area, near Conway, Skagit County Wiley Slough Restoration Draft Design improve parking and launch facilities Sponsor: Skagit River System Cooperative construct new levee new tidegate reinforce existing levee Project Status Category: Design complete Recommended Project Enhancements: Monitoring plan development and implementation. À retain existing levee remove existing levee breach and excavate ESRP Funding Results: Funds will be used to implement 2007 construction season activities. This includes reinforcement of existing levees that will be retained, construction of new levees designed to protect adjacent landowners, and installation of new tide gates for drainage of upstream agricultural fields. Once these activities have been completed, levee removal and breaching will be carried out during the 2008 construction season with funds from other sources. Programmatic Learning Opportunities: Estuarine restoration processes including native plant community response, tidal channel evolution, and marsh accretion rates. 30

31 South Smith Island Union Slough Dike Breach $215,000 Location: Everett, Snohomish County Sponsor: City of Everett Public Works Project Status Category: Permits complete Recommended Project Enhancements: Interpretive material development associated with pedestrian recreational trail. City of Everett Boundary New Levees Everett Water Pollution Control Facility Existing Union Slough Levee/Pathway City of Everett Project Area Union Slough Federal 1135 Project Area ESRP Funding Results: Funding will allow construction, scheduled to begin this summer in the northern project area, to be completed during 2007 in the southern area. Specifically, additional breaches of the existing dike and construction of bridges for the pedestrian access trail located on top of the dikes will complete the project in Programmatic Learning Opportunities: Evaluate the effects of ecosystem process restoration associated with dike breaching as compared to dike removal. 31

32 Olympic Sculpture Park $77,712 Location: Seattle, King County Sponsor: Seattle Art Museum Project Status Category: Permits complete Recommended Project Enhancements: Outreach plan development and implementation. Juvenile salmonid utilization post-project assessment. ESRP Funding Results: This project is in 100% design completion, under construction and on schedule for completion in fall The shoreline restoration element of the park has a budget shortfall of $385,000. SAM is requesting half that amount, or $192,500, from this proposal. Programmatic Learning Opportunities: Evaluate the benefits of pocket estuary restoration, particularly in an urban setting. Other prospects include evaluating the need for beach nourishment to maintain ecosystem functions and the opportunity to improve public understanding of nearshore habitats. 32

33 Location: Belfair, Mason County Belfair State Park Estuary Restoration $200,000 Sponsor: Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Project Status Category: Design complete Recommended Project Enhancements: Outreach plan development and implementation. ESRP Funding Results: Funds will be used for Phase 1 estuary restoration activities. These would be completed in Summer 2006 if all permits can be acquired. Phase 2 would be completed as soon as funding and permits are secured. Phase 1 includes: Removing approximately 20,000 cubic yards of fill from the west side day use area of the park; Removing rip rap from Big Mission Creek and moving the creek to its new channel Design and construct flood mitigation measures to protect park infrastructure and neighboring properties; Restore beach in front of the existing rest room; Re-landscape the site. Programmatic Learning Opportunities: Juvenile salmonid use of non-natal pocket estuaries. 33

34 Smuggler s Slough Restoration Design $81,000 Location: Nooksack River Estuary, near Bellingham, Whatcom County Sponsor: Lummi Indian Business Council Project Status Category: Feasibility complete Recommended Project Enhancements: Baseline fish sampling. ESRP Funding Results: Project deliverables for the design study include five modeled alternatives, each describing a different level of habitat restoration. The alternatives will include: maps of inundated areas, calculations of inundation times under the floodplain s ground and surface water discharge regime, projected salinity levels, and the impacts of these on adjacent parcels with crop production. Programmatic Learning Opportunities: May offer opportunities to evaluate using selfregulating tide gates to restore ecosystem processes, including tidal hydrology and fish passage. 34

35 Leque Island Feasibility $76,500 Location: Stillaguamish River estuary, near Stanwood, Snohomish County Sponsor: Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Project Status Category: Feasibility pending Recommended Project Enhancements: Monitoring plan development and implementation. ESRP Funding Results: The purpose of this proposed study is to confirm the feasibility of the Leque Island Estuary Restoration Project with respect to impacts to the site and the surrounding parcels of land. An important part of this modeling effort is to assess sedimentation and erosion processes associated with the restoration effort. A hydrodynamic model has been constructed by Battelle to support The Nature Conservancy s Port Susan Bay restoration planning and design work. The model, in its present state, does not include the connection to Skagit Bay. Consultations with restoration partners and Battelle determined that extending the Port Susan Bay model through the Leque Island site and connecting it with the existing Skagit Bay model would address an important data gap for the Whidbey Basin. The specific objectives of this proposed study are to: Develop a hydrodynamic model for the Leque Island project site with connection to Skagit Bay. Set up and validate the combined Skagit Bay and Port Susan model. Model the Leque Island Estuary Restoration project. Estimate the proposed restoration project effect on sediment transport (sedimentation and erosion in the channels). Programmatic Learning Opportunities: Estuarine restoration processes including native plant community response, tidal channel evolution, and marsh accretion rates. 35

36 Location: Skokomish River estuary, Mason County Sponsor: Skokomish Indian Tribe Project Status Category: Design complete Recommended Project Enhancements: None. Skokomish West Bank Dike Removal $940,380 ESRP Funding Results: This project was originally developed for construction under Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters program. Difficulties in meeting program requirements on the part of the local sponsor lead to opportunity for Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program funding. The design for this project is complete, and construction bids recently received. State and local permits for this project have been secured. ESRP funding will allow construction to begin this summer, and to be completed in Programmatic Learning Opportunities: Comparison of undiked, dike breach, and dike removal areas. Estuarine restoration processes including native plant community response, tidal channel evolution, and marsh accretion rates. 36

37 Normandy Park Acquisition $65,000 Location: Normandy Park, King County Sponsor: Cascade Land Conservancy Project Status Category: Design complete Recommended Project Enhancements: None. Funding Results: The amount Nearshore Partnership Approved will provide a required match to in-hand National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Community Salmon Funds. With supplemental funding from ESRP, CLC may be able to negotiate the conservation easement sooner than originally planned and/or expand the total acreage covered by the conservation easement. No permits are required. Programmatic Learning Opportunities: May provide an opportunity to evaluate factors that motivate or prevent voluntary conservation by private landowners. 37

38 Looking forward: ESRP Timeline for grant round Funding expectations Discussion of evaluation criteria 38

39 Schedule for 2007 Workshop notification February 1, 2007 Proponent workshops February 14-28, 2007 Pre-application deadline March 16, 2007 Release RFP April 2, 2007 Proposals received April 30, 2007 Evaluation complete May 31, 2007 Steering Committee review June 2007 Executive Committee approval July 2007 Funding Agreements completed July October 2007 This is the timeline we anticipate at this time. The later dates may be adjusted if the legislative budgeting process is delayed. (Read through because print is small to fit on one slide) 39

40 Funding Outlook $7 Million in Governor s Budget One and two year projects considered Second RFP in 08 dependent on 07 investments One advantage we ll have with reauthorization of the process, besides a larger appropriation is the ability to fund projects across the entire biennium. We anticipate that the steering committee may want to hold back some portion of the funding for the second year and a streamlined request for proposals could be accomodated next Spring. 40

41 Criteria for 2007 (Details in Handout) Ecological Importance Technical Merit Readiness Cost Justification Public Support Total 30 points 30 points 15 points 15 points 10 points 100 points These criteria were jointly developed by Implementation Team, Nearshore Science Team, SRF Board Staff and Steering Committee members to give highest ranking to projects that comply with the concepts of the ESRP program. 41

42 Ecological Importance (30 points) Priority Habitats Habitat Linkages Self-sustaining processes At Risk Species Information Gap These criteria are designed to assure that a project targets recovery of ecosystem processes and functions. In addition to the potential for a project to support salmon, proponents must demonstrate how processes structures and ecosystem benefits are linked through the system now and how a decision to protect or restore the system was reached. Of particular interest to the program is how can we learn something new from this project to do things better in the future. 42

43 Technical Merit (30 points) Conceptual Model Interdisciplinary Review Probability of Success Monitoring These criteria are designed to assure the project will result in the desired outcomes. It is important to link your conceptual understanding of what the protection or restoration project will do and find ways to measure that. 43

44 Readiness (15 points) Qualifications Record of Success Project Readiness These criteria are to assure that the project will be implemented quickly and effectively. The status categories should be used during this phase to establish the appropriate status of the project. 44

45 Cost Justification (15 points) Cost-effectiveness Reasonable budget Match These criteria are designed to maximize project benefits. They acknowledge that it is more expensive to protect or restore nearshore processes and functions in some places than in others and seeks a more equal footing for urban and rural projects. 45

46 Public Support (10 points) Public Education Partnership These criteria assure that the project is supported by the community and helps build support for future protection and restoration projects. 46

47 Nearshore Project Database Catalog of potential nearshore projects Provides information about range of projects Housed in IAC s PRISM program To be eligible to apply for ESRP Grant funds, a project must first be in the Nearshore Project Database. 47

48 Nearshore Project Database Project Information Sheet (Word Document) Project Information Sheet Instruction Manual (PDF) Complete electronically (1 project per form) Save and/or print completed file for your records completed form to by March 16 48

49 Grant Application Process Feb Workshops March 16 Project Information Sheets Due April 2 RFP Released May Proposals Evaluated April 30 Proposals Due FEB MAR APR MAY 49

50 ESRP Request for Proposals Check website for RFP posting Supporting documents for ESRP grants will be available at the above website questions to 50