22 ‎(10)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/20/2009
• Description: WSP Section - Tamarisk Control Cost Sharing Grant Pr9ogram - Transmittal of Grant Applications
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

.

Tamarisk and Russian Olive '''TRO") Control Cost SharinG Grant Evaluation Criteria
Rating Criteria Available
olnts
Not scored
Failure to meet
any of these
elements will
result in
rejedlon of the
application

Capacity of Applicant (per Guidance Section III.A): How well does the applicant
meet the minimum qualifications and demonstrate the capability to accomplish the
ro sed work? Maximum 20 Points
History of working cooperatively in partnership with local landowners, other
commun or anizations and local, state and federal a encies.
Additional level of cash and in-kind match (beyond the 50% minimum) provided by
the a Iicant or anization and artners.
Applicant organization's demonstrated history of accomplishments in regards to
activities similar to the ro sed ro'ect.
Level of staffing (volunteer or paid) and expertise the applicant organization will
dedicate to ro osed ro'eet.

Max. 20 points

0-5

0-5
0-5
0-5

Effectiveness of the Project (per Guidance Section III.B): How consistent and Max. 60 points
effective is the proposal at accomplishing the goals and priorities of the watershed
TRO control Ian? Maximum 60 Points
Measurable results that will have a significant impad on improving the health of the 0-15
watershed consistent with the State approved TRO control plan. The projeet is
consistent with priorities established in the plan and coordinated with other TRO
activities in the watershed.
The proposal is complete and the proposed implementation steps will accomplish the 0-15
stated goals of the proposal. Design minimizes the likelihood of re-infestation of the
ro'ect area throu h effedive rev etation monitorin and maintenance lans.
Principles of IPM (biocontrol, chemical, mechanical, etc.) are well utilized. Chosen 0-10
control methods are the most a ro riate techn! ues for the s ecific ro'ect area.
The proposal is effective in furthering the CWCB's multi-objective missions relative to 0-10
watershed restoration and protection of water resources such as enhancing instream
flow se ments facilitatin water deliveries or miti atin flood risks.
The proposed project schedule is realistic. Anticipated environmental compliance 0-10
and permitting issues (for example: 404 dredge/fill, herbicide application, insect
releases, NEPA, etc) are adequately addressed so as not to delay project
im lementation.

Multl.objectlve Priority and Bonus Factors (per Guidance Section III.C): VVhat Max. 20 Points
other watershed and C'.NCB ob.ectlves are achieved? Maximum 20 Points
Project makes etrective utilization of labor from Colorado Youth Corpl ("CYC.) or 0-5
other non- rofit anizations.
The Project is consistent with the goals for priority areas establilhed by Colorado 0-5
weed r ulations, in articular the salt cedar man ement Ian: 8CCR 1206-2 art 4,
The Project indudes reliable method to assess and/or quantify changes in riparian 0-5
h drol as a result of control and rev etation.
The Project incoiporates an educational component (such as school field trips, 0-5
volunteer recruitment, news media coverage, etc.) that increases public awareness
of TRO issues or includes innovative strat for biomass reduction/utilization.

7

Boulder County Collaborative
Tamarisk and Russian Olive Removal Project