UISM FY2013/2014
Utah’s Invasive Species Mitigation Funding
Project Ranking Criteria
Project Name: ___________________________________________________________
Organization Requesting Funding:__________________________________________
UISM Project Tracking Number: __________
Total Score (100 Points Possible): _________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Multiple Year Project: Project received ISM Grant funding in the previous year funding cycle.
The proposed continuation of the project is part of an approved management strategy which
utilizes multiple years in order to complete clearly defined goals and objectives.
YES  Fund Project.
NO 
Continue ranking below.
Requested Grant Amount $_____________
Amount funded to project $_____________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This project undertakes land restoration in a watershed or rehabilitation of an area infested with
invasive species.
YES 
NO 
If NO, do not Rank or Fund.
Does this project reduce the risk to public safety and health from:

air pollution

flooding

reduced visibility on a highway

increasing encroachment of an invasive species
Does this project reduce damage to the environment by:

soil erosion

degraded water quality

release of carbon
Completion of this project will reduce damage to:

a local economy

habitat for wildlife or livestock
Page 1 of 4
UISM FY2013/2014
Has the requirement of no more than 5% of the proposed project budget allocated to
administrative costs been followed?
YES 
NO 
If NO, do not Rank or Fund.
Is the target weed species currently listed on the State of Utah Noxious Weed list, has it been
identified as a species of concern by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, or does it
have a high likelihood of becoming a serious concern in Utah?
YES 
NO 
If NO, do not Rank or Fund.
Is there a clearly identified timeline for measurable reduction and control of the target species
in the project area within the first 3 years? Measurable goals and objectives are clearly identified
and stated in the proposal and there is a high probability of success (as measured against the
stated goals and objectives and expected and intended results).
YES 
NO 
If NO, do not Rank or Fund.
Has local coordination between landowners/land managers/permittees that are directly affected
or adjacent to a project area been completed?
YES 
NO 
If NO, is justification sufficient and submitted.
If the project is proposed by a Federal Agency or landowner, is the project matched by at least an
equal amount of money as required by the Invasive Species Mitigation account legislation?
YES 
NO 
If NO, do not Rank or Fund.
Page 2 of 4
UISM FY2013/2014
Utah Invasive Species Mitigation Grant Funding
Project Ranking Criteria
FY2013/2014 Grant Proposals
A total of 100 possible points will be assigned to each project based on the
following criteria. The ability to bring multiple partner support and additional
outside funding to the project will increase the likelihood of funding.
Points
Possible
10
10
20
15
Points
Awarded
Criteria
Previous Year Project: Project was applied for in the past year funding
cycle, but sufficient funds were unavailable to provide for approval of the
proposed project.
Damage Reduction:
The project will have a positive impact to reduce damage to at least one of the
following: air pollution, flooding, reduced visibility on a highway, increasing
encroachment of an invasive species, soil erosion, degraded water quality,
release of carbon, a local economy, habitat for wildlife or livestock.
Multiple Partner Involvement:
Project involves multiple stakeholders, such as a Cooperative Weed
Management Area (CWMA). This includes support from private landowners
in the proposed project area.
Project Monitoring/Mapping:
Project includes monitoring that will measure the outcomes of this project.
Monitoring shall include:
Photo Points
AND at least 1of the following methods which are utilized by the NRCS.
a. Line-point intercept (plant cover and composition)
b. Canopy and Basal gap intercept (weed invasion and erosion)
c. Soil stability testing (Soil quality)
d. Belt test (for invasive species)
Project will be mapped using approved GPS technology and mapping. Data
will be made available to the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food at the
beginning and end of the project in a final report.
Page 3 of 4
UISM FY2013/2014
10
Additional Funding Sources:
Are there matching funds allocated by other agencies which have been
specifically assigned to this project to increase the likelihood of success with
the proposed project?
10
Early Detection Rapid Response Focus Species:
Project is targeting an invasive weed species which has been identified by the
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food as an invasive species of concern
for FY2013.
These invasive species are:
a. Cheatgrass
b. Medusahead
c. Rush Skeletonweed
d. Squarrose Knapweed
e. Phragmites
f. Elongated Mustard
g. Other Justifiable Species
5
Biological Control: Project contains a biological control method for
controlling the target weed species. Planning and release of biological control
agents to be coordinated with APHIS and UDAF.
10
Relationship to other Management Plans: Project will help meet specific
goals and objectives and/or management opportunities identified in other
planning or assessment documents.
Some examples of plans: State weed management plan, intergraded
pest management plans, county weed management plans, CWMA
weed management plans, allotment and/or grazing management
plans, species/game management plans, wildlife management unit
plans, herd unit management plans, ecoregional assessments/subassessments, RMPs, forest management plans, species recovery plans,
watershed/TMDL plans, fuel/fire management plans, etc.
Future Management: Project proposal includes details on future
management that will ensure the long term success of the project. This may
include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes,
wildlife herd/species management plans, ranch plans, conservation easements
or other permanent site protection plans, resource management plans, forest
plans, etc.
10
100
Scores should reflect the ranking committee’s opinion on the adequacy,
quality and completeness of the project’s future management strategy as
outlined in the proposal.
Total Points (100 max possible)
Page 4 of 4