Florida Regulations 68E-9.005: Project Application Review and Ranking Application Review
Current as of: 2024 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
The review of project applications will be conducted by a three person application review team designated by the Division Director. The review process will be as follows:
(1) Reef Construction Project Ranking. The application review team will competitively rank eligible artificial reef construction projects according to the following factors based upon information provided by the Applicant:
(a) Project site selection and environmental assessment.
1. Submit a bottom survey and discuss these results (up to four points),
2. An environmental assessment that justifies the project and project site based upon minimum environmental impact (up to five (5) points),
3. Discussion of the range of wave height, current velocity, temperature, salinity, visibility, tidal range, and other physical oceanography conditions and how those factors may affect the project (up to four points); and,
4. Availability of relevant prior biological, or environmental data associated with the proposed reef site or general site vicinity (up to five (5) points).
(b) Local demand for artificial reefs based upon:
1. Demonstrated public support for the proposed artificial reef project, based upon written letters or resolutions of support less than six months old (up to five (5) points),
2. Numbers of recreational boats 16 feet long or longer registered in the affected county (data provided by Division) (up to five (5) points),
3. Number of one year resident and nonresident recreational fishing license holders in the affected county (data provided by Division) (up to five (5) points); and,
4. Number of charter/head boats in the affected county (data provided by the Division) (up to five (5) points).
(c) Access. The presence of at least one navigable inlet access point regardless of location that is within 20 nautical miles of the project site (three points).
(d) Financial. Except in the case of funding steel hulled vessels pursuant to subsection 68E-9.004(4), F.A.C., providing cash match funds is not a requirement for the applicant. However the commitment of the applicant to provide funds to help construct the proposed artificial reef will be ranked in proportion to the percentage match of the project (up to 4 points).
(e) Supply.
1. Estimated percent coverage of natural hard bottom in the multi-county area (more points allotted to lesser coverage) (data provided by Division) (up to eight points); and,
2. The number of existing artificial reefs within a .25 nautical mile radius of the proposed project (more points awarded for fewer reefs) (up to four points).
(f) The applicant included specific, well defined and measurable objectives to gauge the success of the project (up to five (5) points);
(g) The applicant’s plan to measure the success of project objective achievement (up to five (5) points);
(h) Availability of a five year local artificial reef management plan which shows a linkage with the proposed project (up to five (5) points);
(i) Availability of a written artificial reef monitoring and assessment plan (up to five (5) points);
(j) The applicant’s project plan that addresses logistics, coordination, and staging area availability and location material (up to five (5) points);
(k) Reef design and configuration; habitat complexity, interstitial spaces, surface area, material placement and positioning (up to 10 points);
(l) The project is an innovative project or designed to provide future monitoring potential (up to five (5) points);
(m) Project practicality. The extent to which the project is physically and economically feasible based upon the project description and the available funding (up to five (5) points);
(n) Demonstrated durability and stability of the reef material at the depth proposed for placement based on prior field evaluations or stability analyses (four points);
(o) Assurance of the availability of reef material for the proposed project (three points);
(p) Demonstrated involvement of a marine advisory board (two points);
(q) The applicant’s historic ability of timely project completion, and compliance with grant agreement terms and conditions based upon the most recent grant agreement performance (up to five (5) points);
(r) Number of staff and percentage of time available to undertake administrative and field aspects of project, including subsequent monitoring and assessment (up to five (5) points);
(s) First time participation in the program by the applicant (five (5) points);
(t) The applicant is located in an economically depressed rural coastal county (Division provides data) (five (5) points); and,
(u) Overall quality of application preparation and accuracy (up to four points).
(2) Monitoring Project Evaluation. The review of project applications will be conducted by a three person application review team designated by the Division Director. The review process will be as follows:
(a) The proposed project collects useful data that will be of value to the Commission and the applicant in determining an artificial reef’s effectiveness in meeting the objectives for which the reef was constructed (up to 5 points);
(b) Clearly stated project monitoring or assessment objectives (up to 5 points);
(c) The methods of data collection are clearly presented and are scientifically acceptable and proven field methods and appropriate for the specific monitoring objectives stated (up to 5 points);
(d) Final deliverables are clearly described in the application (up to 5 points);
(e) The data to be collected is transferable to the Commission in an acceptable format (up to five (5) points);
(f) The applicant’s historic commitment to timely project completion, and in compliance with grant agreement terms and conditions based upon the most recent monitoring grant agreement performance (up to five (5) points);
(g) The qualifications, training and experience of the individuals performing the data collection and data analysis (up to five (5) points);
(h) The project’s cost effectiveness in relation to the quantity, quality, and type of data expected to be collected (up to five (5) points);
(i) The procedures to be used to check on the quality of the data as it is collected and handled (quality assurance/quality control) (up to five (5) points);
(j) Are a continuation of an ongoing multi-year project effort which has provided reliable and useful data and demonstrated high compliance with prior grant agreement terms and conditions (up to three (3) points);
(k) Are endorsed by the local government reef coordinator whose county has a written artificial reef monitoring plan in place and who will provide multi-year monitoring (two points); and,
(l) Project proposals that address unresolved scientific issues or provide data relevant to artificial reef management (up to five (5) points).
(3) Ranking of other complex planning, research, and evaluation projects. These projects will be funded based upon ability of the project to meet state or local artificial reef planning and management needs, availability of funds, and likelihood of successful completion of the project objectives. These project applications will include a detailed formal proposal that includes but is not limited to:
(a) Purpose of the project and specific measurable objective(s);
(b) Detailed scope of work;
(c) Complete explanation of how funds are to be spent;
(d) A description of sampling methodologies and statistical analyses;
(e) A time table; and,
(f) Qualifications of investigators.
Rulemaking Authority Article IV, Section 9, Fla. Const., 379.249(2), (4) FS. Law Implemented Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution, 379.249 FS. History-New 7-1-01.
(1) Reef Construction Project Ranking. The application review team will competitively rank eligible artificial reef construction projects according to the following factors based upon information provided by the Applicant:
(a) Project site selection and environmental assessment.
1. Submit a bottom survey and discuss these results (up to four points),
2. An environmental assessment that justifies the project and project site based upon minimum environmental impact (up to five (5) points),
3. Discussion of the range of wave height, current velocity, temperature, salinity, visibility, tidal range, and other physical oceanography conditions and how those factors may affect the project (up to four points); and,
4. Availability of relevant prior biological, or environmental data associated with the proposed reef site or general site vicinity (up to five (5) points).
(b) Local demand for artificial reefs based upon:
1. Demonstrated public support for the proposed artificial reef project, based upon written letters or resolutions of support less than six months old (up to five (5) points),
2. Numbers of recreational boats 16 feet long or longer registered in the affected county (data provided by Division) (up to five (5) points),
3. Number of one year resident and nonresident recreational fishing license holders in the affected county (data provided by Division) (up to five (5) points); and,
4. Number of charter/head boats in the affected county (data provided by the Division) (up to five (5) points).
(c) Access. The presence of at least one navigable inlet access point regardless of location that is within 20 nautical miles of the project site (three points).
(d) Financial. Except in the case of funding steel hulled vessels pursuant to subsection 68E-9.004(4), F.A.C., providing cash match funds is not a requirement for the applicant. However the commitment of the applicant to provide funds to help construct the proposed artificial reef will be ranked in proportion to the percentage match of the project (up to 4 points).
(e) Supply.
1. Estimated percent coverage of natural hard bottom in the multi-county area (more points allotted to lesser coverage) (data provided by Division) (up to eight points); and,
2. The number of existing artificial reefs within a .25 nautical mile radius of the proposed project (more points awarded for fewer reefs) (up to four points).
(f) The applicant included specific, well defined and measurable objectives to gauge the success of the project (up to five (5) points);
(g) The applicant’s plan to measure the success of project objective achievement (up to five (5) points);
(h) Availability of a five year local artificial reef management plan which shows a linkage with the proposed project (up to five (5) points);
(i) Availability of a written artificial reef monitoring and assessment plan (up to five (5) points);
(j) The applicant’s project plan that addresses logistics, coordination, and staging area availability and location material (up to five (5) points);
(k) Reef design and configuration; habitat complexity, interstitial spaces, surface area, material placement and positioning (up to 10 points);
(l) The project is an innovative project or designed to provide future monitoring potential (up to five (5) points);
(m) Project practicality. The extent to which the project is physically and economically feasible based upon the project description and the available funding (up to five (5) points);
(n) Demonstrated durability and stability of the reef material at the depth proposed for placement based on prior field evaluations or stability analyses (four points);
(o) Assurance of the availability of reef material for the proposed project (three points);
(p) Demonstrated involvement of a marine advisory board (two points);
(q) The applicant’s historic ability of timely project completion, and compliance with grant agreement terms and conditions based upon the most recent grant agreement performance (up to five (5) points);
(r) Number of staff and percentage of time available to undertake administrative and field aspects of project, including subsequent monitoring and assessment (up to five (5) points);
(s) First time participation in the program by the applicant (five (5) points);
(t) The applicant is located in an economically depressed rural coastal county (Division provides data) (five (5) points); and,
(u) Overall quality of application preparation and accuracy (up to four points).
(2) Monitoring Project Evaluation. The review of project applications will be conducted by a three person application review team designated by the Division Director. The review process will be as follows:
(a) The proposed project collects useful data that will be of value to the Commission and the applicant in determining an artificial reef’s effectiveness in meeting the objectives for which the reef was constructed (up to 5 points);
(b) Clearly stated project monitoring or assessment objectives (up to 5 points);
(c) The methods of data collection are clearly presented and are scientifically acceptable and proven field methods and appropriate for the specific monitoring objectives stated (up to 5 points);
(d) Final deliverables are clearly described in the application (up to 5 points);
(e) The data to be collected is transferable to the Commission in an acceptable format (up to five (5) points);
(f) The applicant’s historic commitment to timely project completion, and in compliance with grant agreement terms and conditions based upon the most recent monitoring grant agreement performance (up to five (5) points);
(g) The qualifications, training and experience of the individuals performing the data collection and data analysis (up to five (5) points);
(h) The project’s cost effectiveness in relation to the quantity, quality, and type of data expected to be collected (up to five (5) points);
(i) The procedures to be used to check on the quality of the data as it is collected and handled (quality assurance/quality control) (up to five (5) points);
(j) Are a continuation of an ongoing multi-year project effort which has provided reliable and useful data and demonstrated high compliance with prior grant agreement terms and conditions (up to three (3) points);
(k) Are endorsed by the local government reef coordinator whose county has a written artificial reef monitoring plan in place and who will provide multi-year monitoring (two points); and,
(l) Project proposals that address unresolved scientific issues or provide data relevant to artificial reef management (up to five (5) points).
(3) Ranking of other complex planning, research, and evaluation projects. These projects will be funded based upon ability of the project to meet state or local artificial reef planning and management needs, availability of funds, and likelihood of successful completion of the project objectives. These project applications will include a detailed formal proposal that includes but is not limited to:
(a) Purpose of the project and specific measurable objective(s);
(b) Detailed scope of work;
(c) Complete explanation of how funds are to be spent;
(d) A description of sampling methodologies and statistical analyses;
(e) A time table; and,
(f) Qualifications of investigators.
Rulemaking Authority Article IV, Section 9, Fla. Const., 379.249(2), (4) FS. Law Implemented Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution, 379.249 FS. History-New 7-1-01.