North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon

Criteria, Rubrics, and Weights for Scoring Capital Projects

Date: 5-Oct-17

Criteria Rubrics Sorted by New ID

Criteria, Rubrics, and Weights for Scoring Capital Projects — Sorted by New ID
NEW ID Old ID Criteria for Ranking Question and Narrative 0 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Mean Weight New Criterion Weight Difference: New – Previous Rank Previous Rank New
1 1 Watershed Priority What is the watershed priority score for this proposal? This criterion is mandated by regulation. The score is calculated based on data concerning historical and current productivity and stock diversity of the NOPLE watersheds. This score is added by Lead Entity staff for the watershed(s) covered by the proposed project. Watershed priority scores have been calculated for each NOPLE watershed. The calculation produced a numerical score based on difference between historical and current watershed productivity plus historical number of stock and stock elements. See separate Watershed Priority Table for data and more details on the calculation. 2.88 2.96 0.082 8 10
2 2 Addresses limiting factor(s) How well does the proposed work address the limiting factor(s) pertinent to the watershed and stock? Does not mention or address a limiting factor at all Mentions a limiting factor but addresses only vaguely Indirectly addresses a limiting factor but only minimally Indirectly addresses a limiting factor but only moderately, OR Directly addresses limiting factor but only minimally Addresses a limiting factor directly and moderately Addresses a limiting factor directly and substantially 4.04 4.08 0.037 1 2
3 3 Addresses stock status and trends How well does the proposed work address the status and trends of the stock(s) of interest? Stock fully recovered; No more work needed Addresses Recovered Stock Addresses Rebuilding Stock Addresses Depressed Stock that are increasing Addresses Depressed Stock that are decreasing Addresses Critical Stock 2.56 2.88 0.325 10 12
4 New Addresses progress toward recovery To what extent does the watershed or nearshore area need further habitat protection and/or restoration efforts? Recovery completed; Needs no further efforts to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs just a little protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs some protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs moderate protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs more than moderate protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs substantial or major protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery N/A 2.81 N/A N/A 14
5 4 Addresses an ESA-listed stock To what extent does the project benefit listed stocks? Does not mention or address a listed stock at all Mentions listed stock but addresses only vaguely Indirectly addresses listed stock and only minimally Indirectly addresses listed stock moderately OR Directly addresses listed stock only minimally Directly and moderately addresses listed stock Directly and substantially addresses listed stock 3.33 3.65 0.324 5 5
6 5 Addresses other stocks To what extent does the project benefit non-listed stocks? Does not mention or address a non-listed stock at all Mentions non-listed stock but addresses only vaguely Indirectly addresses non-listed stock and only minimally Indirectly addresses non-listed stock moderately OR Directly addresses non-listed stock only minimally Directly and moderately addresses non-listed stock Directly and substantially addresses non-listed stock 3 3.27 0.269 7 8
7 6 Protects high-quality fish habitat How well does the proposed work and instrument protect fish habitat? Does not mention or address criterion at all; Benefits not discernible Mentions habitat protections but addresses criterion only vaguely; Benefits uncertain at best Addresses criterion only indirectly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion indirectly with moderate benefits OR addresses criterion directly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion directly with moderate benefits Addresses criterion directly with substantial benefits 3.82 4.12 0.295 3 1
8 7 Restores formerly productive habitat How well does the project restore formerly productive habitat? Does not mention or address criterion at all; Benefits not discernible Mentions habitat restoration but addresses criterion only vaguely; Benefits uncertain at best Addresses criterion only indirectly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion indirectly with moderate benefits OR addresses criterion directly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion directly with moderate benefits Addresses criterion directly with substantial benefits 3.88 4.04 0.158 2 3
9 8 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions How well does the project restore and maintain ecosystem function? Does not mention or address criterion at all; Benefits not discernible Mentions ecosystem restoration but addresses criterion only vaguely; Benefits uncertain at best Addresses criterion only indirectly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion indirectly with moderate benefits OR addresses criterion directly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion directly with moderate benefits Addresses criterion directly with substantial benefits 3.67 3.88 0.215 4 4
10 9a Spatial Scale of Influence How far does the spatial scale of influence extend through a watershed or nearshore area? Potential spatial scale of influence not mentioned or addressed; Scale of benefits not discernible Potential scale of influence minimal; Benefits local (limited to project area) at most and uncertain Potential scale of influence slight; Scale of benefits more than local and discernible Potential scale of influence over a moderate portion of a watershed or nearshore area; Benefits moderate and spread beyond the project area through part of the system Potential scale of influence over a majority of a watershed or nearshore area; Benefits more than moderate and spread through much of the system Potential scale of influence over a watershed or nearshore area; Benefits substantial and spread through essentially all of the system 3.27 3.62 0.345 6 6
11 9b Temporal Scale of Influence How far does the temporal scale of influence extend through a watershed or nearshore area? Potential temporal scale of influence not mentioned or addressed; Scale of benefits not discernible Potential scale of influence minimal; Benefits seasonal at most and uncertain Potential scale of influence slight; Scale of benefits more than seasonal but less than 1 year and discernible Potential scale of influence of moderate duration; Benefits moderate and endure for 2 to 4 years Potential scale of influence of more than moderate duration; Benefits moderate and endure for 5 to 10 years Potential scale of influence of long-term to indefinite duration; Benefits substantial and endure beyond 10 years N/A 3.23 N/A N/A 9
12 10 Project Readiness How ready is the project to start now if funded? Not ready for foreseeable future; Time to overcome known obstacles and fulfill requirements is not determined but not in immediate future Not ready for some years; Time to overcome known obstacles and fulfill requirements is greater than 5 years Ready within 3 or 4 years; Remaining obstacles and requirements can be resolved over 3 to 4 years Ready within 2 years; Remaining obstacles and requirements can be resolved within 2 years Ready next year; Remaining obstacles and requirements can be resolved within 1 year Ready to start now given award of funds; No remaining obstacles or requirements; A ready-to-go project 2.52 2.85 0.326 11 13
13 11 Likelihood of benefits based on proposer’s capacity How likely are the benefits given the proposer’s capacity to perform the work? Likelihood due to capacity not mentioned or addressed; Likelihood and capacity not discernible Likelihood vague or uncertain; Little known about capacity Likelihood low; Little experience or capacity for the work proposed Likelihood moderate; Moderate experience and capacity for work proposed Likelihood good; Good experience and capacity for work proposed; Proven success with work proposed Likelihood almost certain; Excellent experience and capacity for work proposed; Proven success with work proposed and other projects 1.85 2.04 0.188 13 15
14 12 Likelihood of benefits based on approach How likely are the benefits given the proposer’s strategy and approach? Likelihood due to approach not mentioned or addressed; Likelihood and approach not discernible Likelihood vague or uncertain; Approach unclear or vague; Benefits uncertain Likelihood low; Approach has major flaws; Benefits attainable only with great difficulty Likelihood moderate; Approach flawed but fixable; Benefits attainable with effort Likelihood good; Only minor, readily fixable flaws; Benefits attainable Likelihood almost certain; Approach without major or minor flaws; Benefits readily attainable 2.86 3.35 0.486 9 7
15 13 Reasonableness of cost and budget How well do the cost and budget align with the scope of work? Are the budget items and costs reasonable for the type and scope of work? Cost and budget not mentioned or addressed; Project value not discernible Cost and budget vague; Not clearly justified; Project value uncertain Cost and budget not well matched to scope; Poorly justified; Project value low or poor Cost and budget match scope more than moderately; Reasonable, justified; Project fair or moderate value Cost and budget match scope more than moderately; Reasonable, justified; Project good value Cost and budget match scope closely; More than reasonable, compellingly justified; Project excellent value 2.17 2.92 0.753 12 11
Summary Statistics — Sorted by New ID
Statistic Previous Mean Weight New Criterion Weight Difference: New – Previous
Overall Mean 2.66 3.31 0.254
Maximum 4.04 4.12 0.753
Minimum 1.85 2.04 0.037

Return to top

Criteria Rubrics Sorted by New Rank

Criteria, Rubrics, and Weights for Scoring Capital Projects — Sorted by New Rank
NEW ID Old ID Criteria for Ranking Question and Narrative 0 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Mean Weight New Criterion Weight Difference: New – Previous Rank Previous Rank New
7 6 Protects high-quality fish habitat How well does the proposed work and instrument protect fish habitat? Does not mention or address criterion at all; Benefits not discernible Mentions habitat protections but addresses criterion only vaguely; Benefits uncertain at best Addresses criterion only indirectly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion indirectly with moderate benefits OR addresses criterion directly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion directly with moderate benefits Addresses criterion directly with substantial benefits 3.82 4.12 0.295 3 1
2 2 Addresses limiting factor(s) How well does the proposed work address the limiting factor(s) pertinent to the watershed and stock? Does not mention or address a limiting factor at all Mentions a limiting factor but addresses only vaguely Indirectly addresses a limiting factor but only minimally Indirectly addresses a limiting factor but only moderately, OR Directly addresses limiting factor but only minimally Addresses a limiting factor directly and moderately Addresses a limiting factor directly and substantially 4.04 4.08 0.037 1 2
8 7 Restores formerly productive habitat How well does the project restore formerly productive habitat? Does not mention or address criterion at all; Benefits not discernible Mentions habitat restoration but addresses criterion only vaguely; Benefits uncertain at best Addresses criterion only indirectly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion indirectly with moderate benefits OR addresses criterion directly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion directly with moderate benefits Addresses criterion directly with substantial benefits 3.88 4.04 0.158 2 3
9 8 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions How well does the project restore and maintain ecosystem function? Does not mention or address criterion at all; Benefits not discernible Mentions ecosystem restoration but addresses criterion only vaguely; Benefits uncertain at best Addresses criterion only indirectly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion indirectly with moderate benefits OR addresses criterion directly with only minimal benefits Addresses criterion directly with moderate benefits Addresses criterion directly with substantial benefits 3.67 3.88 0.215 4 4
5 4 Addresses an ESA-listed stock To what extent does the project benefit listed stocks? Does not mention or address a listed stock at all Mentions listed stock but addresses only vaguely Indirectly addresses listed stock and only minimally Indirectly addresses listed stock moderately OR Directly addresses listed stock only minimally Directly and moderately addresses listed stock Directly and substantially addresses listed stock 3.33 3.65 0.324 5 5
10 9a Spatial Scale of Influence How far does the spatial scale of influence extend through a watershed or nearshore area? Potential spatial scale of influence not mentioned or addressed; Scale of benefits not discernible Potential scale of influence minimal; Benefits local (limited to project area) at most and uncertain Potential scale of influence slight; Scale of benefits more than local and discernible Potential scale of influence over a moderate portion of a watershed or nearshore area; Benefits moderate and spread beyond the project area through part of the system Potential scale of influence over a majority of a watershed or nearshore area; Benefits more than moderate and spread through much of the system Potential scale of influence over a watershed or nearshore area; Benefits substantial and spread through essentially all of the system 3.27 3.62 0.345 6 6
14 12 Likelihood of benefits based on approach How likely are the benefits given the proposer’s strategy and approach? Likelihood due to approach not mentioned or addressed; Likelihood and approach not discernible Likelihood vague or uncertain; Approach unclear or vague; Benefits uncertain Likelihood low; Approach has major flaws; Benefits attainable only with great difficulty Likelihood moderate; Approach flawed but fixable; Benefits attainable with effort Likelihood good; Only minor, readily fixable flaws; Benefits attainable Likelihood almost certain; Approach without major or minor flaws; Benefits readily attainable 2.86 3.35 0.486 9 7
6 5 Addresses other stocks To what extent does the project benefit non-listed stocks? Does not mention or address a non-listed stock at all Mentions non-listed stock but addresses only vaguely Indirectly addresses non-listed stock and only minimally Indirectly addresses non-listed stock moderately OR Directly addresses non-listed stock only minimally Directly and moderately addresses non-listed stock Directly and substantially addresses non-listed stock 3 3.27 0.269 7 8
11 9b Temporal Scale of Influence How far does the temporal scale of influence extend through a watershed or nearshore area? Potential temporal scale of influence not mentioned or addressed; Scale of benefits not discernible Potential scale of influence minimal; Benefits seasonal at most and uncertain Potential scale of influence slight; Scale of benefits more than seasonal but less than 1 year and discernible Potential scale of influence of moderate duration; Benefits moderate and endure for 2 to 4 years Potential scale of influence of more than moderate duration; Benefits moderate and endure for 5 to 10 years Potential scale of influence of long-term to indefinite duration; Benefits substantial and endure beyond 10 years N/A 3.23 N/A N/A 9
1 1 Watershed Priority What is the watershed priority score for this proposal? This criterion is mandated by regulation. The score is calculated based on data concerning historical and current productivity and stock diversity of the NOPLE watersheds. This score is added by Lead Entity staff for the watershed(s) covered by the proposed project. Watershed priority scores have been calculated for each NOPLE watershed. The calculation produced a numerical score based on difference between historical and current watershed productivity plus historical number of stock and stock elements. See separate Watershed Priority Table for data and more details on the calculation. 2.88 2.96 0.082 8 10
15 13 Reasonableness of cost and budget How well do the cost and budget align with the scope of work? Are the budget items and costs reasonable for the type and scope of work? Cost and budget not mentioned or addressed; Project value not discernible Cost and budget vague; Not clearly justified; Project value uncertain Cost and budget not well matched to scope; Poorly justified; Project value low or poor Cost and budget match scope more than moderately; Reasonable, justified; Project fair or moderate value Cost and budget match scope more than moderately; Reasonable, justified; Project good value Cost and budget match scope closely; More than reasonable, compellingly justified; Project excellent value 2.17 2.92 0.753 12 11
3 3 Addresses stock status and trends How well does the proposed work address the status and trends of the stock(s) of interest? Stock fully recovered; No more work needed Addresses Recovered Stock Addresses Rebuilding Stock Addresses Depressed Stock that are increasing Addresses Depressed Stock that are decreasing Addresses Critical Stock 2.56 2.88 0.325 10 12
12 10 Project Readiness How ready is the project to start now if funded? Not ready for foreseeable future; Time to overcome known obstacles and fulfill requirements is not determined but not in immediate future Not ready for some years; Time to overcome known obstacles and fulfill requirements is greater than 5 years Ready within 3 or 4 years; Remaining obstacles and requirements can be resolved over 3 to 4 years Ready within 2 years; Remaining obstacles and requirements can be resolved within 2 years Ready next year; Remaining obstacles and requirements can be resolved within 1 year Ready to start now given award of funds; No remaining obstacles or requirements; A ready-to-go project 2.52 2.85 0.326 11 13
4 New Addresses progress toward recovery To what extent does the watershed or nearshore area need further habitat protection and/or restoration efforts? Recovery completed; Needs no further efforts to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs just a little protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs some protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs moderate protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs more than moderate protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery Recovery in progress; Needs substantial or major protection and/or restoration effort to complete recovery N/A 2.81 N/A N/A 14
13 11 Likelihood of benefits based on proposer’s capacity How likely are the benefits given the proposer’s capacity to perform the work? Likelihood due to capacity not mentioned or addressed; Likelihood and capacity not discernible Likelihood vague or uncertain; Little known about capacity Likelihood low; Little experience or capacity for the work proposed Likelihood moderate; Moderate experience and capacity for work proposed Likelihood good; Good experience and capacity for work proposed; Proven success with work proposed Likelihood almost certain; Excellent experience and capacity for work proposed; Proven success with work proposed and other projects 1.85 2.04 0.188 13 15
Summary Statistics — Sorted by New Rank
Statistic Previous Mean Weight New Criterion Weight Difference: New – Previous
Overall Mean 3.07 3.82 0.293
Maximum 4.04 4.12 0.753
Minimum 1.85 2.04 0.037

Return to top

This page has been converted from its original source.
View the original Criteria, Rubrics, and Weights for Scoring Capital Projects workbook (XLSX)