Indian Creek flowing through forested habitat, with moss-covered logs and streamside vegetation.
Project Sponsor Jamie Michel speaking with members of the North Olympic Lead Entity for Salmon and Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Team during a March 2026 site visit.Project Sponsor Randy Johnson speaking with Michelle Cramer and Coleman Byrnes about protection efforts in the Lower Dungeness during a March 2026 site visit.
Project Sponsor Jacob Stone speaking with a group about conservation efforts along Indian Creek during a March 2026 site visit.
Document
2024-2026 Four-Year Work Plan
Ranking date
08-31-2026
Workbook constructed by
WH Pearson, Peapod Research
for North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon 1/17/2011
Data entered; review & normalization by
Cheryl Baumann, Lara Kawal & Shannon Weaver 02/05/2024

View the original 2024-2026 Four-Year Work Plan (PDF)

Cover Photos

Indian Creek is a very important, highly productive salmon-bearing tributary to the Elwha River. Indian Creek provides slower moving water and protected habitat which is particularly important place of refuge for salmon to escape winter high flows. The Elwha River and its tributaries are home to all five native species of Pacific Salmon including Chinook, Coho, Pink, Chum and Sockeye along with Steelhead, Bull Trout, Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout.

The smaller photos left to right, include Project Sponsor Jamie Michel, with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; speaking with members of the North Olympic Lead Entity for Salmon and Salmon Recovery Funding Board’s Review Team. In the middle photo, Project Sponsor Randy Johnson with the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe talks with SRFB Review Panel Member Michelle Cramer and Coleman Byrnes with the Lead Entity’s Technical Team about protection efforts in the Lower Dungeness. In the last photo on the right, Project Sponsor Jacob Stone with Forterra discusses conservation efforts along Indian Creek. These photos were all taken during site visits in March of 2026.

* No new or updated projects were added to the 2026 Four-Year Work Plan.

Introduction

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon
Clallam County Courthouse
223 E. Fourth Street, # 5 Port Angeles, WA 98362
360/417-2326

This is the 2026 Four-Year Work Plan for the North Olympic Lead Entity for Salmon. The Lead Entity is a watershed consortium working to advance salmon restoration and protection from Blyn to Clallam County’s east side, across the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Cape Flattery and Neah Bay. This includes the saltwater nearshore of the Strait of Juan de Fuca which borders our region, as well as all rivers and water bodies which empty into the Strait. Lead Entity Members include representatives from the Jamestown S’Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Makah Tribes, Clallam County, the cities of Port Angeles and Sequim along with citizens and non-profits.

The Work Plan is used as a roadmap of work needed over the next four or more years to restore and protect habitat and recover salmon populations on the North Olympic Peninsula. It is a way to breathe life into goals from the various recovery plans and strategies which guide our work. This Work Plan includes both capital and non-capital projects, activities and programs to implement restoration of ecosystems and recovery of both listed and non-listed salmon species in our many watersheds. Even here on the Peninsula, our salmon species are still a shadow of their former selves. For example, previous returns of endangered salmon populations in major North Olympic rivers saw returns estimated in the tens of thousands, where now only a few hundred or a few thousand endangered, wild origin salmon return to spawn.

Salmon species across the Peninsula have been impacted by 150 years of habitat destruction, including construction of dikes and levees, loss of floodplains for farming and development, river channelization, legacy logging practices, removal of riparian buffers and log jams from rivers and streams, overharvest, increasing human population impacts, etc. Some of this damage and habitat destruction continues to this day. It is important to note that these changes cannot be overturned overnight because recovery takes time and involves many factors. The average salmon life cycle lasts three to five years which includes significant time in the ocean traveling great distances and over numerous national and international borders. In addition, climate change also now regularly takes a toll on salmon and steelhead and many more such impacts are unfortunately anticipated.

This Work Plan is required by the Puget Sound Partnership, our regional salmon recovery partner. They look to us to work collaboratively with our local restoration partners – the Tribes, Cities, and County, along with local non-profits such as the North Olympic Salmon Coalition and North Olympic Land Trust, among others; to help advance this work. The Work Plan is a fluid, living document. It is updated almost every year, with a call in late summer for new project concepts and updated project narratives. Those new project concepts and significantly changed narratives are scored by the Lead Entity’s Technical Review Team, then those projects are added into the list as a result of their ranking. This is a tremendous undertaking involving lots of time, thought and effort. This update was highly unusual in that there were no new project concepts or significantly updated proposals submitted in late 2025 for the 2026 Four-Year Work Plan. I attribute that to the fact there was still significant restoration project funding as a result of federal investments that happened between 2020-2024, including the bi-partisan Infrastructure Bill, along with increased state support for riparian work.

In late 2024, the Technical Review Team scored all 52 project concepts for the 2025 Work Plan. That scoring and an analysis of those results is included here since that list has been carried over given no new projects to include in 2026.

Any projects seeking grants from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board or the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration fund must be on the Four-Year Work Plan and must rank above the cut-off line established by the Lead Entity’s Citizens/Policy Team known as the Lead Entity Group. That cut-off line was established after a low ranking project in a non-priority watershed applied during a slow year with limited projects and received funding. This was problematic as it was considered non-strategic as it was work in a low-ranking watershed with limited salmon potential. Because of the amount of restoration work needed, and the limited funding available, we need to be able to show that we are advancing restoration projects critically-needed for salmon recovery in high priority watersheds. Sometimes the line is drawn higher on the list, forcing project sponsors to work on high priority projects. That can provide challenges because phased work is already underway in a fair number of highly-ranked Work Plan projects. Drawing the line lower on the list allows project sponsors greater leeway to advance more projects as well as accessing funding from a variety of sources. The Coordinator can also write Letters of Support and as time allows, help seek additional funding for projects above the line.

Some of the projects on the Work Plan are underway in one phase or another. Others are concepts only and have not begun. Some may never get underway. Projects can only advance with a willing landowner, a project sponsor, local support, funding, plus review and approval from funding sources. Local Restoration Practitioners and Project Sponsors could not come close to advancing all projects within our Four-Year Work Plan without significant additional funding and the increased capacity needed to develop and implement these projects.

Still, this vetted and ranked Work Plan is a well thought-out and organized way to prioritize projects needed across our expansive landscape and numerous varying watersheds. It helps guide development of projects and actions needed to implement salmon restoration and recovery and the investments needed to make that happen.

If you have questions or need more information about our work, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Cheryl Baumann
Cheryl Baumann, Coordinator
North Olympic Lead Entity for Salmon
Cheryl.Baumann@clallamcountywa.gov
360-417-2326

Membership

Membership and staff roles are as listed in the original document dated August 31, 2026.

2026 Lead Entity Group Membership (Citizen & Policy Team)

  1. Rebecca Mahan, Clallam County; Senior Habitat Biologist
    Chase O’Neil (Alt.), Clallam County, Habitat Biologist
  2. Hansi Hals, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; Natural Resources Director
    Robert Knapp (Alt.), JamestownS’KlallamTribe; Environmental Planning Director
  3. Raymond Moses, Elwha S’Klallam Tribe; Project Biologist
    Mike McHenry (Alt.), Elwha S’Klallam Tribe; Habitat Biologist
  4. Courtney Bornsworth, City of Port Angeles; Natural Resources Associate Planner & Grants Administrator
  5. Stephanie Martin, Makah Tribe; Habitat Division Manager
  6. Tom Riepe, MPA; Citizen, Retired Police Chief & Port Angeles Area Resident
  7. Karen Teig, Citizen, Retired NOAA Biologist; Sequim Area Resident
  8. Meggan Uecker, City of Sequim Public Works; Resource Analyst

2026 Technical Review Group Membership

  1. Dave Allen, Botanist & Nursery Owner
  2. Mike Auger, North Olympic Land Trust; Conservation Director
  3. Nate Roberts, North Olympic Salmon Coalition; Stewardship Coordinator
    Sarah Doyle (Alt.) North Olympic Salmon Coalition; Executive Director
  4. Steve Barclay, Citizen Salmon Advocate & Natural Resources Manager (Retired)
  5. Coleman Byrnes, Citizen, Streamkeepers; Citizen Salmon Advocate
  6. Eric Carlsen, Citizen & Former DNR & Restoration Planner (Retired)
  7. Keith Denton, Fisheries Biologist & Consultant
  8. Garrett Foster, Makah Tribe Watershed Scientist
  9. Owen French, Citizen Salmon Advocate with Riparian Experience
  10. Sean Halberg, Mechanical & Design Engineer
  11. LaTrisha Suggs, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; Habitat Restoration Planner
    Chris Burns (Alt.) Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; Fisheries Technician,
  12. Ray Kirk, Citizen, MBA; Retired Chemical Engineer
  13. Rebecca Mahan, Clallam County; Senior Habitat Biologist
    Chase O’Neil (Alt.), Clallam County DCD; MRC Coordinator & Habitat Biologist
  14. Jamie Michel, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Habitat Manager
    Mike McHenry, (Alt.), Lower Elwha Klallm Tribe; Habitat Biologist
  15. Ian Miller, Ph.D; Washington Sea Grant; Coastal Hazards Specialist
  16. Jim Walton, Ph.D; Citizen, Retired Peninsula College Fisheries & Centralia College President.
  17. Kim Williams Clallam Conservation District; Executive Director
    Meghan Adamire (Alt.), Clallam Conservation District; Conservation Planner
  18. Danielle Zitomer, WA Department of Fish & Wildlife; Area Habitat Biologist
    Kendall Kohler (Alt.), WDFW Area Habitat Biologist

Lead Entity Staff

Cheryl Baumann, Coordinator

Lead Entity Support

Shannon Weaver, Technical Support

This report is a result of the collaborative work of the North Olympic Lead Entity for Salmon, its members, stakeholders, consultant and staff. It builds on work created by Walter Pearson, PhD of Peapod Research and Sam Gibboney of ISE Consultants.

For more information on this document or salmon recovery involving the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon, please contact Coordinator Shannon Weaver at shannon.weaver@clallamcountywa.gov or by calling 360-417-2326.

For additional information on local salmon recovery efforts go to our website at:
https://restoringolympicpeninsulasalmon.org/
AND

The Salmon Recovery Portal online at
https://srp.rco.wa.gov/
(click on ‘Lead Entities’, and then ‘North Olympic Peninsula LE for Salmon’)

For restoration projects you can visit on the North Olympic Peninsula and elsewhere in Puget Sound go to:
http://salmontrails.org/watershed/north-olympic/

Ranking Work Plan Narratives

North Olympic Peninsula LE for Salmon
Date: 08-31-2026
Work Book Constructed by
WH Pearson — 1/17/2011
Peapod Research for North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon
Data Entered; Review & Normalization by
Cheryl Baumann, Lara Kawal & Shannon Weaver — 02/05/2024
For North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon

List of Ranked 2026 Work Plan Narratives

Projects Listed in Rank Order
Rank Project ID Title Category Weighted Mean Score Normalized Score
1 09092.2 Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration Capital 174.23 0.842
2 09030.1 Dungeness River Riparian Habitat Protection Capital 166.77 0.806
3 22003 Dungeness Bay Shoreline Restoration Capital 166.04 0.802
4 16103.1 Indian Creek Habitat Restoration Project Capital 165.71 0.801
5 09029.2 Dungeness River Large Wood Restoration Capital 165.69 0.801
6 09055.2 Elwha Estuary Conservation and Restoration Capital 164.53 0.795
7 09091.1 Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Irrigation Efficiencies Capital 162.13 0.783
8 13102 Little River LWD Project Capital 161.79 0.782
9 09016.3 Elwha River Engineered Log Jams Capital 161.22 0.779
10 22005 Monitoring Dungeness Floodplain Changes Non- Capital 126.31 0.773
11 09032.1 Dungeness Drift Cell Conservation Capital 159.63 0.771
12 09031.3 Dungeness River Riparian Restoration Capital 159.51 0.771
13 09009.1 Pysht River Salt Marsh Estuary Restoration Project Capital 157.25 0.760
14 16102 Morse Creek Acquisition & Restoration Capital 154.32 0.746
15 12098.2 Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Storage Capital 153.90 0.744
16 09093 North Sequim Bay Drift Cell Conservation Project Capital 153.18 0.740
17 14106 Elwha Acquisition and Restoration Project Capital 152.78 0.738
18 12096 WRIA 19 Priority Acquisitions Capital 152.70 0.738
19 11088.3 Ennis Creek Fish Passage Barrier Removal Capital 152.32 0.736
20 13101.1 Lower Hoko Acquisition and Restoration Project Capital 150.08 0.725
21 11085.2 South Fork Pysht River Watershed Wood Restoration Capital 148.30 0.717
22 19105.1 Upper Cowan Ranch ELJ Project Capital 148.22 0.716
23 14107 Sequim Bay Shoreline Restoration Capital 147.93 0.715
24 09013 Lower Salt Creek Restoration and Protection Capital 147.68 0.714
25 11087 Elwha River Revegetation Project Capital 147.42 0.712
26 19104 Lyre River Habitat Restoration Project Capital 146.36 0.707
27 23002 Port Angeles Harbor/ Tributaries Conservation and Restoration Capital 146.20 0.706
28 09053 Clallam Watertype Inventory and Assessment Non- Capital 114.76 0.702
29 10079 Lower Morse Creek Feasibility Study Capital 144.02 0.696
30 09086.1 Pysht Floodplain Acquisition and Restoration Capital 143.40 0.693
31 09001.2 Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration Project Capital 143.02 0.691
32 11084 Upper Hoko LWD Restoration Project Capital 142.77 0.690
33 22004 Ediz Hook Drift Cell Feasibility Capital 138.97 0.672
34 19102 Hoko Culvert #80001279 Replacement Capital 136.91 0.662
35 16104 Elwha Hot Springs Road Restoration Capital 136.53 0.660
36 10080.3 Lyre River Protection and Restoration Capital 134.36 0.649
37 09026 Morse Creek Property Acquisition Capital 133.90 0.647
38 09015.1 Kreaman Creek, Trib. To Salt Creek Capital 133.04 0.643
39 09027.2 Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection Project Capital 131.84 0.637
40 22001 Wright’s Creek Fish Passage Project Capital 130.84 0.632
41 09003 WRIA 19 Riparian Restoration Capital 130.70 0.632
42 21001 Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA Capital 130.65 0.631
43 11090.1 Siebert Creek Large Wood Restoration: Old Olympic Highway to Highway 101 Capital 129.65 0.626
44 22002 Hoko Tributary Fish Passage Correction: Culvert #80001331 Capital 129.43 0.625
45 10078.1 McDonald Creek Large Wood Restoration Capital 127.74 0.617
46 11094 Chicken Coop Road Culvert Replacement Project Capital 123.37 0.596
47 19101 WRIA 19 Fish Passage Corrections on Joyce-Piedmont Road Capital 122.28 0.591
Projects ranked 47 & up are eligible to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding
48 23001 Butler Creek Fish Passage Design and Construction Capital 118.75 0.574
49 09015 Salt Creek Final Fish Passage Corrections Project Capital 117.14 0.566
50 09021 Valley Creek Restoration Phase 3 Capital 116.22 0.562
51 09004.1 Hoko Watershed Instream LWD Restoration Project Capital 109.21 0.528
52 09005 Sekiu Mainstem (RM 2-5) LWD Restoration Capital 105.97 0.512
Funded Projects/ Not Ranked but included in work plan
Project ID Title Category
19103.1 Johnson Creek, Triple Culverts Replacement Capital
09011 Twin River Acquisition Capital
09039.2 McDonald Creek Barrier Removal and Channel Restoration Capital

2026 Work Plan Update Notes

55 total projects on the work plan (52 scored & ranked & 3 incorporated by reference) 53 total projects on the work plan (Priority line drawn after project 48)

2 new roject Concepts Added

  • 23001 Butler Creek Fish Passage
  • 23002 PA Harbor Work Plan New

12 Projects Updated

  • 09092.2 Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration
  • 09029.2 Dungeness River Large Wood Restoration
  • 09031.3 Dungeness River Riparian Restoration
  • 12098.2 Dungeness Instream Flow Restoration – Storage
  • 11087 Elwha River Revegetation Project
  • 11088.3 Ennis Creek Fish Passage
  • 11084 Hoko LWD Restoration Project
  • 13102 Little River LWD
  • 11085.2 South Fork Pysht River LWD
  • 19105.1 Upper Cowan Ranch
  • 12096 WRIA 19 Priority Acquisitions

1 Project Moved to the 7 Year Work Plan

  • 09005 Sekiu Mainstem LWD Restoration

3 Funded Projects which are still incorporated within work plan but No longer Scored or in the Ranking

  • 19703.1 Johnson Creek Triple Culverts
  • 09039.2 McDonald Creek Barrier Removal
  • 09011. Twins Acquisition

Scoring & Ranking Assessment

Projects ranked 47 & up are eligible to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding.

N. Olympic LE Workplan Project Proposal Scoring & Ranking Assessment
Rank Normalized Score
1 0.842
2 0.806
3 0.802
4 0.801
5 0.801
6 0.795
7 0.783
8 0.782
9 0.779
10 0.773
11 0.771
12 0.771
13 0.760
14 0.746
15 0.744
16 0.740
17 0.738
18 0.738
19 0.736
20 0.725
21 0.717
22 0.716
23 0.715
24 0.714
25 0.712
26 0.707
27 0.706
28 0.702
29 0.696
30 0.693
31 0.691
32 0.690
33 0.672
34 0.662
35 0.660
36 0.649
37 0.647
38 0.643
39 0.637
40 0.632
41 0.632
42 0.631
43 0.626
44 0.625
45 0.617
46 0.596
47 0.591
48 0.574
49 0.566
50 0.562
51 0.528
52 0.512
Scatterplot of normalized project scores by rank. Scores decline from 0.842 at rank 1 to 0.512 at rank 52. Projects ranked 47 and higher are eligible to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding.
Assessment of Work Plan Projects (Listed West to East)
ID Title Scorer(s) Outside 2 Std Deviations? CoV% Flags for Specific Criteria?
21001 Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA 0 Yes (Criteria 3, 5 & 8 )
12096 WRIA 19 Priority Acquisitions 1 Yes (Criterion 5 )
19102 Hoko Culvert #80001279 Replacement 1 Yes (Criterion 5 )
19103.1 Johnson Creek, Triple Culverts Replacement Not Scored * Not Scored *
09001.2 Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration Project 0 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
22001 Wright’s Creek Fish Passage Project 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
22002 Hoko Tributary Fish Passage Correction: Culvert #80001331 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
19105.1 Upper Cowan Ranch ELJ Project 0 Yes (Criterion 5)
09004.1 Hoko Watershed Instream LWD Restoration Project 1 Yes (Criteria 5, 7, 10 & 12)
11084 Upper Hoko LWD Restoration Project 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
13101.1 Lower Hoko Acquisition and Restoration Project 1 Yes (Criterion 5)
09005 Sekiu Mainstem (RM 2-5) LWD Restoration 1 Yes (Criteria 5, 7, 10 & 12)
09003 WRIA 19 Riparian Restoration 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
11085.2 South Fork Pysht River Watershed Wood Restoration 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
09086.1 Pysht Floodplain Acquisition and Restoration 1 Yes (Criterion 5)
09009.1 Pysht River Salt Marsh Estuary Restoration Project 1 Yes (Criterion 5)
23001 Butler Creek Fish Passage Design and Construction 0 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
09011 Twin River Acquisition Not Scored * Not Scored *
10080.3 Lyre River Protection and Restoration 0 Yes (Criteria 5, 8 & 12)
19104 Lyre River Habitat Restoration Project 0 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
19101 WRIA 19 Fish Passage Corrections on Joyce- Piedmont Road 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
09013 Lower Salt Creek Restoration and Protection 0 None
09015 Salt Creek Final Fish Passage Corrections Project 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
09015.1 Kreaman Creek, Trib. To Salt Creek 1 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
14106 Elwha Acquisition and Restoration Project 1 None
09016.3 Elwha River Engineered Log Jams 1 Yes (Criterion 7)
11087 Elwha River Revegetation Project 1 Yes (Criterion 7)
09055.2 Elwha Estuary Conservation and Restoration 0 Yes (Criterion 12)
13102 Little River LWD Project 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
16103.1 Indian Creek Habitat Restoration Project 1 None
16104 Elwha Hot Springs Road Restoration 1 Yes (Criteria 7 & 12)
22004 Ediz Hook Drift Cell Feasibility 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
23002 Port Angeles Harbor/ Tributaries Conservation and Restoration 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
09021 Valley Creek Restoration Phase 3 0 Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
11088.3 Ennis Creek Fish Passage Barrier Removal 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
09026 Morse Creek Property Acquisition 1 None
16102 Morse Creek Acquisition & Restoration 1 None
10079 Lower Morse Creek Feasibility Study 0 Yes (Criteria 7 & 12)
09027.2 Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection Project 1 Yes (Criteria 5, 8 & 12)
11090.1 Siebert Creek Large Wood Restoration: Old Olympic Highway to Highway 101 1 Yes (Criterion 7)
10078.1 McDonald Creek Large Wood Restoration 1 Yes (Criterion 7)
09039.2 McDonald Creek Barrier Removal and Channel Restoration Not Scored * Not Scored *
22003 Dungeness Bay Shoreline Restoration 1 None
22005 Monitoring Dungeness Floodplain Changes 0 Yes (Criterion 6)
09029.2 Dungeness River Large Wood Restoration 1 Yes (Criterion 7)
09030.1 Dungeness River Riparian Habitat Protection 1 None
09031.3 Dungeness River Riparian Restoration 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
09032.1 Dungeness Drift Cell Conservation 1 Yes (Criterion 8)
09091.1 Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration- Irrigation Efficiencies 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
12098.2 Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration- Storage 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
09092.2 Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration 1 None
14107 Sequim Bay Shoreline Restoration 0 None
09093 North Sequim Bay Drift Cell Conservation Project 0 Yes (Criterion 8)
11094 Chicken Coop Road Culvert Replacement Project 0 Yes (Criterion 7)
09053 Clallam Watertype Inventory and Assessment 0 Yes (Criteria 1, 6 & 8)

Not Scored* Indicates project is currently funded and has been scored in previously work plans. They are still incorporated by reference as part of this Work Plan.

2026 Narrative Ranking Workbook

NS = No Score Given. CoV = Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %).

Project Worksheets

Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA

Project ID
21001
Overall Weighted Score
130.65
Mean of all Scores
3.38
SD of all Scores
0.89
2 X SD of all Scores
1.78
Mean – 2 X
1.60
Mean + 2 X
5.15
Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 NS 3.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 NS 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.000 4.08 12.23 40.2%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.0 NS 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 NS 2.0 4.5 0.5 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 2.583 2.88 7.45 62.2%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 NS 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 NS 2.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 2.750 2.81 7.72 49.9%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.5 NS 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 NS 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 4.5 2.375 3.65 8.68 68.4%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.5 NS 3.5 5.0 2.0 2.0 NS 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.5 3.042 3.27 9.94 44.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS 4.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 NS 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.708 4.12 15.26 26.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 NS 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 NS 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 4.5 1.0 2.333 4.04 9.42 55.1%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.0 NS 2.5 5.0 2.5 3.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 3.375 3.88 13.11 29.7%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 3.5 4.5 2.5 3.0 NS 2.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.125 3.62 11.30 27.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.250 3.23 13.73 22.7%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 NS 3.0 5.0 1.5 3.0 NS 5.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.5 2.833 2.85 8.06 47.2%
Mean 2.47 4.64 3.68 3.51 2.30 2.55 4.64 3.14 4.09 2.97 3.80 1.72 4.14 3.64 Overall Weighted Score 130.65
CoV 37.3% 28.3% 50.6% 39.0% 38.8% 39.0% 20.2% 56.7% 17.6% 78.4% 11.9% 39.6%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Fairly straight forward nearshore protection project – high community priority, which makes sense, but perhaps not for fish recovery (i.e. scoring can't reflect that community priority)

Return to Project Worksheets

WRIA 19 Priority Acquisition

Project ID
12096
Overall Weighted Score
152.70
Mean of all Scores
3.83
SD of all Scores
0.88
2 X SD of all Scores
1.76
Mean – 2 X
2.07
Mean + 2 X
5.59
WRIA 19 Priority Acquisition scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 NS 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 4.5 3.833 4.08 15.63 32.6%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 NS 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 3.750 2.88 10.82 32.4%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 NS 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 NS 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 1.5 4.5 4.0 3.542 2.81 9.94 34.3%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.5 NS 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 NS 2.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 2.0 4.5 3.5 2.500 3.65 9.13 57.8%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 NS 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 0.5 4.5 5.0 4.042 3.27 13.21 33.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 4.375 4.12 18.00 20.7%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 NS 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.708 4.04 10.94 48.8%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 NS 3.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 3.875 3.88 15.05 31.7%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 4.5 5.0 4.5 3.0 NS 2.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.5 3.0 3.875 3.62 14.01 30.2%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 4.417 3.23 14.27 24.5%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 NS 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 NS 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 2.792 2.85 7.95 42.1%
Mean 2.43 4.64 4.05 4.22 3.76 2.97 4.64 3.55 4.64 4.09 4.47 1.84 4.64 3.68 Overall Weighted Score 152.70
CoV 39.3% 23.4% 28.4% 34.0% 26.2% 24.8% 13.1% 35.7% 17.5% 62.1% 12.2% 37.5%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N

Comments

Restoration not described, but assuming some restoration would be part of this. Otherwise high score except for no ESA listed species.

Return to Project Worksheets

Hoko Culvert #80001279 Replacement

Project ID
19102
Overall Weighted Score
136.91
Mean of all Scores
3.36
SD of all Scores
0.37
2 X SD of all Scores
0.75
Mean – 2 X
2.61
Mean + 2 X
4.10
Hoko Culvert #80001279 Replacement scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.042 4.08 16.48 14.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.583 2.88 10.34 17.7%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.625 2.81 10.18 17.8%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 NS 0.0 NS 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.417 3.65 1.52 239.1%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.875 3.27 12.67 21.4%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 1.0 NS 3.0 0.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 0.0 2.542 4.12 10.46 59.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.792 4.04 15.31 15.4%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.833 3.88 14.89 20.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 NS 3.0 NS 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.125 3.62 11.30 16.9%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 4.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.167 3.23 13.46 17.2%
12 Project Readiness 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 3.500 2.85 9.96 23.6%
Mean 2.96 3.04 3.49 3.62 3.49 3.33 2.83 3.17 3.71 3.75 2.96 3.21 4.17 3.25 Overall Weighted Score 136.91
CoV 34.9% 34.7% 44.5% 18.5% 52.3% 35.2% 37.5% 37.1% 37.1% 36.1% 14.8% 49.7%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Johnson Creek, Triple Culverts Replacement

Project ID
19103.1
Source note
Don't Score
Overall Weighted Score
Mean of all Scores
SD of all Scores
2 X SD of all Scores
Mean – 2 X
Mean + 2 X
Johnson Creek, Triple Culverts Replacement scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.96
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 4.08
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.88
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.81
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.65
6 Addresses other stocks 3.27
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 4.12
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 4.04
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.88
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.62
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.23
12 Project Readiness 2.85
Mean Overall Weighted Score
CoV
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration Project

Project ID
9001.2
Overall Weighted Score
143.02
Mean of all Scores
3.47
SD of all Scores
0.34
2 X SD of all Scores
0.69
Mean – 2 X
2.78
Mean + 2 X
4.16
Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.154 4.08 16.93 17.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.654 2.88 10.54 16.2%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.846 2.81 10.80 20.1%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 NS 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.731 3.65 2.67 173.6%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.038 3.27 13.20 19.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 NS 3.5 0.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.769 4.12 11.40 61.5%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 NS 4.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.115 4.04 16.62 18.0%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 NS 4.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.115 3.88 15.99 17.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.231 3.62 11.68 13.6%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.885 3.23 12.55 16.7%
12 Project Readiness 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 NS 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.615 2.85 10.29 18.0%
Mean 3.00 3.04 3.50 3.71 3.49 3.50 2.96 3.29 3.87 4.08 3.29 3.42 3.92 3.54 Overall Weighted Score 143.02
CoV 33.3% 34.7% 43.9% 38.3% 16.1% 37.1% 33.9% 37.0% 36.5% 34.6% 32.9% 17.9% 49.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Wright's Creek fish Passage Project

Project ID
22001
Overall Weighted Score
130.84
Mean of all Scores
3.15
SD of all Scores
0.57
2 X SD of all Scores
1.14
Mean – 2 X
2.01
Mean + 2 X
4.29
Wright's Creek fish Passage Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 NS 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.818 4.08 15.57 16.8%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 3.167 2.88 9.13 35.8%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.682 2.81 10.34 18.5%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 NS 0.0 NS 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 NS 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.818 3.65 2.99 179.8%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 4.5 2.5 3.0 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.773 3.27 12.33 21.7%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 1.0 NS 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 NS 2.0 4.0 4.5 0.0 2.455 4.12 10.10 63.4%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.5 2.5 3.545 4.04 14.32 25.6%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 4.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 NS 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.636 3.88 14.13 18.5%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 NS 2.0 NS 3.0 3.5 2.5 2.0 NS 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.636 3.62 9.53 19.1%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 4.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.864 3.23 12.48 18.4%
12 Project Readiness 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 NS 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.364 2.85 9.57 25.8%
Mean 2.96 3.04 3.49 3.62 3.49 3.71 2.75 3.00 3.54 1.75 2.62 3.25 4.00 2.83 Overall Weighted Score 130.84
CoV 34.9% 34.7% 47.5% 15.7% 39.1% 34.8% 41.9% 141.4% 35.5% 34.4% 15.1% 52.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Hoko Tributary Fish Passage Correction: Culvert #80001331

Project ID
22002
Overall Weighted Score
129.43
Mean of all Scores
3.21
SD of all Scores
0.36
2 X SD of all Scores
0.71
Mean – 2 X
2.50
Mean + 2 X
3.92
Hoko Tributary Fish Passage Correction: Culvert #80001331 scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 3.667 4.08 14.95 19.6%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 3.417 2.88 9.86 16.3%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.5 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.542 2.81 9.94 19.5%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 NS 0.0 NS 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.583 3.65 2.13 185.8%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.833 3.27 12.53 18.7%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 1.0 NS 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.458 4.12 10.12 58.5%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 3.0 3.375 4.04 13.63 16.9%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.542 3.88 13.76 16.4%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 NS 2.0 NS 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.708 3.62 9.79 20.0%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 4.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.917 3.23 12.65 17.9%
12 Project Readiness 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.0 2.5 3.5 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.417 2.85 9.72 26.4%
Mean 2.92 3.04 3.49 3.54 3.49 2.96 3.00 2.87 3.50 3.25 2.62 3.29 3.96 3.00 Overall Weighted Score 129.43
CoV 34.9% 34.7% 47.2% 11.3% 37.6% 35.7% 41.3% 39.1% 35.5% 32.7% 14.7% 50.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Upper Cowan Ranch ELJ Project

Project ID
19105.1
Overall Weighted Score
148.22
Mean of all Scores
3.58
SD of all Scores
0.38
2 X SD of all Scores
0.77
Mean – 2 X
2.81
Mean + 2 X
4.35
Upper Cowan Ranch ELJ Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.292 4.08 17.50 15.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.5 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.833 2.88 11.06 17.9%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.875 2.81 10.88 15.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 NS 0.0 NS 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.708 3.65 2.59 186.7%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.042 3.27 13.21 17.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 3.0 NS 2.0 NS 3.5 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 3.208 4.12 13.20 45.3%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.042 4.04 16.32 17.9%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.125 3.88 16.02 18.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.667 3.62 13.26 13.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 4.000 3.23 12.92 16.0%
12 Project Readiness 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.833 2.85 10.91 17.0%
Mean 2.87 3.04 3.49 3.96 3.49 3.50 3.50 3.37 3.83 4.08 3.54 3.42 4.33 3.67 Overall Weighted Score 148.22
CoV 34.9% 34.7% 39.0% 6.1% 20.2% 33.5% 37.9% 35.0% 32.7% 32.3% 15.0% 48.4%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Hoko Watershed Instream LWD Restoration Project

Project ID
9004.1
Overall Weighted Score
109.21
Mean of all Scores
2.65
SD of all Scores
0.82
2 X SD of all Scores
1.65
Mean – 2 X
1.00
Mean + 2 X
4.30
Hoko Watershed Instream LWD Restoration Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.5 2.5 1.0 3.679 4.08 15.00 29.5%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 3.179 2.88 9.17 42.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 1.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.071 2.81 8.62 41.3%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.393 3.65 1.44 265.0%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 1.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.000 3.27 9.81 38.7%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.893 4.12 7.79 84.3%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.179 4.04 12.84 36.8%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.679 3.88 10.41 48.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.536 3.62 9.17 62.6%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 1.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 0.0 5.0 3.143 3.23 10.15 49.3%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.571 2.85 4.47 98.2%
Mean 2.33 3.04 3.00 2.62 1.96 3.54 3.33 1.71 2.96 3.29 3.37 3.42 0.83 1.71 Overall Weighted Score 109.21
CoV 39.1% 34.7% 49.7% 60.3% 69.2% 4.1% 36.4% 71.1% 62.6% 59.2% 36.4% 34.1% 136.1% 109.1%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Upper Hoko LWD Restoration Project

Project ID
11084
Overall Weighted Score
142.77
Mean of all Scores
3.47
SD of all Scores
0.31
2 X SD of all Scores
0.63
Mean – 2 X
2.84
Mean + 2 X
4.10
Upper Hoko LWD Restoration Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.231 4.08 17.25 14.2%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.808 2.88 10.98 14.7%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.846 2.81 10.80 20.8%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NS 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.654 3.65 2.39 195.9%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.038 3.27 13.20 12.8%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 NS 3.0 0.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.538 4.12 10.45 59.9%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.077 4.04 16.46 14.9%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.923 3.88 15.24 13.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 3.808 3.62 13.77 17.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 3.962 3.23 12.80 19.6%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 NS 3.5 2.5 4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.192 2.85 9.09 27.5%
Mean 2.71 3.04 3.58 3.37 3.49 3.46 3.37 3.62 3.71 4.00 3.54 3.33 3.79 3.50 Overall Weighted Score 142.77
CoV 36.5% 34.7% 43.3% 42.4% 7.4% 39.0% 32.8% 39.2% 35.0% 32.7% 35.2% 22.8% 49.5%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Lower Hoko Acquisition and Restoration Project

Project ID
13101.1
Overall Weighted Score
150.08
Mean of all Scores
3.62
SD of all Scores
0.42
2 X SD of all Scores
0.84
Mean – 2 X
2.77
Mean + 2 X
4.46
Lower Hoko Acquisition and Restoration Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.038 4.08 16.46 16.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.5 3.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.885 2.88 11.21 13.0%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.846 2.81 10.80 17.9%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 0.0 NS 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.769 3.65 2.81 160.6%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.269 3.27 13.96 15.6%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.115 4.12 16.94 21.1%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 NS 3.0 1.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 3.731 4.04 15.07 29.3%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.077 3.88 15.84 17.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 3.808 3.62 13.77 19.7%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.308 3.23 13.92 19.3%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 3.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.154 2.85 8.98 23.7%
Mean 2.62 3.04 3.49 3.96 3.62 4.04 3.25 3.67 4.00 3.71 3.54 3.58 4.17 3.92 Overall Weighted Score 150.08
CoV 36.4% 34.7% 37.5% 33.9% 13.4% 16.7% 32.6% 37.3% 37.9% 32.7% 34.1% 14.8% 38.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Sekiu Mainstem (RM 2-5) LWD Restoration

Project ID
9005
Overall Weighted Score
105.97
Mean of all Scores
2.57
SD of all Scores
0.83
2 X SD of all Scores
1.67
Mean – 2 X
0.90
Mean + 2 X
4.24
Sekiu Mainstem (RM 2-5) LWD Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.831 2.96 8.38 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 1.0 1.0 3.143 4.08 12.81 37.1%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.5 2.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.000 2.88 8.65 41.3%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 3.071 2.81 8.62 37.2%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.143 3.65 4.18 149.0%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.929 3.27 9.57 49.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.607 4.12 6.61 78.3%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.143 4.04 12.69 36.6%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.929 3.88 11.38 36.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.286 3.62 8.26 58.0%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 0.0 5.0 3.321 3.23 10.73 42.0%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.429 2.85 4.07 84.5%
Mean 2.44 3.07 3.86 3.24 1.99 2.74 2.40 2.07 3.15 2.40 3.28 3.11 0.57 1.65 Overall Weighted Score 105.97
CoV 37.2% 9.7% 34.4% 47.8% 67.4% 19.7% 43.0% 66.2% 50.8% 33.8% 37.2% 33.8% 151.0% 109.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

WRIA 19 Riparian Rstoration

Project ID
9003
Overall Weighted Score
130.70
Mean of all Scores
3.22
SD of all Scores
0.69
2 X SD of all Scores
1.39
Mean – 2 X
1.83
Mean + 2 X
4.61
WRIA 19 Riparian Rstoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 NS NS 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 3.583 4.08 14.61 26.5%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 NS NS 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 3.000 2.88 8.65 45.5%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 NS NS 5.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 3.292 2.81 9.24 41.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 NS NS 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.083 3.65 3.96 149.7%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 NS NS 5.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 3.500 3.27 11.44 32.2%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS NS 2.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.250 4.12 9.26 79.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 NS NS 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.333 4.04 13.46 30.9%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 NS NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.792 3.88 14.73 21.4%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.0 NS NS 5.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.583 3.62 12.96 23.7%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 NS NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.958 3.23 12.79 22.5%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 NS NS 5.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.250 2.85 9.25 36.8%
Mean 2.46 3.49 3.49 3.87 2.42 3.29 2.67 2.96 4.62 3.79 3.29 3.42 1.92 3.42 Overall Weighted Score 130.70
CoV 37.2% 35.7% 40.3% 20.9% 42.5% 35.6% 10.5% 34.0% 36.9% 33.5% 94.9% 47.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

South Fork Pysht River Watershed Wood Restoration

Project ID
11085.2
Overall Weighted Score
148.30
Mean of all Scores
3.59
SD of all Scores
0.27
2 X SD of all Scores
0.54
Mean – 2 X
3.05
Mean + 2 X
4.13
South Fork Pysht River Watershed Wood Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.115 4.08 16.78 12.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.769 2.88 10.87 15.9%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.885 2.81 10.91 10.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 4.0 1.5 1.0 NS 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.500 3.65 5.48 96.2%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.038 3.27 13.20 12.8%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 NS 3.5 0.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 0.0 2.577 4.12 10.61 60.8%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.115 4.04 16.62 10.1%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.038 3.88 15.69 7.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 3.962 3.62 14.32 17.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.115 3.23 13.30 15.8%
12 Project Readiness 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.577 2.85 10.18 17.9%
Mean 2.96 3.83 3.83 3.71 3.49 3.46 3.29 3.67 3.96 3.79 3.54 3.71 3.75 3.29 Overall Weighted Score 148.30
CoV 33.4% 11.6% 34.0% 36.6% 13.0% 35.7% 16.8% 16.6% 34.9% 32.7% 34.2% 13.3% 51.6%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Pysht Floodplain Acquisition and Restoration

Project ID
9086.1
Overall Weighted Score
143.40
Mean of all Scores
3.47
SD of all Scores
0.44
2 X SD of all Scores
0.88
Mean – 2 X
2.59
Mean + 2 X
4.36
Pysht Floodplain Acquisition and Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 3.494 2.96 10.35 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 NS 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 NS 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.875 4.08 15.80 19.2%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 NS 3.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.875 2.88 11.18 24.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.875 2.81 10.88 15.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 NS 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 NS 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.792 3.65 2.89 160.4%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 NS 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 NS 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.958 3.27 12.94 18.2%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 NS 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.042 4.12 16.63 17.9%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 NS 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 NS 3.5 4.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.875 4.04 11.61 45.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.125 3.88 16.02 18.7%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 NS 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.750 3.62 13.56 17.5%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 1.5 NS 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 NS 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.208 3.23 13.60 25.6%
12 Project Readiness 0.5 NS 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 NS 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.792 2.85 7.95 40.7%
Mean 2.37 3.49 3.96 3.62 3.21 3.33 3.49 3.21 3.92 3.96 3.29 3.17 4.04 3.58 Overall Weighted Score 143.40
CoV 46.7% 27.7% 46.0% 45.8% 17.3% 33.5% 25.4% 35.9% 41.2% 37.1% 17.1% 42.4%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Pysht River Salt Marsh Estuary Restoratin Project

Project ID
9009.1
Overall Weighted Score
157.25
Mean of all Scores
3.86
SD of all Scores
0.58
2 X SD of all Scores
1.16
Mean – 2 X
2.71
Mean + 2 X
5.02
Pysht River Salt Marsh Estuary Restoratin Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.5 4.5 3.0 NS 3.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.192 4.08 17.09 21.0%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 NS 2.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.846 2.88 11.09 24.0%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 NS 2.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.923 2.81 11.01 20.0%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.5 3.5 5.0 1.0 NS 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 2.500 3.65 9.13 69.8%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.846 3.27 12.57 20.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 NS 3.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 2.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.346 4.12 13.77 47.0%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 1.0 3.923 4.04 15.84 31.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.269 3.88 16.58 17.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.846 3.62 13.91 20.1%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.423 3.23 14.29 20.0%
12 Project Readiness 1.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 2.5 4.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.885 2.85 8.21 33.3%
Mean 2.55 3.30 3.93 3.30 4.64 3.34 3.93 3.93 4.43 4.01 4.47 3.89 4.51 3.84 Overall Weighted Score 157.25
CoV 41.4% 16.0% 28.3% 46.2% 25.5% 17.3% 19.7% 22.0% 34.2% 25.9% 37.4% 19.5% 26.4%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Butler Creek Fish Passage Design and Construction

Project ID
23001
Overall Weighted Score
118.75
Mean of all Scores
3.15
SD of all Scores
0.88
2 X SD of all Scores
1.76
Mean – 2 X
1.39
Mean + 2 X
4.90
Butler Creek Fish Passage Design and Construction scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.333 4.08 13.59 26.6%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 NS 3.0 NS 2.0 1.5 2.5 4.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.667 2.88 7.69 44.0%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.125 2.81 8.77 41.0%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.5 0.0 NS 1.0 NS 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.542 3.65 1.98 182.3%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 3.5 NS 5.0 NS 2.0 2.5 3.5 4.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.167 3.27 10.35 40.6%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 2.0 NS 2.0 NS 2.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.042 4.12 8.40 63.1%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 NS 5.0 NS 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.083 4.04 12.45 29.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.5 NS 5.0 NS 2.0 3.5 3.5 4.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.375 3.88 13.11 27.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 2.5 NS 4.0 NS 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.958 3.62 10.70 25.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 2.5 NS 5.0 NS 2.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.542 3.23 11.44 31.5%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 3.0 NS 4.0 NS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.292 2.85 6.52 32.8%
Mean 2.84 2.80 4.64 3.97 4.64 2.22 2.14 2.89 3.68 1.89 2.89 2.76 3.89 2.80 Overall Weighted Score 118.75
CoV 32.9% 39.1% 33.4% 34.3% 61.1% 39.8% 38.4% 83.5% 46.2% 44.7% 19.4% 59.6%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Twin River Acquisition

Project ID
9011
Source note
don't score
Overall Weighted Score
Mean of all Scores
SD of all Scores
2 X SD of all Scores
Mean – 2 X
Mean + 2 X
Twin River Acquisition scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.96
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 4.08
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.88
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.81
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.65
6 Addresses other stocks 3.27
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 4.12
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 4.04
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.88
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.62
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.23
12 Project Readiness 2.85
Mean Overall Weighted Score
CoV
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Lyre River Protection and Restoration

Project ID
10080.3
Overall Weighted Score
134.36
Mean of all Scores
3.23
SD of all Scores
0.60
2 X SD of all Scores
1.20
Mean – 2 X
2.02
Mean + 2 X
4.43
Lyre River Protection and Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 2.96 9.46 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 NS 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 NS 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.250 4.08 13.25 27.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 NS 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.333 2.88 9.62 20.6%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 NS 3.5 5.0 2.0 3.0 NS 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 5.0 4.0 3.542 2.81 9.94 27.9%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 NS 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 NS 0.0 3.0 2.0 4.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.875 3.65 6.85 82.1%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 NS 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 NS 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.292 3.27 10.76 30.7%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 NS 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.125 4.12 16.98 17.2%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 NS 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 NS 2.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.667 4.04 10.77 64.1%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 NS 3.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 3.833 3.88 14.89 31.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 3.292 3.62 11.90 27.8%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 NS 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.375 3.23 14.13 20.2%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 NS 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 NS 2.5 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 4.5 1.0 2.042 2.85 5.81 56.7%
Mean 2.52 3.19 3.10 3.18 2.43 3.47 3.19 2.77 3.97 3.81 3.68 2.27 4.35 3.27 Overall Weighted Score 134.36
CoV 34.4% 46.1% 53.3% 41.4% 16.4% 38.4% 24.5% 26.8% 39.6% 35.4% 16.5% 39.4%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Lyre River Habitat Restoration Project

Project ID
19104
Overall Weighted Score
146.36
Mean of all Scores
3.51
SD of all Scores
0.50
2 X SD of all Scores
0.99
Mean – 2 X
2.52
Mean + 2 X
4.50
Lyre River Habitat Restoration Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 3.193 2.96 9.46 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 NS 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.923 4.08 15.99 21.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 NS 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.731 2.88 10.76 17.8%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.962 2.81 11.12 20.9%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.0 NS 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.654 3.65 6.04 111.3%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.077 3.27 13.33 17.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 NS 4.0 0.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 3.038 4.12 12.50 60.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 NS 2.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.923 4.04 15.84 19.4%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.231 3.88 16.43 15.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.654 3.62 13.21 14.1%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.231 3.23 13.67 22.4%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 4.0 2.5 5.0 NS 3.0 2.5 4.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.808 2.85 7.99 42.7%
Mean 2.56 3.56 3.47 3.85 3.19 3.06 3.14 3.81 4.02 3.89 4.27 3.02 4.10 3.22 Overall Weighted Score 146.36
CoV 34.2% 13.5% 44.7% 34.5% 14.8% 37.2% 33.6% 24.5% 38.6% 33.7% 34.0% 18.1% 50.1%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

The workplan write up is fine but the project description is not. Including information about a prior acquisition muddies the intent here which is restoration, not acquisition. This could prove problematic and should be clarified.

Return to Project Worksheets

WRIA 19 Fish Passage Corrections on Joyce-Piedmont Road

Project ID
19101
Overall Weighted Score
122.28
Mean of all Scores
2.95
SD of all Scores
0.52
2 X SD of all Scores
1.03
Mean – 2 X
1.92
Mean + 2 X
3.98
WRIA 19 Fish Passage Corrections on Joyce-Piedmont Road scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 2.96 4.64 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.750 4.08 15.29 20.8%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.000 2.88 8.65 24.5%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.679 2.81 10.33 18.2%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.821 3.65 3.00 181.2%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.571 3.27 11.68 21.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 1.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 0.0 2.107 4.12 8.67 76.3%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.607 4.04 14.57 25.0%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.679 3.88 14.29 19.7%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 2.964 3.62 10.72 20.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 2.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.000 3.23 12.92 24.0%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 2.643 2.85 7.52 40.9%
Mean 2.51 2.76 2.55 3.46 3.01 3.59 2.51 3.13 3.01 2.55 2.30 3.30 4.09 2.55 Overall Weighted Score 122.28
CoV 36.8% 20.7% 64.4% 51.1% 42.3% 19.1% 45.6% 38.9% 51.5% 57.5% 47.6% 39.3% 24.0% 62.7%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Lower Salt Creek Restoration and Protection

Project ID
09013
Overall Weighted Score
147.68
Mean of all Scores
3.32
SD of all Scores
0.80
2 X SD of all Scores
1.60
Mean – 2 X
1.72
Mean + 2 X
4.92
Lower Salt Creek Restoration and Protection scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.96 7.49 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 NS NS 3.0 4.0 2.0 NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 3.591 4.08 14.64 30.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 NS NS 4.0 4.0 2.0 NS 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.773 2.88 10.88 24.7%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.0 NS NS 5.0 3.0 3.0 NS 4.5 4.5 3.0 5.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 3.682 2.81 10.34 30.5%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 NS NS 2.0 3.0 3.0 NS 3.0 4.5 3.5 5.0 2.0 4.5 3.0 3.045 3.65 11.13 46.1%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 NS NS 5.0 5.0 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.136 3.27 13.52 23.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS NS 5.0 5.0 2.5 NS 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.955 4.12 16.27 26.2%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 NS NS 4.0 3.0 3.0 NS 4.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 3.682 4.04 14.87 27.3%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 NS NS 5.0 4.0 3.0 NS 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 5.0 2.5 3.955 3.88 15.36 22.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.0 NS NS 4.0 4.0 3.0 NS 4.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 3.500 3.62 12.65 25.6%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 NS NS 4.0 5.0 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 4.227 3.23 13.66 23.3%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 NS NS 3.0 2.0 3.0 NS 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.409 2.85 6.86 31.9%
Mean 2.25 2.53 2.53 3.88 3.71 2.75 2.53 3.96 4.21 3.79 4.54 2.50 4.25 3.09 Overall Weighted Score 147.68
CoV 37.3% 26.9% 27.1% 14.4% 16.4% 19.1% 26.5% 21.1% 17.0% 19.0% 32.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Salt Creek Final Fish Passage Corrections Project

Project ID
09015
Overall Weighted Score
117.14
Mean of all Scores
2.81
SD of all Scores
0.94
2 X SD of all Scores
1.88
Mean – 2 X
0.93
Mean + 2 X
4.69
Salt Creek Final Fish Passage Corrections Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.96 7.49 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 NS 3.0 3.5 0.0 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.154 4.08 12.86 43.6%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.308 2.88 9.54 38.3%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 NS 3.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.923 2.81 8.21 44.6%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.0 NS 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.077 3.65 3.93 157.3%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.308 3.27 10.81 41.6%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 NS 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 2.154 4.12 8.86 89.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 NS 3.5 2.5 0.0 4.5 3.0 5.0 3.5 4.5 3.0 3.346 4.04 13.51 39.7%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 2.5 0.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.423 3.88 13.30 37.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 NS 3.0 2.5 0.0 3.0 2.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.962 3.62 10.71 39.9%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 3.885 3.23 12.55 37.9%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 NS 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.885 2.85 5.36 49.8%
Mean 2.25 2.88 3.09 2.88 2.53 3.00 2.54 0.21 3.54 2.75 4.50 2.67 3.67 2.79 Overall Weighted Score 117.14
CoV 37.3% 10.7% 50.2% 74.9% 9.9% 53.3% 346.4% 40.5% 48.0% 21.6% 35.1% 19.4% 58.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N

Comments

The narrative says the projects should be completed by now. This was apparently not updated.

Return to Project Worksheets

Kreaman Creek, Trib. To Salt Creek

Project ID
9015.1
Overall Weighted Score
133.04
Mean of all Scores
3.17
SD of all Scores
0.46
2 X SD of all Scores
0.92
Mean – 2 X
2.26
Mean + 2 X
4.09
Kreaman Creek, Trib. To Salt Creek scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.96 7.49 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.885 4.08 15.84 15.9%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 NS 2.5 3.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.500 2.88 10.10 18.4%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.615 2.81 10.15 16.1%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 NS 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.038 3.65 3.79 160.2%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.615 3.27 11.82 17.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 NS 3.5 0.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 2.462 4.12 10.13 69.1%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.731 4.04 15.07 17.0%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 3.0 3.731 3.88 14.49 17.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.154 3.62 11.40 15.0%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.231 3.23 13.67 17.8%
12 Project Readiness 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 NS 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.192 2.85 9.09 23.5%
Mean 3.00 2.92 3.09 3.38 2.53 3.21 2.71 2.92 3.38 3.21 4.29 2.96 3.88 2.96 Overall Weighted Score 133.04
CoV 34.0% 12.2% 52.5% 46.8% 12.2% 51.8% 36.4% 37.9% 38.4% 21.2% 34.1% 17.4% 52.1%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Elwha Acquistion and Restoration Project

Project ID
14106
Overall Weighted Score
152.78
Mean of all Scores
3.88
SD of all Scores
1.24
2 X SD of all Scores
2.47
Mean – 2 X
1.41
Mean + 2 X
6.35
Elwha Acquistion and Restoration Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 NS 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.750 4.08 15.29 40.8%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 NS 5.0 3.0 NS 3.5 4.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.5 5.0 3.708 2.88 10.70 42.8%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 NS 4.0 3.0 NS 3.5 3.5 0.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 3.333 2.81 9.36 39.1%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 NS 5.0 5.0 NS 3.5 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.042 3.65 14.77 37.8%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 NS 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 3.792 3.27 12.40 39.5%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 4.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.833 4.12 15.78 37.4%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 NS 4.5 1.0 NS 4.0 2.5 0.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.250 4.04 13.13 46.6%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 NS 4.5 4.0 NS 4.0 2.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.583 3.88 13.92 41.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 3.0 4.0 NS 4.5 3.5 0.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 2.0 3.0 4.5 3.417 3.62 12.35 41.8%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 NS 4.5 4.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 4.042 3.23 13.06 39.6%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 NS 3.0 1.0 NS 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.0 4.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.542 2.85 7.23 49.2%
Mean 2.75 5.00 4.38 3.83 5.00 3.96 3.79 0.42 4.79 4.71 4.08 2.67 4.21 4.71 Overall Weighted Score 152.78
CoV 28.5% 16.3% 39.8% 12.6% 21.4% 346.4% 12.2% 11.5% 22.7% 36.1% 16.4% 8.4%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N

Comments

Not updated, no project proposed.

Hard to score.

Return to Project Worksheets

Elwha River Engineered Log Jams

Project ID
9016.3
Overall Weighted Score
161.22
Mean of all Scores
3.99
SD of all Scores
0.97
2 X SD of all Scores
1.94
Mean – 2 X
2.05
Mean + 2 X
5.94
Elwha River Engineered Log Jams scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.923 4.08 15.99 29.8%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 NS 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.962 2.88 11.43 31.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.846 2.81 10.80 27.8%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 5.0 4.231 3.65 15.46 29.2%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 4.038 3.27 13.20 30.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 4.0 1.0 1.0 NS 3.5 0.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 2.808 4.12 11.55 69.9%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.0 NS 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 5.0 3.885 4.04 15.69 34.9%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 5.0 4.192 3.88 16.29 27.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.769 3.62 13.63 29.5%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.808 3.23 12.30 29.1%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 2.0 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.5 1.0 4.5 3.538 2.85 10.07 31.3%
Mean 2.92 4.13 4.08 3.92 5.00 3.46 3.50 4.58 4.71 4.79 4.83 4.21 1.33 4.46 Overall Weighted Score 161.22
CoV 26.2% 7.5% 31.7% 35.2% 16.8% 35.0% 10.2% 11.5% 10.4% 6.7% 9.4% 86.6% 32.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Comments

An updated and current project description is needed.

Return to Project Worksheets

Elwha River Revegetation Project

Project ID
11087
Overall Weighted Score
147.42
Mean of all Scores
3.69
SD of all Scores
1.33
2 X SD of all Scores
2.66
Mean – 2 X
1.04
Mean + 2 X
6.35
Elwha River Revegetation Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 NS 3.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.423 4.08 13.96 44.6%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 NS 3.0 3.5 0.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.500 2.88 10.10 45.6%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.5 4.0 3.5 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 0.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.423 2.81 9.61 41.2%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 5.0 3.731 3.65 13.63 45.0%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 4.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.692 3.27 12.07 45.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 4.0 0.0 3.0 NS 3.5 3.5 0.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 2.769 4.12 11.40 68.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.5 4.0 2.0 NS 3.0 2.5 0.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 4.5 3.346 4.04 13.51 47.8%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 5.0 3.731 3.88 14.49 42.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.308 3.62 11.96 43.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.692 3.23 11.93 43.7%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 4.5 3.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 5.0 3.500 2.85 9.96 47.7%
Mean 2.92 4.13 4.00 4.08 5.00 3.67 3.46 0.42 4.67 4.71 4.71 4.17 1.33 4.46 Overall Weighted Score 147.42
CoV 27.2% 7.5% 35.8% 26.5% 16.8% 19.0% 346.4% 9.5% 14.6% 16.0% 11.8% 86.6% 32.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N

Comments

Not updated, no current project proposed.

No project description at all. Is this the "new" project?

Return to Project Worksheets

Elwha Estuary Conservation and Restoration

Project ID
09055.2
Overall Weighted Score
164.53
Mean of all Scores
3.97
SD of all Scores
0.80
2 X SD of all Scores
1.60
Mean – 2 X
2.37
Mean + 2 X
5.57
Elwha Estuary Conservation and Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 4.0 3.5 2.0 5.0 1.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 3.857 4.08 15.73 34.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.000 2.88 11.54 30.6%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.893 2.81 10.93 20.9%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.250 3.65 15.53 27.6%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 1.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.036 3.27 13.19 30.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 4.107 4.12 16.90 22.0%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.000 4.04 16.15 27.3%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.107 3.88 15.95 23.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.536 3.62 12.78 29.1%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.143 3.23 13.38 22.4%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 2.679 2.85 7.62 56.1%
Mean 2.54 4.13 3.88 3.67 3.92 2.38 3.25 4.58 4.79 4.17 4.92 3.92 4.71 4.71 Overall Weighted Score 164.53
CoV 34.0% 7.5% 30.7% 37.4% 22.3% 51.7% 33.1% 10.2% 12.2% 33.3% 5.9% 16.2% 13.2% 13.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Little River LWD Project

Project ID
13102
Overall Weighted Score
161.79
Mean of all Scores
3.99
SD of all Scores
0.58
2 X SD of all Scores
1.15
Mean – 2 X
2.84
Mean + 2 X
5.15
Little River LWD Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 4.0 4.0 1.0 NS 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.077 4.08 16.62 26.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 NS 3.5 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.115 2.88 11.87 19.9%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 NS 3.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.538 2.81 9.93 14.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.154 3.65 15.18 22.2%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.115 3.27 13.45 23.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 NS 3.5 0.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 0.0 3.038 4.12 12.50 61.7%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.962 4.04 16.00 21.5%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.385 3.88 17.03 14.1%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.385 3.62 12.24 13.7%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.077 3.23 13.17 18.6%
12 Project Readiness 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 NS 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.154 2.85 8.98 27.8%
Mean 3.17 4.13 3.92 3.25 5.00 3.54 3.00 4.04 4.13 4.50 4.63 4.08 4.33 4.21 Overall Weighted Score 161.79
CoV 22.7% 7.5% 33.5% 43.8% 16.4% 47.1% 16.2% 15.6% 20.1% 11.4% 14.6% 13.3% 34.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Indian Creek Habitat Restoration Project

Project ID
16103.1
Overall Weighted Score
165.71
Mean of all Scores
4.09
SD of all Scores
0.50
2 X SD of all Scores
1.00
Mean – 2 X
3.09
Mean + 2 X
5.08
Indian Creek Habitat Restoration Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.038 4.08 16.46 14.7%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.308 2.88 12.43 17.4%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 NS 3.5 3.5 5.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.000 2.81 11.23 15.3%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.192 3.65 15.32 18.6%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.192 3.27 13.71 19.8%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 4.0 1.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 0.0 3.538 4.12 14.56 42.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 NS 4.0 2.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 4.115 4.04 16.62 18.7%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.077 3.88 15.84 18.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 2.5 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 3.5 4.5 3.346 3.62 12.10 23.9%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.231 3.23 13.67 15.0%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 NS 4.0 2.5 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.154 2.85 8.98 25.4%
Mean 2.92 4.13 3.79 4.42 5.00 3.83 3.58 4.38 4.00 4.46 3.83 4.08 4.50 4.29 Overall Weighted Score 165.71
CoV 25.1% 7.5% 35.3% 11.7% 12.8% 20.5% 13.0% 25.0% 18.8% 24.5% 10.2% 14.2% 32.7%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Elwha Hot Springs Road Restoration

Project ID
16104
Overall Weighted Score
136.53
Mean of all Scores
3.43
SD of all Scores
1.09
2 X SD of all Scores
2.18
Mean – 2 X
1.25
Mean + 2 X
5.61
Elwha Hot Springs Road Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 NS 4.0 2.5 3.5 2.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 0.0 4.0 3.115 4.08 12.70 38.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 NS 4.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 3.577 2.88 10.32 40.7%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 3.0 3.5 2.0 NS 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.000 2.81 8.42 39.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.0 2.5 5.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 3.538 3.65 12.93 43.7%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 3.192 3.27 10.44 43.6%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 NS 4.5 0.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 2.923 4.12 12.03 61.2%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 NS 4.5 2.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.308 4.04 13.36 36.8%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 NS 4.0 2.5 5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.308 3.88 12.85 40.2%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 NS 4.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 3.0 2.769 3.62 10.01 43.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 0.0 5.0 3.846 3.23 12.43 36.5%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 NS 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 2.192 2.85 6.24 55.5%
Mean 2.71 3.17 3.58 3.92 5.00 4.04 2.54 4.04 2.83 3.83 4.00 3.92 0.42 4.08 Overall Weighted Score 136.53
CoV 29.9% 18.2% 38.9% 29.7% 15.3% 43.1% 22.7% 49.0% 31.1% 21.3% 15.2% 346.4% 28.5%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Comments

This area is not suitable for a road. The Park can address its goals for access without a road here.

Return to Project Worksheets

Ediz Hook Drift Cell Feasibility

Project ID
22004
Overall Weighted Score
138.97
Mean of all Scores
3.48
SD of all Scores
0.80
2 X SD of all Scores
1.61
Mean – 2 X
1.87
Mean + 2 X
5.09
Ediz Hook Drift Cell Feasibility scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 NS 2.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.154 4.08 12.86 26.2%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 NS 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.308 2.88 9.54 36.8%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 NS 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.500 2.81 9.83 27.4%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.615 3.65 13.21 31.5%
6 Addresses other stocks 1.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.385 3.27 11.07 37.3%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 NS 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 0.0 2.346 4.12 9.66 68.2%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 NS 1.0 2.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 2.0 3.077 4.04 12.43 38.6%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.500 3.88 13.60 30.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.538 3.62 12.79 27.9%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 NS 2.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.731 3.23 12.05 35.3%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 NS 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.885 2.85 8.21 35.5%
Mean 2.22 3.22 3.76 4.05 4.64 2.01 2.80 2.97 3.43 3.34 3.80 4.05 4.76 3.64 Overall Weighted Score 138.97
CoV 36.9% 16.5% 33.5% 26.2% 54.5% 41.3% 29.9% 26.0% 27.8% 20.1% 11.5% 6.9% 46.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Port Angeles Harbor/ Tributaries Conservation and Restoration

Project ID
23002
Overall Weighted Score
146.20
Mean of all Scores
3.71
SD of all Scores
0.68
2 X SD of all Scores
1.36
Mean – 2 X
2.35
Mean + 2 X
5.07
Port Angeles Harbor/ Tributaries Conservation and Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 NS 5.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.583 4.08 14.61 18.7%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 NS 3.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.667 2.88 10.58 26.2%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.833 2.81 10.76 22.5%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.875 3.65 14.16 25.9%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.833 3.27 12.53 23.8%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 NS 3.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 NS 5.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 2.583 4.12 10.63 63.8%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 NS 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 NS 5.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 3.125 4.04 12.62 31.4%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 NS 5.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.667 3.88 14.24 22.8%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 2.5 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.708 3.62 13.41 22.6%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 NS 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.875 3.23 12.52 19.2%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 NS 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 NS 3.5 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.250 2.85 6.40 45.9%
Mean 2.64 3.18 3.64 3.97 4.64 3.47 2.84 3.59 3.68 4.64 4.84 4.01 2.97 3.80 Overall Weighted Score 146.20
CoV 31.5% 16.6% 29.7% 31.7% 13.8% 43.9% 15.0% 19.9% 9.0% 8.1% 46.2% 42.7%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Overarching and nebulous. Needs assessment of specific actions and locations phased approach. Polluted environment. Given the cost/benefit – other undeveloped spot should be priority.

Return to Project Worksheets

Valley Creek Restoration Phase 3

Project ID
09021
Overall Weighted Score
116.22
Mean of all Scores
2.80
SD of all Scores
0.43
2 X SD of all Scores
0.86
Mean – 2 X
1.94
Mean + 2 X
3.67
Valley Creek Restoration Phase 3 scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 2.96 4.64 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.607 4.08 14.71 16.5%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.821 2.88 8.14 24.7%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.500 2.81 9.83 23.8%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.643 3.65 6.00 75.9%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.143 3.27 10.27 26.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 1.5 2.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 1.5 0.0 2.107 4.12 8.67 65.9%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.5 3.143 4.04 12.69 40.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.107 3.88 12.07 40.5%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 2.750 3.62 9.94 27.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.821 3.23 12.35 18.2%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 1.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.429 2.85 6.91 45.6%
Mean 2.21 2.76 2.51 3.38 2.34 3.05 3.09 2.80 2.92 3.17 3.51 2.96 2.46 2.09 Overall Weighted Score 116.22
CoV 22.1% 15.8% 65.2% 47.5% 68.3% 18.6% 28.0% 31.5% 45.8% 23.2% 26.1% 43.8% 44.3% 68.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Ennis Creek Fish Passage Barrier Removal

Project ID
11088.3
Overall Weighted Score
152.32
Mean of all Scores
3.58
SD of all Scores
0.65
2 X SD of all Scores
1.29
Mean – 2 X
2.29
Mean + 2 X
4.88
Ennis Creek Fish Passage Barrier Removal scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.530 2.96 7.49 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 2.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.231 4.08 17.25 17.8%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 4.5 3.769 2.88 10.87 20.0%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.0 NS 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.769 2.81 10.58 20.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.0 3.5 0.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.308 3.65 12.09 37.3%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.5 1.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.692 3.27 12.07 27.4%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 0.0 2.0 NS 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 2.808 4.12 11.55 66.1%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 NS 4.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.077 4.04 16.46 19.9%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.077 3.88 15.84 18.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 2.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.038 3.62 14.60 19.2%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.192 3.23 13.54 19.8%
12 Project Readiness 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 1.5 3.500 2.85 9.96 31.9%
Mean 3.04 3.25 3.34 4.29 2.53 3.67 3.00 3.79 4.29 2.54 4.42 4.00 4.29 3.71 Overall Weighted Score 152.32
CoV 12.9% 13.8% 51.2% 24.4% 17.6% 43.7% 15.2% 15.9% 22.9% 17.1% 14.9% 20.0% 42.3%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Morse Creek Property Acquisition

Project ID
09026
Overall Weighted Score
133.90
Mean of all Scores
3.30
SD of all Scores
0.55
2 X SD of all Scores
1.10
Mean – 2 X
2.20
Mean + 2 X
4.41
Morse Creek Property Acquisition scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 2.96 12.13 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.192 4.08 13.01 34.8%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.115 2.88 8.99 27.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 NS 3.0 3.5 4.5 3.269 2.81 9.18 22.2%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.385 3.65 12.37 29.0%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.462 3.27 11.32 23.2%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.577 4.12 14.72 18.8%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.731 4.04 11.03 44.6%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.231 3.88 12.55 22.4%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.577 3.62 9.32 28.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 3.5 NS 3.5 3.0 5.0 3.769 3.23 12.18 23.4%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 2.0 3.5 NS 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.500 2.85 7.12 39.2%
Mean 2.47 3.17 3.05 2.84 2.17 3.05 3.38 3.72 3.63 3.63 4.10 3.38 3.63 4.01 Overall Weighted Score 133.90
CoV 23.0% 12.9% 52.7% 44.9% 39.3% 19.6% 23.1% 10.9% 23.7% 15.8% 19.3% 13.5% 19.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Proposal appears to be written in 2009 and needs updated.

Return to Project Worksheets

Morse Creek Acquisition & Restoration

Project ID
16102
Overall Weighted Score
154.32
Mean of all Scores
3.86
SD of all Scores
0.62
2 X SD of all Scores
1.24
Mean – 2 X
2.61
Mean + 2 X
5.10
Morse Creek Acquisition & Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 2.96 12.13 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 NS 3.5 5.0 NS 2.0 NS 4.0 5.0 NS NS 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.889 4.08 15.85 26.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 NS 4.0 4.0 NS 2.0 NS 3.5 4.5 NS NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.667 2.88 10.58 23.6%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 NS 3.5 5.0 NS 3.0 NS 4.0 4.0 NS NS 2.5 4.0 4.5 3.667 2.81 10.29 23.6%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 NS 5.0 5.0 NS 2.0 NS 3.5 5.0 NS NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.944 3.65 14.41 27.9%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.5 NS 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 NS 3.0 5.0 NS NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.889 3.27 12.71 23.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS 4.0 3.0 NS 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 NS NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.611 4.12 14.86 21.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 NS 1.0 5.0 NS 2.0 NS 3.0 5.0 NS NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.278 4.04 13.24 42.5%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 NS 4.0 5.0 NS 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 NS NS 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.000 3.88 15.54 22.5%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.0 NS 3.0 4.0 NS 3.0 NS 3.5 4.5 NS NS 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.556 3.62 12.85 25.8%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 5.0 5.0 NS 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 NS NS 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.167 3.23 13.46 25.5%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 NS 2.0 3.0 NS 3.0 NS 4.0 4.0 NS NS 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.944 2.85 8.38 40.2%
Mean 2.51 4.10 3.59 4.42 4.10 2.76 4.10 3.72 4.67 4.10 4.10 3.34 4.42 4.09 Overall Weighted Score 154.32
CoV 24.9% 32.0% 17.8% 23.2% 10.9% 9.2% 19.8% 11.5% 17.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

How old is this? Wasn't dam removed a few years ago?

Return to Project Worksheets

Lower Morse Creek Feasibility Study

Project ID
10079
Overall Weighted Score
144.02
Mean of all Scores
3.58
SD of all Scores
0.63
2 X SD of all Scores
1.27
Mean – 2 X
2.31
Mean + 2 X
4.85
Lower Morse Creek Feasibility Study scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 4.096 2.96 12.13 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 NS 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.750 4.08 15.29 17.5%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 NS 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.708 2.88 10.70 21.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 NS 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 2.5 4.0 4.5 3.792 2.81 10.65 24.8%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 NS 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.083 3.65 14.92 19.4%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.917 3.27 12.80 23.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 NS 0.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 NS 3.5 4.5 0.0 2.208 4.12 9.09 76.3%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 NS 2.0 4.5 5.0 3.5 NS 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.292 4.04 13.29 28.6%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 NS 2.5 5.0 4.5 3.0 NS 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.667 3.88 14.24 26.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.5 4.5 2.0 NS 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.333 3.62 12.05 21.5%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 1.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.708 3.23 11.98 24.0%
12 Project Readiness 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 NS 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 NS 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.417 2.85 6.88 53.5%
Mean 2.42 2.92 3.55 4.09 3.38 4.10 2.55 3.97 4.47 3.80 4.10 3.17 4.22 3.42 Overall Weighted Score 144.02
CoV 29.8% 18.2% 42.7% 16.3% 35.9% 45.1% 11.4% 12.9% 28.9% 18.6% 9.3% 39.4%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection Project

Project ID
09027.2
Overall Weighted Score
131.84
Mean of all Scores
3.40
SD of all Scores
1.21
2 X SD of all Scores
2.42
Mean – 2 X
0.99
Mean + 2 X
5.82
Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 NS 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 NS 3.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 3.125 4.08 12.74 45.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 NS 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 NS 3.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 4.5 2.875 2.88 8.29 45.8%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 NS 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 NS 3.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 4.5 4.5 3.292 2.81 9.24 45.1%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 NS 0.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 NS 3.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.5 4.5 2.708 3.65 9.90 67.5%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 NS 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 NS 3.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 3.375 3.27 11.03 43.4%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 NS 3.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 3.500 4.12 14.40 41.8%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 NS 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 NS 2.0 4.5 0.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 2.458 4.04 9.93 61.0%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 3.5 3.0 NS 3.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 3.375 3.88 13.11 46.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 NS 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 2.958 3.62 10.70 39.1%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.0 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 3.750 3.23 12.12 44.2%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 NS 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 NS 1.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.333 2.85 6.64 58.7%
Mean 2.59 4.64 3.30 3.89 3.43 3.01 4.64 2.97 4.59 0.39 3.80 1.84 4.39 4.18 Overall Weighted Score 131.84
CoV 28.4% 44.8% 36.6% 30.8% 22.2% 29.9% 16.6% 346.4% 17.6% 58.8% 13.1% 18.1%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N

Comments

Old proposal.

Return to Project Worksheets

Siebert Creek Large Wood Restoration: Old Olympic Highway 101

Project ID
11090.1
Overall Weighted Score
129.65
Mean of all Scores
3.04
SD of all Scores
0.80
2 X SD of all Scores
1.60
Mean – 2 X
1.44
Mean + 2 X
4.64
Siebert Creek Large Wood Restoration: Old Olympic Highway 101 scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 2.96 5.53 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.5 1.0 4.5 NS 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.615 4.08 14.74 31.0%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.5 NS 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.5 3.346 2.88 9.65 33.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.654 2.81 10.26 27.0%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 NS 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 3.192 3.65 11.66 43.6%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.538 3.27 11.57 27.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 NS 2.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 2.038 4.12 8.39 75.2%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.423 4.04 13.82 30.3%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 NS 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.538 3.88 13.75 28.5%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.923 3.62 10.57 24.0%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 1.0 4.5 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.423 3.23 11.06 34.2%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 4.5 NS 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.038 2.85 8.65 33.9%
Mean 2.41 3.70 3.11 3.66 3.41 2.66 3.16 1.07 3.99 1.87 3.49 3.16 3.66 3.28 Overall Weighted Score 129.65
CoV 12.8% 17.7% 49.3% 29.9% 38.9% 17.4% 38.8% 23.3% 20.8% 23.5% 24.3% 21.2% 43.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N

Comments

Narrative says project should have been completed in 2018, no update given.

Old proposal. Supposed to be done when Highway 101 bridge was constructed.

Return to Project Worksheets

McDonald Creek Large Wood Restoration

Project ID
10078.1
Overall Weighted Score
127.74
Mean of all Scores
3.00
SD of all Scores
0.76
2 X SD of all Scores
1.53
Mean – 2 X
1.47
Mean + 2 X
4.52
McDonald Creek Large Wood Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 1.867 2.96 5.53 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 1.0 4.5 NS 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.500 4.08 14.27 27.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 3.0 1.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.5 NS 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 3.269 2.88 9.43 35.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.538 2.81 9.93 26.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 3.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 3.038 3.65 11.10 44.3%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.423 3.27 11.19 28.5%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.0 4.0 NS 2.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 1.962 4.12 8.07 73.9%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.346 4.04 13.51 26.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 1.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.423 3.88 13.30 29.1%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.5 NS 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.385 3.62 12.24 28.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 4.5 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.423 3.23 11.06 33.1%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 3.0 1.5 5.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 1.0 3.5 NS 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.846 2.85 8.10 33.9%
Mean 2.61 2.86 2.95 3.82 3.28 3.07 3.07 1.07 4.03 1.87 3.41 3.03 3.49 3.41 Overall Weighted Score 127.74
CoV 17.3% 12.1% 57.0% 29.7% 38.5% 14.6% 38.9% 23.3% 19.5% 23.9% 21.2% 18.2% 40.4%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N

Comments

Narrative says project completed 2015. No update given.

Old proposal.

Return to Project Worksheets

McDonald Creek Barrier Removal and Channel Restoration

Project ID
9039.2
Overall Weighted Score
Mean of all Scores
SD of all Scores
2 X SD of all Scores
Mean – 2 X
Mean + 2 X
McDonald Creek Barrier Removal and Channel Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 2.96
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 4.08
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.88
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.81
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.65
6 Addresses other stocks 3.27
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 4.12
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 4.04
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.88
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.62
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.23
12 Project Readiness 2.85
Mean Overall Weighted Score
CoV
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness Bay Shoreline Restoration

Project ID
22003
Overall Weighted Score
166.04
Mean of all Scores
4.06
SD of all Scores
0.72
2 X SD of all Scores
1.44
Mean – 2 X
2.62
Mean + 2 X
5.51
Dungeness Bay Shoreline Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 1.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.923 4.08 15.99 27.9%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.000 2.88 11.54 30.2%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.000 2.81 11.23 22.8%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 1.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.115 3.65 15.04 25.8%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 1.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.923 3.27 12.83 27.9%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.846 4.12 15.83 24.0%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 2.5 4.0 4.5 3.731 4.04 15.07 30.8%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.308 3.88 16.73 18.7%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 NS 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 3.923 3.62 14.18 16.3%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.269 3.23 13.79 18.3%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 4.5 4.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 3.538 2.85 10.07 29.7%
Mean 2.84 3.89 3.97 4.55 4.18 2.39 3.89 4.30 4.84 4.64 4.89 3.64 4.30 4.55 Overall Weighted Score 166.04
CoV 22.8% 10.3% 26.7% 14.4% 10.9% 45.0% 23.6% 9.4% 6.5% 6.1% 17.2% 10.6% 15.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N

Comments

Old proposal. Didn't this happen?

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness River Large Wood Restoration

Project ID
09029.2
Overall Weighted Score
165.69
Mean of all Scores
4.07
SD of all Scores
0.62
2 X SD of all Scores
1.24
Mean – 2 X
2.82
Mean + 2 X
5.31
Dungeness River Large Wood Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 2.96 13.92 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.308 4.08 17.56 19.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.192 2.88 12.09 21.5%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 2.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.077 2.81 11.45 19.9%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 NS 4.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.269 3.65 15.60 16.3%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.192 3.27 13.71 15.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 NS 5.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 2.885 4.12 11.87 62.6%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.077 4.04 16.46 21.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 NS 5.0 3.5 5.0 4.5 4.115 3.88 15.99 17.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.077 3.62 14.74 20.6%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.923 3.23 12.67 24.3%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.385 2.85 9.63 29.0%
Mean 3.18 3.93 4.10 4.31 3.93 2.81 3.27 4.81 4.52 4.70 4.85 3.93 4.43 4.14 Overall Weighted Score 165.69
CoV 17.0% 10.0% 29.1% 22.5% 21.3% 26.2% 38.4% 5.1% 6.8% 6.4% 11.3% 19.8% 34.3%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N

Comments

More specifics about the science of how much wood is coming in & what’s needed for the future would be helpful.

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness River Riparian Habitat Protection

Project ID
09030.1
Overall Weighted Score
166.77
Mean of all Scores
4.13
SD of all Scores
0.72
2 X SD of all Scores
1.45
Mean – 2 X
2.68
Mean + 2 X
5.58
Dungeness River Riparian Habitat Protection scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 2.96 13.92 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 NS 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 2.5 5.0 5.0 4.042 4.08 16.48 20.7%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.917 2.88 11.30 22.3%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 NS 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 2.0 4.0 4.5 3.875 2.81 10.88 25.9%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.250 3.65 15.53 17.0%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.000 3.27 13.08 20.6%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 NS 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 4.292 4.12 17.66 23.5%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 NS 1.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.0 3.250 4.04 13.13 41.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 4.5 1.5 4.5 5.0 4.042 3.88 15.70 26.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 NS 4.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 4.042 3.62 14.61 22.0%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 NS 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS 3.5 2.0 5.0 5.0 4.167 3.23 13.46 25.8%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.5 2.0 5.0 5.0 3.875 2.85 11.03 29.7%
Mean 2.89 4.70 4.39 4.64 3.89 3.68 3.60 4.18 4.93 4.70 4.35 2.56 4.52 4.81 Overall Weighted Score 166.77
CoV 21.5% 24.9% 13.9% 27.2% 15.4% 23.4% 6.6% 3.3% 10.4% 37.4% 9.5% 6.7%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness River Riparian Restoration

Project ID
09031.3
Overall Weighted Score
159.51
Mean of all Scores
4.05
SD of all Scores
0.79
2 X SD of all Scores
1.57
Mean – 2 X
2.48
Mean + 2 X
5.62
Dungeness River Riparian Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 2.96 13.92 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 1.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 NS 4.0 4.5 3.727 4.08 15.20 28.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 NS 4.0 5.0 3.636 2.88 10.49 32.6%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 NS 4.0 5.0 4.000 2.81 11.23 25.6%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 NS 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 NS 3.5 5.0 3.773 3.65 13.78 30.4%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 2.5 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 NS 3.5 5.0 3.818 3.27 12.48 27.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 4.0 3.5 3.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 NS 5.0 0.0 3.136 4.12 12.91 55.7%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 3.864 4.04 15.60 21.7%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 NS 5.0 4.0 4.045 3.88 15.72 19.5%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 NS 4.0 NS 5.0 4.5 3.909 3.62 14.13 21.3%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 3.5 NS 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 5.0 NS 5.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.000 3.23 12.92 26.2%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 NS 3.5 NS 5.0 5.0 3.909 2.85 11.13 27.3%
Mean 2.85 3.93 4.70 4.64 3.56 2.52 2.97 3.97 4.93 4.70 4.47 4.70 4.47 4.31 Overall Weighted Score 159.51
CoV 23.3% 10.0% 10.4% 21.0% 40.3% 39.1% 7.5% 3.3% 9.0% 13.9% 32.7%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

What revegetation approaches will be taken? The Society of Ecological Restoration has good protocols.

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness Drift Cell Conservation

Project ID
09032.1
Overall Weighted Score
159.63
Mean of all Scores
3.93
SD of all Scores
0.82
2 X SD of all Scores
1.64
Mean – 2 X
2.29
Mean + 2 X
5.56
Dungeness Drift Cell Conservation scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 3.692 4.08 15.05 31.5%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.0 2.0 4.5 5.0 3.615 2.88 10.43 34.4%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.846 2.81 10.80 24.5%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 NS 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.000 3.65 14.62 30.2%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.846 3.27 12.57 29.7%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 NS 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 4.038 4.12 16.62 26.5%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 NS 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 2.769 4.04 11.18 64.9%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 NS 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.269 3.88 16.58 17.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 4.000 3.62 14.46 22.8%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.077 3.23 13.17 22.9%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 4.0 5.0 NS 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.654 2.85 10.40 33.7%
Mean 3.01 3.93 4.09 4.22 3.39 1.97 3.84 4.05 4.97 4.64 4.05 3.22 4.89 4.68 Overall Weighted Score 159.63
CoV 21.1% 9.7% 33.0% 30.2% 39.7% 60.2% 22.7% 17.2% 2.1% 20.9% 21.2% 4.3% 6.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N

Comments

Conservation easements preferred regardless of who owns the land.

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Irrigation Efficiencies

Project ID
09091.1
Overall Weighted Score
162.13
Mean of all Scores
4.00
SD of all Scores
0.79
2 X SD of all Scores
1.57
Mean – 2 X
2.42
Mean + 2 X
5.57
Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Irrigation Efficiencies scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 2.96 13.92 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.115 4.08 16.78 19.3%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.000 2.88 11.54 26.5%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 NS 4.5 4.0 3.923 2.81 11.01 19.4%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.269 3.65 15.60 21.2%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.192 3.27 13.71 21.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 3.038 4.12 12.50 62.5%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 3.385 4.04 13.67 34.7%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 NS 5.0 4.5 4.000 3.88 15.54 23.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.5 3.885 3.62 14.04 24.2%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 NS 5.0 5.0 4.154 3.23 13.42 20.5%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 3.0 1.5 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 NS 5.0 3.0 3.654 2.85 10.40 28.1%
Mean 3.02 3.93 3.60 4.39 3.10 3.43 2.52 3.64 4.93 4.72 4.56 4.70 4.93 4.47 Overall Weighted Score 162.13
CoV 20.3% 10.0% 37.8% 20.2% 38.3% 19.4% 45.4% 17.5% 3.3% 13.1% 11.9% 3.3% 13.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

What are impacts? Loss of amphibians/aquatic veg. + animals in ditches use by waterfowl loss of groundwater recharge. How does this really translate? When water flows are very low in late summer irrigators face restrictions that won't change.

Low flow thresholds are likely to occur most summers – will piping really save about 7cfs? when draws will be restricted anyway? Of course the water "savings" will be through the whole irrigation season. Will the "saved" water stay in the river or used for other commercial/residential uses?

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Storage

Project ID
12098.2
Overall Weighted Score
153.90
Mean of all Scores
3.87
SD of all Scores
0.88
2 X SD of all Scores
1.77
Mean – 2 X
2.11
Mean + 2 X
5.64
Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Storage scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 2.96 13.92 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 4.0 3.5 5.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 4.5 3.958 4.08 16.14 24.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 4.5 3.917 2.88 11.30 27.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.5 3.5 5.0 4.0 NS NS 5.0 4.5 3.625 2.81 10.18 25.7%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.083 3.65 14.92 26.0%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 5.0 3.917 3.27 12.80 29.2%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 4.0 3.042 4.12 12.52 66.7%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 4.0 3.250 4.04 13.13 40.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 4.0 3.708 3.88 14.41 34.7%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 5.0 3.5 NS NS 5.0 4.5 3.667 3.62 13.26 22.8%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.000 3.23 12.92 19.9%
12 Project Readiness 3.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 NS NS 2.5 3.0 2.958 2.85 8.42 35.6%
Mean 2.97 3.93 3.43 4.31 2.27 3.06 2.60 3.60 4.89 4.60 4.70 4.70 4.77 4.39 Overall Weighted Score 153.90
CoV 21.2% 10.0% 41.5% 22.5% 51.8% 29.3% 43.7% 16.4% 6.0% 15.3% 15.1% 13.1%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

If reservoir size is reduced, is project still worth the investment? Explain prohibitions (if any) from using conserved water for other uses, ie.. commerical + residential. Describe impacts, such as reduction/loss and proposed mitigation of Corylus cornuta, Ribes lobbii, Heuchera chlorautha at proposed res. site. If water conservation was really important then new residential development would be capped.

Return to Project Worksheets

Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration

Project ID
9092.2
Overall Weighted Score
174.23
Mean of all Scores
4.31
SD of all Scores
0.57
2 X SD of all Scores
1.14
Mean – 2 X
3.18
Mean + 2 X
5.45
Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 4.699 2.96 13.92 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.409 4.08 17.98 15.9%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.273 2.88 12.33 19.1%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.227 2.81 11.87 17.0%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.318 3.65 15.78 18.1%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.182 3.27 13.67 18.7%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 4.0 3.636 4.12 14.97 30.2%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.409 4.04 17.81 16.7%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.273 3.88 16.60 16.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.273 3.62 15.45 16.0%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 4.227 3.23 13.66 16.2%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 5.0 NS NS NS 5.0 5.0 3.591 2.85 10.22 35.1%
Mean 3.14 3.93 4.31 4.47 4.22 3.56 3.68 4.14 4.97 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.97 4.89 Overall Weighted Score 174.23
CoV 17.0% 10.0% 26.0% 25.9% 9.8% 16.2% 14.3% 8.1% 1.7% 1.7% 6.0%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

What portions "completed" What is remaining?

Return to Project Worksheets

Sequim Bay Shoreline Restoration

Project ID
14107
Overall Weighted Score
147.93
Mean of all Scores
3.73
SD of all Scores
0.85
2 X SD of all Scores
1.70
Mean – 2 X
2.03
Mean + 2 X
5.43
Sequim Bay Shoreline Restoration scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.0 NS 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 3.417 4.08 13.93 35.8%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.5 NS 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.458 2.88 9.98 31.7%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 3.0 3.5 NS 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.417 2.81 9.59 33.5%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.5 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.667 3.65 13.40 33.1%
6 Addresses other stocks 3.0 3.5 NS 5.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.667 3.27 11.99 31.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 NS 1.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.375 4.12 13.89 36.9%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 3.0 3.5 NS 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.583 4.04 14.47 30.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 NS 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.625 3.88 14.08 31.2%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 NS 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.500 3.62 12.65 20.2%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 NS 5.0 3.0 4.5 5.0 3.833 3.23 12.38 25.7%
12 Project Readiness 2.5 4.0 NS 5.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 NS 3.0 3.0 3.5 1.0 2.750 2.85 7.83 47.5%
Mean 2.84 3.39 4.64 3.80 2.05 2.72 3.80 3.14 4.72 4.64 4.80 3.34 4.09 4.22 Overall Weighted Score 147.93
CoV 21.6% 15.1% 34.5% 56.7% 27.7% 13.6% 31.1% 12.3% 12.0% 16.9% 12.9% 26.1%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

What portions "completed" What is remaining?

Return to Project Worksheets

North Sequim Bay Drift Cell Conservation Project

Project ID
09093
Overall Weighted Score
153.18
Mean of all Scores
3.77
SD of all Scores
0.82
2 X SD of all Scores
1.65
Mean – 2 X
2.12
Mean + 2 X
5.42
North Sequim Bay Drift Cell Conservation Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 4.639 2.96 13.74 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.5 3.0 3.5 1.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.385 4.08 13.80 41.4%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.5 5.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.538 2.88 10.21 36.2%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.231 2.81 9.07 31.3%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.808 3.65 13.91 34.6%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.577 3.27 11.69 35.1%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.5 3.0 4.5 1.0 5.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.962 4.12 16.30 31.5%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 2.923 4.04 11.80 56.7%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 4.038 3.88 15.69 22.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 3.923 3.62 14.18 21.4%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 2.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 NS 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.000 3.23 12.92 27.0%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 NS 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.462 2.85 9.85 28.6%
Mean 2.55 3.39 3.93 3.47 3.39 2.18 3.89 3.39 4.97 4.64 4.84 3.47 4.14 4.59 Overall Weighted Score 153.18
CoV 27.2% 15.1% 34.4% 46.0% 39.7% 51.5% 19.4% 21.6% 2.1% 9.0% 16.3% 24.4% 13.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Project proposal outlines a possible threat that could be addressed by regulation.

Return to Project Worksheets

Chicken Coop Road Culvert Replacement Project

Project ID
11094
Overall Weighted Score
123.37
Mean of all Scores
2.78
SD of all Scores
0.74
2 X SD of all Scores
1.48
Mean – 2 X
1.30
Mean + 2 X
4.27
Chicken Coop Road Culvert Replacement Project scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 1.566 2.96 4.64 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 2.0 3.0 NS 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.5 NS 2.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.042 4.08 12.40 38.7%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 2.5 3.5 NS 5.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.292 2.88 9.50 25.5%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 2.5 3.5 NS 5.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 4.0 NS 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.375 2.81 9.48 27.6%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 2.5 3.0 NS 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.792 3.65 10.20 42.1%
6 Addresses other stocks 2.0 3.5 NS 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 NS 4.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.125 3.27 10.22 34.2%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 2.0 3.0 NS 2.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 3.0 0.0 2.375 4.12 9.77 56.2%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 2.5 3.5 NS 2.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 NS 4.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 2.958 4.04 11.95 29.2%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 2.5 3.0 NS 5.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.375 3.88 13.11 25.4%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 2.5 3.5 NS 4.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 NS 4.0 3.5 4.0 1.5 3.125 3.62 11.30 24.7%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 3.0 3.0 NS 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 NS 5.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.542 3.23 11.44 28.5%
12 Project Readiness 2.0 4.0 NS 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.292 2.85 9.37 32.0%
Mean 2.30 3.17 1.57 3.30 2.59 2.84 2.63 2.55 3.71 1.57 3.63 3.30 3.80 2.05 Overall Weighted Score 123.37
CoV 16.8% 18.9% 56.4% 39.1% 21.2% 27.9% 22.4% 24.3% 26.0% 20.4% 24.4% 65.3%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Monitoring Dungeness Floodplain Changes

Project ID
22005
Overall Weighted Score
126.31
Mean of all Scores
3.82
SD of all Scores
0.70
2 X SD of all Scores
1.40
Mean – 2 X
2.42
Mean + 2 X
5.22
Monitoring Dungeness Floodplain Changes scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Advances robust harvestable stocks 2.5 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 NS 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.955 3.47 13.73 19.1%
2 Advances implementation of recovery plans 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 NS 3.5 5.0 4.5 NS NS 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.09 4.03 16.48 15.3%
3 Advances habitat protection and restoration 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.5 NS 3.5 5.0 5.0 NS NS 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.18 4.42 18.47 16.3%
4 Advances recovery of ecosystem function 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 3.5 NS 3.5 5.0 5.0 NS NS 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.95 4.31 17.03 21.5%
5 Advances ecosystem awareness 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 NS 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.05 2.78 11.24 21.7%
6 Advances integration 3.0 3.5 3.5 1.0 3.0 NS 3.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.91 2.28 6.63 55.9%
7 Fulfills requirements of external agencies 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.5 NS 2.0 4.5 5.0 NS NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.64 2.31 8.38 25.4%
8 Advances multi-agency funding strategy 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 2.5 NS 4.0 4.5 5.0 NS NS 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.00 2.03 8.11 19.4%
9 Spatial scale of influence 2.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.5 NS 4.0 5.0 5.0 NS NS 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.82 3.56 13.58 22.9%
10 Temporal scale of influence 2.5 3.5 5.0 3.0 2.0 NS 3.5 4.5 5.0 NS NS 4.5 1.0 5.0 3.59 3.53 12.67 37.8%
Mean 2.85 3.65 4.25 3.40 2.95 3.50 4.85 4.95 4.35 3.50 3.75 Overall Weighted Score 126.31
CoV 11.8% 9.2% 10.0% 39.7% 18.7% 17.8% 5.0% 3.2% 5.6% 38.7% 36.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

The project description was poorly written. If the proponent cannot communicate clearly in writing a proposal they are unlikely to adequately do so when reporting the results of the proposed study. The scientist(s) conducting the monitoring were not identified and no credentials or experience cited.

Return to Project Worksheets

Clallam Watertype Inventory and Assessment

Project ID
09053
Overall Weighted Score
114.76
Mean of all Scores
3.44
SD of all Scores
0.64
2 X SD of all Scores
1.28
Mean – 2 X
2.15
Mean + 2 X
4.72
Clallam Watertype Inventory and Assessment scoring worksheet
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Advances robust harvestable stocks 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 NS 3.5 4.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.692 3.47 9.35 50.6%
2 Advances implementation of recovery plans 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 NS 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 3.42 4.03 13.79 26.6%
3 Advances habitat protection and restoration 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 NS 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.81 4.42 16.82 23.7%
4 Advances recovery of ecosystem function 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.5 NS 4.0 5.0 4.5 2.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.77 4.31 16.23 25.8%
5 Advances ecosystem awareness 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 NS 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.04 2.78 11.22 27.9%
6 Advances integration 2.0 2.5 3.5 1.0 2.5 NS 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.23 2.28 5.08 75.8%
7 Fulfills requirements of external agencies 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 2.5 NS 2.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 4.00 2.31 9.22 25.0%
8 Advances multi-agency funding strategy 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 NS 3.5 4.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 2.0 2.54 2.03 5.15 62.0%
9 Spatial scale of influence 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 NS 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 3.58 3.56 12.72 23.4%
10 Temporal scale of influence 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 NS 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.31 3.53 15.20 16.1%
Mean 2.70 3.00 3.85 4.10 2.90 3.45 4.50 3.75 3.70 2.70 4.30 2.65 3.10 Overall Weighted Score 114.76
CoV 21.7% 7.9% 22.1% 31.4% 31.3% 24.1% 11.7% 53.4% 38.3% 46.4% 6.0% 66.6% 58.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Comments

Return to Project Worksheets

Capital Scoring Criteria

N. Olympic LE Workplan Capital WORK PLAN Project Criteria
ID Criteria for Ranking Criteria Narrative 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Weight
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. 2.96
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 4.08
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 is increasing Addresses depressed stock that is decreasing Addresses critical stock 2.88
4 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 2.81
5 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 3.65
6 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 3.27
7 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 4.12
8 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 4.04
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions How well does the project restore and maintain ecosystem functions? 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 3.88
10 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 3.62
11 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 3.23
12 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 2.85

Capital Project Maximum Possible Score

Overall Weighted Score: 206.96

Capital Project — MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORE
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Watershed Priority 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.96 14.81 0.0%
2 Addresses limiting factor(s) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.08 20.40 0.0%
3 Addresses stock status and trends 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.88 14.40 0.0%
4 Addresses progress toward recovery 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.81 14.05 0.0%
5 Addresses an ESA-listed stock 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.65 18.25 0.0%
6 Addresses other stocks 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.27 16.35 0.0%
7 Protects high-quality fish habitat 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.12 20.60 0.0%
8 Restores formerly productive habitat 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.04 20.20 0.0%
9 Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.88 19.40 0.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.62 18.10 0.0%
11 Temporal Scale of Influence 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.23 16.15 0.0%
12 Project Readiness 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.85 14.25 0.0%
Mean 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Overall Weighted Score 206.96
CoV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Non-Capital Scoring Criteria

Final wording and weights from Fall 2013 Retreat. New or modified wording in BOLDFACE Italics

The scale for criterion mean weight is from 1 to 5, with 5 being highest.

Criteria 1 through 9 inclusive are used to assess Work Plan Narratives for NON-Capital Projects.
All Criteria are used to assess Project Proposals for Current Year’s funding.

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity (NOPLE) for Salmon — Criteria & Weights for Scoring and Ranking NON-Capital Projects
ID Criteria for Ranking Criteria Narratives Mean Weight
1 Advances robust harvestable stocks This criterion derives from NOPLE's GOAL to achieve harvestable fish stocks. To what extent does the proposed work lead to progress towards harvestable fish stocks? 3.23
2 Advances implementation of recovery plan(s) This criterion derives from NOPLE's GOAL to implement recovery plans. To what extent does the proposed work lead to progress in the implementation of recovery plan(s)? 3.73
3 Advances habitat protection and restoration This criterion derives from NOPLE's GOAL to protect and restore salmon habitat. To what extent does the proposed work lead to progress in protecting and/or restoring salmon habitat? 4.05
4 Advances recovery of ecosystem function This criterion derives from NOPLE's GOAL to support recovery and restoration of ecosystem function. To what extent does the proposed work lead to progress in the recovery and restoration of ecosystem function(s)? 4.21
5 Advances ecosystem awareness This criterion derives from NOPLE's GOAL to instill ecosystem awareness. To what extent does the proposed work increase the ecosystem awareness and its application? To what extent does the proposed work address and overcome obstacles to awareness? 2.81
6 Advances integration This criterion derives from NOPLE's objective of advancing the integrations of the four H's: Habitat, Harvest, Hatcheries, and Hydropower. To what extent does the proposed work acknowledge the influence of the other H's on the work and the potential influence of the work on the other H's? 2.05
7 Fulfills requirements of external agencies This criterion derives from NOPLE's objective to network with other entities and agencies. To what extent does the proposed work recognize and coordinate with the efforts and requirements of agencies? To what extent does the proposed work contribute to the knowledge and databases at the regional and state levels? 1.71
8 Advances multi- agency funding strategy This criterion derives from NOPLE's objective of diversifying the funding base. To what extent will the proposed work be eligible and competitive for Non-SRFB funding? 1.81
9 Has large spatial- temporal scale of effects This criterion derives from NOPLE's objective to support non-capital projects that benefit salmon recovery on a NOPLE-wide or regional basis. To what extent does the proposed work aid salmon recovery to a broad degree in time and space? 3.38
10 Likelihood of success based on proposer's past success in implementation This criterion is a standard one in project selection and management. What is the probability that the project sponsor will succeed with the proposed work given their previous experience and current expertise and capability with the type of work proposed? 1.92
11 Likelihood of success based on approach This criterion is a standard one in project selection and management. Is the approach appropriate to the work proposed? What is the probability of success of the proposed approach? 3.10
12 Reasonableness of cost and budget This criterion is a standard one in project selection and management. Do the scope of work, overall estimated cost, and budget align? Are the budget items and costs reasonable given the scope of work? 2.69

Non Capital Project Maximum Possible Score

Overall Weighted Score: 163.47

Non Capital Project — MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORE
ID Criteria for Ranking Scorer 1 Scorer 2 Scorer 3 Scorer 4 Scorer 5 Scorer 6 Scorer 7 Scorer 8 Scorer 9 Scorer 10 Scorer 11 Scorer 12 Scorer 13 Scorer 14 Mean Score Weight Weighted Mean Score CoV (%)
1 Advances robust harvestable stocks 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 17.36 0.0%
2 Advances implementation of recovery plans 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 20.14 0.0%
3 Advances habitat protection and restoration 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4 22.08 0.0%
4 Advances recovery of ecosystem function 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.3 21.53 0.0%
5 Advances ecosystem awareness 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.8 13.89 0.0%
6 Advances integration 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.3 11.39 0.0%
7 Fulfills requirements of external agencies 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.3 11.53 0.0%
8 Advances multi-agency funding strategy 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 10.14 0.0%
9 Spatial scale of influence 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.6 17.78 0.0%
10 Temporal scale of influence 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 17.64 0.0%
Mean 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Overall Weighted Score 163.47
CoV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Final Watershed Priorities Sorted by Standardized Score

Final Watershed Priorities Sorted by Standardized Score
WRIA System Overall Standardized Score (Max 5)
18 Elwha River 5.000
18 Dungeness River 4.699
17 + 18 + 19 Nearshore 4.639
18 Morse Creek 4.096
19 Pysht River 3.494
19 Hoko River 3.494
19 Lyre River 3.193
19 Clallam River 2.861
19 Sekiu River 2.831
19 Sail River 2.530
18 Ennis Creek 2.530
19 Salt Creek 2.530
19 Deep Creek 2.199
19 Colville Creek 1.898
17 Jimmycomelately Creek 1.867
19 East Twin River 1.867
19 West Twin River 1.867
18 McDonald Creek 1.867
18 Siebert Creek 1.867
17 Chicken Coop Creek 1.566
17 Dean Creek 1.566
17 Johnson Creek 1.566
19 Butler Creek (19.0112) 1.566
19 Field Creek 1.566
19 Jim Creek 1.566
19 Joe Creek 1.566
19 Murdock Creek 1.566
18 Peabody Creek 1.566
18 Lees Creek 1.566
18 Meadowbrook Creek 1.566
18 Tumwater Creek 1.566
18 Valley Creek 1.566
18 Bell Creek 0.904
18 Cooper Creek (18.0017) 0.904
18 Cassalery Creek 0.904
19 Olsen Creek 0.904
18 Bagley Creek 0.904
18 Dry Creek 0.904
18 Gierin Creek 0.904

Original Source

View the original 2024-2026 Four-Year Work Plan (PDF)

Return to top