2022 & 2023 NOPLE Four Year Workplan

Date: 20-Dec-21

This page has been converted from its original source. View the original 2022 & 2023 Work Plan Scoring Compilation w Ranking Summary_FINAL (PDF)

7 New* & Updated Projects listed from West to East

7 New* & Updated Projects listed from West to East
HWS ID	Title	Category	Narrative Link
21001*	Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA	Capital	SRP Project
19103.1	Johnson Creek Triple Culverts Replacement	Capital	SRP Project
09001.2	Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration	Capital	SRP Project
10080.3	Lyre River Protection and Restoration	Capital	SRP Project
11088.2	Ennis Creek Barrier Replacement	Capital	SRP Project
09027.2	Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection & Restoration	Capital	SRP Project
12098.1	Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Storage	Capital	SRP Project

Return to top

43 Projects Already on the Work Plan (In Rank Order)

43 Projects Already on the Work Plan (In Rank Order)
PRISM ID	Title
09092.1	Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration
09055.1	Elwha River Estuary/Nearshore Conservation and Restoration
09030.1	Dungeness River Riparian Habitat Protection
14106	Elwha Acquisition and Restoration Project
16103	Indian Creek Habitat Restoration Project
09029.1	Dungeness River Large Wood Restoration
13102	Little River LWD Project
09032.1	Dungeness Drift Cell Conservation
09031.1	Dungeness River Riparian Restoration
16102	Morse Creek Acquisition & Restoration
09093	North Sequim Bay Drift Cell Conservation Project
13101.1	Lower Hoko Acquisition and Restoration Project
09009.1	Pysht River Salt Marsh Estuary Restoration Project
12096	Acquisition of Priorities identified in the HCP
09091	Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Irrigation Efficiencies
09011	Twin River Acquisition
09013	Lower Salt Creek Restoration and Protection
09086.1	Pysht Floodplain Acquisition and Restoration
11087	Elwha River Revegetation Project
11085.1	Pysht River Watershed Wood Restoration Phase 4 Project
14107	Sequim Bay Shoreline Restoration
09046	Washington Harbor Habitat Protection Project
09039.2	McDonald Creek Barrier Removal and Channel Restoration
09053	Clallam Watertype Inventory and Assessment
19104	Lyre River Habitat Restoration
19105	Upper Cowan Ranch LWD
10079	Lower Morse Creek Feasibility Study
09003	WRIA 19 Riparian Restoration
11090.1	Siebert Creek Large Wood Restoration
11084	Upper Hoko LWD Restoration Project
10078.1	McDonald Creek Large Wood Restoration
09026	Morse Creek Property Acquisition
19102	Hoko Culvert 80001279 Replacement
09015	Salt Creek Final Fish Passage Corrections Project
11094	Chicken Coop Road Culvert Replacement Project
09015.1	Kreaman Creek, Trib. To Salt Creek
09005	Sekiu Mainstem (RM 2-5) LWD Restoration
09021	Valley Creek Restoration Phase 3
19101	Fish Passage Corrections on Joyce-Piedmont Road

Return to top

Projects Listed in Rank Order (7 Additional Projects in Bold)

Cap Max Possible Score = 206.96
Non-Cap Max Possible Score = 151.80

Projects Listed in Rank Order (7 Additional Projects in Bold)
Rank	Project ID	Title	Category	Weighted Mean Score	Normalized Score
1	09092.1	Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration	Capital	188.27	0.910
2	09055.1	Elwha River Estuary/Nearshore Conservation and Restoration	Capital	181.45	0.877
3	09030.1	Dungeness River Riparian Habitat Protection	Capital	177.34	0.857
4	14106	Elwha Acquisition and Restoration Project	Capital	175.51	0.848
5	16103	Indian Creek Habitat Restoration Project	Capital	174.96	0.845
6	09029.1	Dungeness River Large Wood Restoration	Capital	174.44	0.843
7	13102	Little River LWD Project	Capital	173.07	0.836
8	09032.1	Dungeness Drift Cell Conservation	Capital	173.05	0.836
9	09031.1	Dungeness River Riparian Restoration	Capital	170.77	0.825
10	16102	Morse Creek Acquisition & Restoration	Capital	169.29	0.818
11	09093	North Sequim Bay Drift Cell Conservation Project	Capital	168.80	0.816
12	13101.1	Lower Hoko Acquisition and Restoration Project	Capital	168.29	0.813
13	09009.1	Pysht River Salt Marsh Estuary Restoration Project	Capital	167.66	0.810
14	09016.2	Elwha River ELJ Project	Capital	167.52	0.809
15	16104	Elwha Hot Springs Road Restoration	Capital	166.08	0.802
16	12096	Acquisition of Priorities identified in the HCP	Capital	165.70	0.801
17	09091	Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Irrigation Efficiencies	Capital	163.48	0.790
18	09011	Twin River Acquisition	Capital	162.15	0.783
19	09013	Lower Salt Creek Restoration and Protection	Capital	161.50	0.780
20	09086.1	Pysht Floodplain Acquisition and Restoration	Capital	159.95	0.773
21	11087	Elwha River Revegetation Project	Capital	158.93	0.768
22	11085.1	Pysht River Watershed Wood Restoration Phase 4 Project	Capital	156.98	0.759
23	14107	Sequim Bay Shoreline Restoration	Capital	156.73	0.757
26	09053	Clallam Watertype Inventory and Assessment	Non-	112.37	0.740
27	10080.3	Lyre River Protection and Restoration	Capital Capital	153.03	0.739
28	19104	Lyre River Habitat Restoration	Capital	152.94	0.739
29	19105	Upper Cowan Ranch LWD	Capital	152.33	0.736
30	10079	Lower Morse Creek Feasibility Study	Capital	152.17	0.735
31	12098.1	Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Storage	Capital	150.28	0.726
32	09003	WRIA 19 Riparian Restoration	Capital	149.78	0.724
33	11090.1	Siebert Creek Large Wood Restoration	Capital	149.15	0.721
34	11084	Upper Hoko LWD Restoration Project	Capital	148.44	0.717
35	10078.1	McDonald Creek Large Wood Restoration	Capital	146.66	0.709
36	11088.2	Ennis Creeek Barrier Replacement	Capital	145.01	0.701
37	09001.2	Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration	Capital	142.66	0.689
38	09027.2	Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection & Restoration	Capital	141.93	0.686
39	09026	Morse Creek Property Acquisition	Capital	138.29	0.668
40	19102	Hoko Culvert 80001279 Replacement	Capital	136.34	0.659
41	19103.1	Johnson Creek Triple Culverts Replacement	Capital	136.26	0.658
42	21001	Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA	Capital	133.63	0.646
43	09015	Salt Creek Final Fish Passage Corrections Project	Capital	133.57	0.645
44	11094	Chicken Coop Road Culvert Replacement Project	Capital	128.36	0.620
45	09015.1	Kreaman Creek, Trib. To Salt Creek	Capital	127.13	0.614
46	09005	Sekiu Mainstem (RM 2-5) LWD Restoration	Capital	122.16	0.590
47	09021	Valley Creek Restoration Phase 3	Capital	118.39	0.572
48	19101	Fish Passage Corrections on Joyce-Piedmont Road	Capital	115.17	0.556
49	09004	Hoko River/ Hermans Creek – Instream LWD Supplementation	Capital	104.81	0.506
50	09018	Elwha River Estuary Restoration	Capital	102.19	0.494

Projects ranked 45 & up are eligible to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding

Return to top

2022 & 2023 NOPLE Four Year Workplan Scatterplot

4-Yr Workplan Normalized Scores vs. Rank

Projects ranked 45 & up are eligible to apply for SRFB/PSAR funding.

Data represented in the scatterplot
Rank	Normalized Score
1	0.910
2	0.877
3	0.857
4	0.848
5	0.845
6	0.843
7	0.836
8	0.836
9	0.825
10	0.818
11	0.816
12	0.813
13	0.810
14	0.809
15	0.802
16	0.801
17	0.790
18	0.783
19	0.780
20	0.773
21	0.768
22	0.759
23	0.757
26	0.740
27	0.739
28	0.739
29	0.736
30	0.735
31	0.726
32	0.724
33	0.721
34	0.717
35	0.709
36	0.701
37	0.689
38	0.686
39	0.668
40	0.659
41	0.658
42	0.646
43	0.645
44	0.620
45	0.614
46	0.590
47	0.572
48	0.556
49	0.506
50	0.494

Return to top

Assessment of 7 Additional Work Plan Projects

CoV = Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Assessment of 7 Additional Work Plan Projects
ID	Title	Scorer(s) Outside 2 Std Deviations?	CoV% Flags for Specific Criteria?
21001*	Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA	0	Yes (Criteria 5 & 8)
19103.1	Johnson Creek Triple Culverts Replacement	0	Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
09001.2	Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration	0	Yes (Criteria 5 & 7)
10080.3	Lyre River Protection and Restoration	0	Yes (Criterion 5)
11088.2	Ennis Creek Barrier Replacement	2	Yes (Criterion 7)
09027.2	Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection & Restoration	0	Yes (Criteria 5 & 8)
12098.1	Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration-Storage	1	Yes (Criteria 7, 8 & 12)

Takeaways:

1 of 7 projects had 2 scorers who scored the project outside 2 standard deviations from the mean.
1 of 7 projects had 1 scorer who scored the project outside 2 standard deviations from the mean.
5 of 7 projects had a CoV% >50% for two or more criteria.
Criterion 5: “Addresses an ESA-listed stock” was flagged for 5 projects.
Criterion 7: “Protects high-quality fish habitat” was flagged for 4 projects.
Criterion 8: “Restores formerly productive habitat” was flagged for 3 projects
Criterion 12: “Project Readiness” was flagged for 1 project.

Return to top

Individual Project Scoring

Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA (21001)

Date: 20-Dec-21
Overall Weighted Score: 133.63
Mean of all Scores: 3.26
SD of all Scores: 0.77
2 X SD of all Scores: 1.53
Mean – 2 X: 1.73
Mean + 2 X: 4.80
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA – scoring by criterion
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	4.639	4.639	4.639	2.96	13.74	0.0%
2	Addresses limiting factor(s)	2.00	2.50	2.00	3.00	5.00	NS	2.00	3.00	2.00	3.00	5.00	5.00	4.50	3.00	3.00	3.00	2.00	3.13	4.08	12.75	36.3%
3	Addresses stock status and trends	4.00	2.50	2.00	5.00	4.00	NS	1.00	4.00	2.50	2.00	5.00	5.00	3.50	2.00	3.00	3.00	2.00	3.16	2.88	9.09	39.5%
4	Addresses progress toward recovery	1.50	2.00	4.00	4.00	5.00	NS	1.00	4.00	2.00	4.00	5.00	4.50	3.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	2.00	3.19	2.81	8.96	40.5%
5	Addresses an ESA-listed stock	3.00	2.00	2.00	4.00	3.50	NS	1.00	4.00	2.00	0.00	5.00	3.00	2.00	0.50	2.00	3.00	1.00	2.38	3.65	8.67	57.8%
6	Addresses other stocks	4.00	3.00	5.00	3.50	5.00	NS	1.00	4.00	2.00	3.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	0.00	3.00	3.00	1.00	3.22	3.27	10.53	48.5%
7	Protects high-quality fish habitat	3.00	2.00	4.00	5.00	4.50	NS	2.00	4.00	1.00	3.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	0.00	3.00	5.00	3.00	3.41	4.12	14.03	45.9%
8	Restores formerly productive habitat	2.00	2.00	2.00	0.00	3.00	NS	1.50	2.00	1.00	2.00	3.00	3.00	0.00	2.00	0.00	0.00	3.00	1.66	4.04	6.69	68.6%
9	Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions	3.00	2.00	5.00	3.00	5.00	NS	1.50	4.00	3.50	3.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	5.00	4.00	3.75	3.88	14.55	29.6%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence		2.50	2.50	3.50	3.50	4.50	NS	2.00	3.00	1.00	3.00	4.50	3.50	5.00	4.00	3.00	2.00	3.00	3.16	3.62	11.43	33.1%
11	Temporal Scale of Influence	5.00	3.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	NS	5.00	4.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.81	3.23	15.54	11.3%
12 Project Readiness		3.00	2.50	4.50	3.50	2.50	NS	2.00	2.00	1.00	3.00	3.00	5.00	0.00	1.00	4.00	3.00	3.00	2.69	2.85	7.66	48.5%

Expansion of Shipwreck Point NRCA – scorer summary
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
Mean	3.14	2.55	3.64	3.68	4.30		2.05	3.55	2.30	2.97	4.59	4.47	3.39	2.34	3.05	3.39	2.80
CoV	34.6%	29.6%	35.5%	37.5%	20.2%	#DIV/0!	66.4%	24.0%	60.5%	43.9%	16.6%	18.2%	53.7%	75.8%	41.5%	43.5%	45.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Comments

Acquisition and protection of nearshore habitats as migration corridors is critical to the future success of many upland restoration projects throughout the Straits and Puget Sound
What a great opportunity to protect mostly intact habitat and expand the only NRCA along the marine shoreline!
The narrative lacks a clear stock status and trends, a clear definitive statement of stocks documented that use this estuary. Unclear if the project will restore formerly productive habitat because there is no information on stock trends/status. The projects lacks a clear goal on potential acquisition for the amount being asked. What are your priority parcels? Not quite clear what the end result would be. The narrative indicated that not much restoration was needed but points to turbidity from logging roads, will that turbidity remain or will it go away with acquisition. How will the logging road be restored or will it be decommissioned. I like that the project would expand on existing protected property.
Criteria 3: scored 3.5 because it addresses a critical stock (nearshore Chinook) as per the stock status and trends table (which would rank this as a 5), however it addresses this stock in a more presumptive and indirect way, whereas the scoring criteria seems intended for projects that directly address those stock. Criteria 5 based on support of ESA fish use in the nearshore indirectly but with a large anticipated cumulative benefit.
I’d like to better understand how the Watershed Priority scores were assigned to the Shipwreck Point, Lyre River, and Siebert Creek projects, and why all qualified as Nearshore. The Shipwreck Point and Lyre River projects seem to include nearshore aspects, but the Siebert Creek project appears to be confined to the stream itself. That being said, it would seem that the assigned Watershed Priority score would better reflect that that appears within the Watershed Priorities tab, or 1.867. By what criteria is the Nearshore Watershed Priority assigned?
This looks like a great project, but its fit to salmon restoration and recovery is not strong. Think it would be better suited to other sources of funding.

Return to top

Johnson Creek Triple Culverts Replacement (19103.1)

Date: 20-Dec-21
Overall Weighted Score: 136.26
Mean of all Scores: 3.35
SD of all Scores: 0.48
2 X SD of all Scores: 0.95
Mean – 2 X: 2.39
Mean + 2 X: 4.30
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Johnson Creek Triple Culverts Replacement – scoring by criterion
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	3.494	3.494	3.494	2.96	10.35	0.0%
2	Addresses limiting factor(s)	4.00	3.00	5.00	NS	5.00	4.50	3.50	3.00	2.50	5.00	3.00	NS	4.50	4.00	2.00	4.00	4.00	3.80	4.08	15.50	24.8%
3	Addresses stock status and trends	2.50	3.00	4.00	NS	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	3.50	5.00	4.00	NS	4.00	4.50	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.83	2.88	11.04	16.1%
4	Addresses progress toward recovery	3.00	3.50	4.00	NS	5.00	4.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	3.00	5.00	NS	3.50	4.00	3.00	5.00	3.50	3.70	2.81	10.40	23.3%
5	Addresses an ESA-listed stock	2.00	0.00	2.00	NS	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NS	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.27	3.65	0.97	263.9%
6	Addresses other stocks	4.00	4.00	5.00	NS	5.00	3.50	2.00	3.00	3.50	5.00	5.00	NS	4.00	4.50	3.00	5.00	4.00	4.03	3.27	13.19	22.7%
7	Protects high-quality fish habitat	4.50	3.50	4.00	NS	1.50	0.00	0.50	0.00	2.00	4.50	3.00	NS	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	2.00	1.70	4.12	7.00	105.3%
8	Restores formerly productive habitat	3.00	4.00	5.00	NS	3.00	3.50	4.00	3.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	NS	3.50	4.00	2.50	5.00	3.50	3.67	4.04	14.81	19.7%
9	Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions	4.00	4.50	5.00	NS	3.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	NS	4.50	4.00	2.00	5.00	3.50	3.97	3.88	15.39	21.0%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence		3.00	3.50	3.50	NS	2.50	3.50	3.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	NS	4.00	3.50	2.50	4.00	3.00	3.27	3.62	11.83	19.1%
11	Temporal Scale of Influence	4.50	4.00	4.50	NS	3.00	4.00	5.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	NS	5.00	5.00	4.00	5.00	5.00	4.33	3.23	14.00	16.1%
12 Project Readiness		4.00	4.00	5.00	NS	5.00	2.50	4.50	3.00	4.50	5.00	3.50	NS	3.00	4.50	4.50	5.00	4.00	4.13	2.85	11.78	19.6%

Johnson Creek Triple Culverts Replacement – scorer summary
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
Mean	3.50	3.37	4.21		3.37	3.08	3.00	2.46	3.12	4.08	3.58		3.29	3.46	2.58	3.79	3.33
CoV	22.8%	34.1%	21.8%	#DIV/0!	46.5%	49.3%	52.2%	48.6%	38.7%	35.7%	36.1%	#DIV/0!	49.5%	48.3%	55.9%	48.9%	38.0%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Comments

Improved access to wetlands and over wintering habitat will assist in run restoration for years to come. The complexity of the wetland habitat makes it worthwhile to increase salmonid access. As much of the burden as possible should fall on the road construction budget.
I think this point has been hammered pretty hard already, but it really seems like the county should be putting up some money to deal with their poorly designed and unsustainable road. Maybe it takes another decade for them to come around to that fact, but I think that is okay. It does seem like the project holds real benefit for salmon though.
This project needs to happen and it would be great if the county pitched in on costs. That said getting the creek out of the ditch and establishing better connectivity to upstream habitats are a plus.

Return to top

Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration (09001.2)

Date: 20-Dec-21
Overall Weighted Score: 142.66
Mean of all Scores: 3.49
SD of all Scores: 0.43
2 X SD of all Scores: 0.86
Mean – 2 X: 2.62
Mean + 2 X: 4.35
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration – scoring by criterion
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	3.494	3.494	3.494	2.96	10.35	0.0%
2	Addresses limiting factor(s)	3.50	3.00	4.00	4.50	5.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	NS	4.00	4.50	4.00	5.00	ns	4.10	4.08	16.73	15.4%
3	Addresses stock status and trends	4.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	NS	4.00	4.50	4.00	5.00	ns	3.97	2.88	11.42	12.1%
4	Addresses progress toward recovery	3.50	3.00	4.00	3.50	5.00	4.00	2.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	5.00	NS	3.00	4.50	3.00	5.00	ns	3.83	2.81	10.77	22.4%
5	Addresses an ESA-listed stock	3.00	0.00	2.00	0.00	1.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NS	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	ns	0.43	3.65	1.58	217.5%
6	Addresses other stocks	4.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	5.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	5.00	5.00	NS	4.00	4.50	4.00	5.00	ns	4.30	3.27	14.06	13.8%
7	Protects high-quality fish habitat	3.00	3.00	3.50	0.00	4.00	0.00	0.50	3.00	3.50	5.00	3.00	NS	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	ns	1.97	4.12	8.10	90.9%
8	Restores formerly productive habitat	3.00	3.50	4.00	5.00	4.50	3.00	4.00	4.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	NS	3.00	4.00	3.00	4.00	ns	3.93	4.04	15.89	18.5%
9	Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions	4.50	3.50	4.00	4.50	4.50	4.00	4.50	4.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	NS	4.50	4.00	2.00	5.00	ns	4.20	3.88	16.30	17.9%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence		3.00	3.00	3.00	3.50	4.00	3.50	4.00	3.00	3.50	4.00	4.50	NS	3.50	4.00	3.00	4.00	ns	3.57	3.62	12.91	13.9%
11	Temporal Scale of Influence	4.50	4.00	3.50	5.00	4.00	3.50	5.00	3.00	4.50	4.00	4.00	NS	4.00	5.00	2.50	5.00	ns	4.10	3.23	13.24	18.6%
12 Project Readiness		4.50	3.00	4.00	3.00	5.00	3.00	3.00	4.00	4.50	5.00	4.50	NS	4.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	ns	3.97	2.85	11.31	19.9%

Little Hoko River Large Wood Restoration – scorer summary
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
Mean	3.67	3.04	3.71	3.37	4.17	2.96	3.21	3.21	3.79	4.12	3.79		3.12	3.54	2.75	3.87
CoV	16.8%	33.9%	19.5%	50.2%	23.6%	48.6%	49.0%	34.8%	34.4%	34.3%	34.9%	#DIV/0!	48.8%	43.2%	52.3%	48.6%	#DIV/0!
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Comments

This experienced project manager will get the most out of this habitat.
I struggle with the 0 I gave for question number 5 regarding addresses an ESA-listed stock. I was unsure how to assign a score for this. Also for temporal scale the way I am understanding is that using larger wood with root wads will see that the project holds out longer than using the smaller wood previously used?

Return to top

Lyre River Protection & Restoration (10080.3)

Date: 20-Dec-21
Overall Weighted Score: 153.03
Mean of all Scores: 3.71
SD of all Scores: 0.57
2 X SD of all Scores: 1.15
Mean – 2 X: 2.56
Mean + 2 X: 4.86
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Lyre River Protection & Restoration – scoring by criterion
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	4.639	4.639	4.639	2.96	13.74	0.0%
2	Addresses limiting factor(s)	3.50	3.00	2.00	4.00	5.00	NS	3.50	3.00	2.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	4.50	4.00	4.00	2.00	3.72	4.08	15.17	29.0%
3	Addresses stock status and trends	3.50	3.00	3.00	5.00	4.00	NS	4.00	3.00	3.50	4.00	4.50	4.50	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	2.00	3.75	2.88	10.80	19.5%
4	Addresses progress toward recovery	4.00	3.00	4.00	4.50	5.00	NS	2.50	3.00	2.00	5.00	4.50	4.50	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	3.81	2.81	10.71	22.9%
5	Addresses an ESA-listed stock	3.50	2.00	5.00	3.00	3.50	NS	0.50	0.00	1.00	3.00	2.00	3.00	1.00	0.00	2.50	0.00	1.00	1.94	3.65	7.07	77.6%
6	Addresses other stocks	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	5.00	NS	3.00	3.00	3.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	4.00	3.27	13.08	18.3%
7	Protects high-quality fish habitat	4.00	3.50	4.00	5.00	4.50	NS	4.00	3.00	2.00	4.00	5.00	5.00	4.50	3.50	5.00	5.00	4.00	4.13	4.12	17.00	20.5%
8	Restores formerly productive habitat	3.00	3.00	3.50	3.50	5.00	NS	3.00	4.00	3.00	5.00	3.00	3.00	0.00	2.50	0.00	5.00	3.00	3.09	4.04	12.50	46.9%
9	Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions	4.50	3.00	4.00	3.50	5.00	NS	3.00	4.00	2.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.50	4.50	4.50	5.00	4.00	4.16	3.88	16.13	21.4%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence		3.50	3.00	3.00	3.00	4.50	NS	3.00	3.00	3.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.50	3.59	3.62	13.01	17.8%
11	Temporal Scale of Influence	5.00	4.00	5.00	5.00	4.50	NS	5.00	4.00	4.50	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.81	3.23	15.54	7.5%
12 Project Readiness		3.00	3.00	4.50	2.50	2.50	NS	1.50	2.00	1.00	5.00	3.00	5.00	1.50	2.00	3.00	4.00	3.00	2.91	2.85	8.28	41.8%

Lyre River Protection & Restoration – scorer summary
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
Mean	3.84	3.26	3.89	3.97	4.43		3.14	3.05	2.64	4.55	4.30	4.47	3.34	3.55	3.72	4.05	3.18
CoV	16.4%	20.9%	23.0%	22.0%	17.3%	#DIV/0!	40.2%	39.1%	45.2%	14.4%	24.1%	16.9%	48.5%	39.8%	37.1%	33.6%	36.2%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Comments

The Lyre River can and should be a more productive system; channelization is a major problem not easily overcome. Property acquisition is an important first step
It’s really hard to score a project where the parcels are completely unknown. I felt forced to err on the side of “they won’t be that great for salmon populations”. I’d like to see this project identify specific parcels they think are beneficial to salmon and have some potential to come on the market.
I’d like to better understand how the Watershed Priority scores were assigned to the Shipwreck Point, Lyre River, and Siebert Creek projects, and why all qualified as Nearshore. The Shipwreck Point and Lyre River projects seem to include nearshore aspects, but the Siebert Creek project appears to be confined to the stream itself. That being said, it would seem that the assigned Watershed Priority score would better reflect that that appears within the Watershed Priorities tab, or 1.867. By what criteria is the Nearshore Watershed Priority assigned?
Project description makes it unclear what parcels are being targeted so it reads kind of open ended. Its going to be difficult to recover the Lyre unless the channelized mainstem is restored. This is the dominant limiting factor in my opinion. The Lyre is too warm to support bull trout and although the WDF stream catalogue says there are pink salmon, I have never seen one.

Return to top

Ennis Creek Barrier Replacement (11088.2)

Date: 20-Dec-21
Overall Weighted Score: 145.01
Mean of all Scores: 3.52
SD of all Scores: 0.45
2 X SD of all Scores: 0.90
Mean – 2 X: 2.62
Mean + 2 X: 4.42
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Ennis Creek Barrier Replacement – scoring by criterion
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	2.530	2.530	2.530	2.96	7.49	0.0%
2	Addresses limiting factor(s)	5.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	4.50	4.50	5.00	3.00	3.50	NS	3.00	5.00	4.50	4.00	2.50	5.00	4.00	4.03	4.08	16.45	20.5%
3	Addresses stock status and trends	4.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.50	NS	4.00	5.00	4.00	4.00	2.50	5.00	4.00	3.94	2.88	11.34	15.3%
4	Addresses progress toward recovery	4.00	3.00	3.50	3.00	4.00	4.00	3.50	4.00	3.50	NS	5.00	4.50	4.00	3.00	3.00	5.00	4.00	3.81	2.81	10.71	17.2%
5	Addresses an ESA-listed stock	5.00	3.50	5.00	4.00	3.50	4.50	4.50	4.00	3.00	NS	2.00	5.00	3.00	4.00	3.50	0.00	3.50	3.63	3.65	13.23	35.1%
6	Addresses other stocks	4.50	3.50	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.50	4.50	4.00	3.50	NS	5.00	5.00	4.50	3.00	3.50	5.00	3.50	4.06	3.27	13.28	15.5%
7	Protects high-quality fish habitat	4.00	3.00	4.00	0.00	1.50	0.00	0.50	0.00	2.50	NS	3.00	3.50	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	2.00	1.56	4.12	6.44	100.4%
8	Restores formerly productive habitat	3.50	4.00	4.50	3.50	4.00	3.00	4.50	3.50	3.00	NS	4.00	5.00	4.50	4.00	0.00	5.00	4.50	3.78	4.04	15.28	31.3%
9	Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions	3.50	3.50	4.50	4.00	4.00	2.50	3.00	4.00	3.00	NS	4.00	5.00	4.50	4.00	2.00	5.00	3.50	3.75	3.88	14.55	22.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence		3.50	3.50	2.50	3.00	3.00	3.50	2.50	3.00	2.50	NS	3.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	3.00	5.00	3.00	3.44	3.62	12.44	25.4%
11	Temporal Scale of Influence	4.50	4.50	3.50	5.00	3.50	4.50	5.00	4.00	4.50	NS	4.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	5.00	5.00	4.50	3.23	14.54	12.2%
12 Project Readiness		4.00	4.00	4.00	2.50	2.50	3.50	2.00	2.00	4.00	NS	3.00	4.00	2.00	2.50	3.00	5.00	4.00	3.25	2.85	9.26	28.6%

Ennis Creek Barrier Replacement – scorer summary
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
Mean	4.00	3.42	3.84	3.29	3.42	3.34	3.46	3.17	3.25		3.54	4.54	3.63	3.42	2.46	3.96	3.63
CoV	17.5%	16.2%	19.4%	38.5%	25.5%	37.9%	40.1%	38.2%	19.0%	#DIV/0!	26.5%	17.7%	41.1%	31.0%	51.6%	50.0%	22.8%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N

Comments

Ennis Creek deserves a chance to return to its once, much more productive self.
Indicating the percent passability for the culverts can help in understanding the importance of barrier removal against the removal of the upstream barrier on 101. I found it on the WA State Fish Barrier GIS map (33% passable) but others might not have known of that resource.

Return to top

Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection & Restoration (09027.2)

Date: 20-Dec-21
Overall Weighted Score: 141.93
Mean of all Scores: 3.45
SD of all Scores: 0.58
2 X SD of all Scores: 1.16
Mean – 2 X: 2.29
Mean + 2 X: 4.61
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection & Restoration – scoring by criterion
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	4.639	4.639	4.639	2.96	13.74	0.0%
2	Addresses limiting factor(s)	2.50	3.00	2.00	3.00	5.00	3.00	3.00	3.00	2.00	3.00	5.00	4.50	3.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	2.00	3.24	4.08	13.20	29.5%
3	Addresses stock status and trends	3.00	3.00	2.00	3.50	4.00	4.50	3.50	3.00	3.00	3.00	4.00	4.50	2.50	2.00	4.00	4.00	2.00	3.26	2.88	9.40	25.5%
4	Addresses progress toward recovery	3.00	2.50	3.50	3.50	4.00	3.50	1.50	3.00	2.50	4.00	5.00	5.00	3.00	2.00	4.00	4.00	3.50	3.38	2.81	9.50	27.9%
5	Addresses an ESA-listed stock	3.00	2.50	5.00	1.50	4.00	4.00	0.00	3.00	2.50	3.00	2.00	4.00	1.00	0.50	4.50	0.00	3.50	2.59	3.65	9.45	60.0%
6	Addresses other stocks	3.00	3.00	3.50	3.50	4.00	3.50	3.00	3.00	2.50	3.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	0.00	4.00	4.00	3.50	3.38	3.27	11.06	32.9%
7	Protects high-quality fish habitat	3.00	3.00	4.50	5.00	5.00	4.50	2.50	3.00	3.00	4.00	4.50	5.00	4.50	3.50	5.00	5.00	4.00	4.06	4.12	16.72	21.7%
8	Restores formerly productive habitat	3.00	2.00	3.00	0.00	3.00	2.50	1.50	1.00	2.00	3.00	4.00	3.00	0.00	2.00	0.00	0.00	3.00	1.94	4.04	7.84	67.5%
9	Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions	4.00	3.50	4.00	3.00	4.00	3.50	3.00	3.00	3.50	5.00	4.50	4.50	4.50	4.00	4.50	5.00	4.00	3.97	3.88	15.41	16.3%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence		3.00	3.50	2.50	3.50	4.00	4.00	1.00	3.00	2.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	3.00	3.00	4.00	4.00	3.00	3.32	3.62	12.03	28.1%
11	Temporal Scale of Influence	5.00	4.00	4.00	5.00	4.50	4.50	5.00	3.00	4.50	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.68	3.23	15.11	11.9%
12 Project Readiness		4.00	2.50	4.00	2.00	2.50	4.00	3.50	2.00	1.00	5.00	3.00	5.00	1.00	1.00	3.00	4.00	3.00	2.97	2.85	8.47	43.5%

Siebert Creek Ecosystem Protection & Restoration – scorer summary
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
Mean	3.43	3.09	3.55	3.18	4.05	3.84	2.68	2.89	2.76	3.89	4.30	4.51	3.01	2.55	3.89	3.64	3.43
CoV	22.8%	23.5%	28.2%	46.0%	18.0%	17.3%	54.8%	28.7%	38.2%	22.3%	21.9%	13.4%	54.3%	62.3%	34.5%	48.2%	26.7%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Comments

This small creek has been surprisingly productive for steelhead and should be protected.
The broadness of the proposal didn’t help me to gain a good understanding of how it directly benefits ESA-stocks in the nearshore though there was mention that it could extend to nearshore. The readiness of the project wasn’t mentioned, but I am assuming that as parcels become available and there was landowner willingness, they would be submitted for funding. Are there specific landowners that have expressed interest?
When listing stock species the stock status and trends table indicates coho as dep/sta, a more detailed narrative of stocks and status would have been helpful. The narrative refers to other stocks but are not indicated in the stock status and trend table for Siebert creek. Having a definitive statement of known stock status rather than general statements may have resulted in different score. Question 8 ) Restores formerly productive habitat is not indicated in the narrative, there is no information on how productive historically this creek was or potential. Historical data would have been helpful and may have resulted in a different score.
Criteria 5-Addresses ESA fish use in the nearshore indirectly
I’d like to better understand how the Watershed Priority scores were assigned to the Shipwreck Point, Lyre River, and Siebert Creek projects, and why all qualified as Nearshore. The Shipwreck Point and Lyre River projects seem to include nearshore aspects, but the Siebert Creek project appears to be confined to the stream itself. That being said, it would seem that the assigned Watershed Priority score would better reflect that that appears within the Watershed Priorities tab, or 1.867. By what criteria is the Nearshore Watershed Priority assigned?
Parcels were clearly identified in this proposal

Return to top

Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration- Storage (12098.1)

Date: 20-Dec-21
Overall Weighted Score: 150.28
Mean of all Scores: 3.67
SD of all Scores: 0.95
2 X SD of all Scores: 1.89
Mean – 2 X: 1.78
Mean + 2 X: 5.57
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration- Storage – scoring by criterion
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	4.699	4.699	4.699	2.96	13.92	0.0%
2	Addresses limiting factor(s)	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.50	5.00	3.50	4.00	3.00	2.00	NS	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	1.00	5.00	2.00	3.81	4.08	15.56	32.4%
3	Addresses stock status and trends	4.00	3.50	3.50	5.00	5.00	3.50	5.00	4.00	4.00	NS	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	1.00	5.00	3.00	4.09	2.88	11.79	26.5%
4	Addresses progress toward recovery	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.50	5.00	3.50	4.00	4.00	2.00	NS	4.50	4.50	5.00	4.00	1.00	5.00	3.00	3.88	2.81	10.89	28.1%
5	Addresses an ESA-listed stock	4.50	4.00	5.00	4.50	5.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	4.00	NS	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.50	2.50	5.00	2.50	4.28	3.65	15.63	19.1%
6	Addresses other stocks	3.50	2.00	4.50	4.50	5.00	3.50	4.00	2.00	1.00	NS	5.00	5.00	5.00	2.00	1.00	5.00	3.00	3.50	3.27	11.45	42.4%
7	Protects high-quality fish habitat	4.00	3.50	5.00	0.00	4.00	0.00	0.50	0.00	0.00	NS	3.00	4.00	4.00	2.50	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.97	4.12	8.11	97.9%
8	Restores formerly productive habitat	4.00	3.50	4.00	3.00	5.00	3.50	3.00	3.00	2.00	NS	5.00	4.00	0.00	2.50	0.00	5.00	1.00	3.03	4.04	12.25	53.0%
9	Supports restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions	3.50	4.00	5.00	3.00	5.00	4.00	4.50	3.00	0.00	NS	5.00	5.00	4.50	4.50	2.00	5.00	1.00	3.69	3.88	14.31	41.7%
10 Spatial Scale of Influence		4.50	4.50	4.50	4.00	4.00	4.00	3.50	4.00	3.00	NS	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.00	2.00	5.00	4.00	4.13	3.62	14.93	19.5%
11	Temporal Scale of Influence	5.00	4.50	4.00	4.50	5.00	4.00	5.00	4.00	1.00	NS	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	3.00	5.00	2.50	4.22	3.23	13.63	27.4%
12 Project Readiness		4.00	2.50	4.50	2.50	4.00	1.00	1.00	2.00	0.50	NS	3.00	5.00	2.50	2.50	3.00	5.00	1.00	2.75	2.85	7.84	52.7%

Dungeness River Instream Flow Restoration- Storage – scorer summary
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
Mean	4.14	3.72	4.39	3.72	4.72	3.27	3.60	3.14	2.02		4.60	4.77	4.22	3.68	1.77	4.56	2.39
CoV	10.9%	21.5%	11.2%	38.0%	9.4%	41.6%	40.4%	41.4%	79.9%	#DIV/0!	16.6%	8.2%	36.0%	27.8%	78.0%	31.5%	51.9%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N

Comments

This is an extremely expensive project that should be funded by multiple sources. I just hope the project is large enough and the water cool enough to have a positive impact in a drought stricken fall.
This project will also help the Dungeness River become more resilient to changing hydrology due to the effects of climate change.
This is not a salmon restoration project and should not be funded with salmon recovery money.

Return to top

Capital Project – MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORE

Date: 17-Dec-21

Overall Weighted Score: 206.96
Mean of all Scores: 5.00
SD of all Scores: 0.00
2 X SD of all Scores: 0.00
Mean – 2 X: 5.00
Mean + 2 X: 5.00
NS: No Score Given
CoV: Coefficient of Variation (Standard deviation/Mean as %)

Capital Project – Maximum Possible Score
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Score 0 to 5 with 5 being best																	Mean Score	Weight	Weighted Mean Score	CoV (%)
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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	5.00	5.00	5.00	2.85	14.25	0.0%

Capital Project – scorer summary at maximum possible score
Measure	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	Scorer 15	Scorer 16	Scorer 17
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	5.00	5.00	5.00
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%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Outside 2 Standard Deviations?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Return to top

Final Watershed Priorities Sorted by Standardized Score

Date: 17-Dec-21

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

Return to top

2022 & 2023 NOPLE Four Year Workplan – Capital Projects Criteria

Date: 17-Dec-21

2022 & 2023 NOPLE Four Year Workplan – Capital Projects 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

Return to top

Capital Projects Criteria Sorted by Mean Weight

Date: 17-Dec-21

Capital Projects Criteria Sorted by Mean Weight
ID	Criteria for Ranking	Criteria Narrative	0	1	2	3	4	5	Mean Weight
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Return to top

This page has been converted from its original source. View the original 2022 & 2023 Work Plan Scoring Compilation w Ranking Summary_FINAL (PDF)