NOPLE 2005 Project Review Process

Process Documents (attached)

• NOPLE Application Addendum
• Score and Rank Merge (Prioritization) Process
• NOPLE Rules and Procedures
• TRG Project Score Sheet
• Suggested CFG Evaluation Sheet

Process Summary

• Applicants submitted preproposals consisting of the relevant SRFB application and the NOPLE Application Addendum.
• Applicants presented their preproposal via PowerPoint as well as in the field. These presentations were attended by the Lead Entity Group ("LEG"), Technical Review Group ("TRG"), and the citizen groups ("CFGs"), all of whom provided feedback for the applicants to use in finalizing their full proposal. The SRFB Technical Advisors reviewed the projects at this stage as well.
• Applicants then submitted their full proposals which again consisted of the relevant SRFB application and the NOPLE Application Addendum.
• The applicants presented their full proposal via PowerPoint to the joint NOPLE LEG & TRG.
• All projects were then scored by eleven of the thirteen TRG members (the two other TRG members were not available). TRG members who are also applicants did not score their own projects according to the NOPLE Rules and Procedures.
• The Technical Review Group scoring sheets evaluate projects based on the following criteria: Priority Tier 25%, Priority Activity 20%, Benefit to Salmon 30%, and Certainty of Success 25%. The pojects were then ranked based on the mean-score results.
• The TRG mean-score ranking was forwarded to the members of the local CFG. Applicants then presented their project to the CFG.
• In their ranking of the projects, the CFG concurred with the TRG ranking, as reflected by their ranking as primary importance the first three projects on the TRG list, and of secondary importance the last two projects on the TRG list.
• Both the TRG mean-score ranking and the CFG ranking was forwarded to the LEG.
• The LEG reviewed letters of support as well as received additional citizen input during a public comment period on September 21, 2005.
• According to the “NOPLE 6th Round Score and Rank Merge Process,” “[t]he LEG will consider all the TRG and CFG deliverables, as well as the amount of SRFB funds requested (especially if large compared to expected SRFB funds available for distribution), the amount of match, any SRFB label as “project of concern,” as well as any additional socio-political, community value, and regional equity considerations brought forward by the respective LEG members.”
• The LEG members consist of representatives from each of the ten entities that make up the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity (Clallam County, Jefferson County, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Makah Tribe, Quileute Tribe, Hoh Tribe, and the cities of Sequim, Port Angeles and Forks).
• The LEG adopted the TRG list. The LEG agreed that the TRG list reflected the highest NOPLE priority stocks, limiting habitat features, watershed processes, actions, and areas. Furthermore, the LEG noted that the TRG list had the approval of the CFG, and was also otherwise consistent with the other considerations available to the LEG.