Chapter 4.0 CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT

4.1	Ranking Criteria for Projects
4.2	Criteria for Fish Passage Projects

The types of projects to be considered and ranked were divided into four distinct categories based on the nature of the project. The four project categories are:

Monitoring and data management;
Policies and programs;
Public outreach and education; and
Restoration projects.

Criteria were developed for ranking and prioritizing projects utilizing a three-step iterative process. In the first step, science-based criteria were developed for the monitoring and data management, policies and programs, and public outreach and education project categories. In the second step, science-based criteria were developed separately for restoration projects. This was due to the fact that restoration projects and actions were different in many ways to the other categories of projects in terms of scope, intensity, and watershed coverage (i.e. more localized versus watershed-wide). Furthermore, the science-based criteria for addressing limiting factors and properly functioning conditions were more applicable to restoration activities.

The third step came after the TAC review of the initial criteria and involved adding additional criteria for evaluating restoration projects, based on the TAC recommendations. The added criteria were developed to more accurately reflect and assess a project’s size and intensity to determine effectiveness at addressing limiting factors, and minimizing or controlling degradation to downstream core habitat, refuge, or other high priority areas.

Additional criteria were also developed to evaluate policy and monitoring projects. The supplemental criteria evaluated whether the project contributed to preventing further degradation, addressing a significant data gap, or whether or not a monitoring effort would significantly add to the existing body of knowledge about potential problems and opportunities in the watershed.

4.1 Ranking Criteria for Projects

The ranking criteria are divided into two general categories: one for watershed health, and the second for social and economic considerations. Criteria were developed for each of the scores - 0, 1, 3, or 5. The larger point spread of this system provides for greater project differentiation. The total points for both watershed health and social and economic considerations were added and then averaged to determine the total score and final ranking for monitoring, protection, and public outreach projects.

Restoration projects were evaluated utilizing separate criteria and incorporating results from the EDT model. Numerical scoring (0, 1, 3, or 5) was similar to the above project ratings except restoration projects were prioritized using only the watershed health total scores. Scores for social and economic considerations were summarized only for informational purposes only. The TAC believed that a restoration project should be evaluated on its watershed health score first, and the social and economic score should be considered secondary. The TAC also noted that the social and economic scores, although important, could be applied later to further differentiate and prioritize “competing” projects or those where the watershed health scores were the same.

The criteria developed to rank the projects are described on the following pages.

Criteria were revised for re-ranking restoration projects and focused on changes to the limiting factors and multiple benefits criteria. For limiting factors a project received credit for impacting a limiting factor if it was one of those factors that resulted from EDT model results showing coho attribute priorities for lower, middle, and upper Johnson Creek (see Chapter 2 - Watershed Assessment). Rankings were based on significant, partial, and moderate effects on limiting factors. Significant effect was based on extent to which the project covers the specific opportunities outlined for the limiting factors on the attribute priorities noted above. Significance was also based on the size of the project and the extent to which it could significantly affect limiting factors in its location reach. Moderate effects were based on where projects were less than 2 acres. It needs to be acknowledged that it is sometimes difficult to measure the size of a project depending upon the type, location, and what is actually considered to be the project and corresponding size area. The JCWC believes that the criteria and projects associated with this Action Plan will evolve in the future with the flushing out of proposed projects and the addition of new ones. See Table 20 and Figure 15 (PDF, 784 KB) for a list of ranked restoration projects utilizing these criteria and their watershed locations.

	Score of 5	Score of 3	Score of 1
WATERSHED HEALTH
A. Urgency/Timing (Policy Projects only)	Need for policy is critical. Opportunity is present and policy may not be implemented if opportunity lost.	Need for policy is high. Opportunities are possible but have not been assessed.	Need for policy is minimal. No opportunities have been identified.
B. Significance of Potential Degradation (Policy Projects Only)	Without the policy in place there will be a significant loss of watershed functions.	Without the policy in place there will be a moderate loss of watershed functions.	Without the policy in place there will be a minimal loss of watershed functions.
C. Addresses Key Limiting Factors	Significantly resolves/eliminates two or more top limiting factors in the target reach after project matures; directly controls sources of local or downstream degradation. To qualify as significant in a target reach, project should make up a significant area of that reach.	Score of 4 = Significantly resolves/eliminates one top limiting factor in the target reach after project matures; directly controls sources of local or downstream degradation. Score of 3 = Partially resolves two or more limiting factors, indirectly controls sources of degradation through policy planning or regulatory/program implementation.	Score of 2 = Partially resolves one top limiting factor, indirectly controls sources of degradation through policy planning or regulatory/program implementation. Score of 1 = Minimally resolves one or more limiting factors or sources of degradation.
D. Project Location - Core Habitat, or High Priority Restoration Area (See Figure 14).	Project located in core habitat or high priority restoration area or affects function of one.	Project located in restoration linkage or connection area of affects one.	Project located upstream of a core habitat area, or high priority restoration area, but objectives are localized and does not significantly affect functions of one.
E. Meets Multiple Objectives/Properly Functioning Conditions (PFC) Functions	Significantly enhances conditions for three or more watershed functions as an explicit goal of the project (flow/hydrology; physical habitat; water quality; or biological communities).	Significantly enhances conditions for two watershed functions as an explicit goal.	Score of 0 = Significantly enhances conditions for only one watershed function as an explicit goal.
F. Connectivity to Upland Habitats	Benefits an upland habitat area or is located in same. Protects or restores connectivity or provides linkage. Protects an upland habitat area, reduces risk, or improves function of upland habitat area.	Protects or restores connectivity to upland habitats or provides link to corridor.	Other connectivity or linkage project.
G. Identifies Problems or Opportunities (Monitoring Projects only)	Data collected from project will significantly add to the body of knowledge about potential problems and opportunities (where problems occur) and was identified as a significant data need in the watershed assessment.	Data collected from project will partially add to the body of knowledge about potential problems and opportunities and was not identified as a significant data need in the watershed assessment.	Data collected from project will minimally add to the body of knowledge about potential problems and opportunities.
H. Identifies Sources of Degradation (Monitoring Projects only)	Project identifies underlying source(s) of water quality and/or habitat problems listed in the 303(d) list or as a limiting factor impacting Core Habitat or High Priority Restoration Areas.	Project partially identifies an underlying source(s) of water quality and/or habitat problems listed in the 303(d) list or as a limiting factor impacting Core Habitat or High Priority Restoration Areas.	Project minimally identifies an underlying source(s) of water quality and/or habitat problems listed in the 303(d) list or as a limiting factor impacting Core Habitat or High Priority Restoration Areas.
I. Provides Trend Information (Monitoring Projects only)	Score of 3 = Data provides essential trend information (new or existing).	Score of 1 = Continues an existing data record or establishes new continuous data record.	Score of 0 = Does not continue and existing data record or establishes new continuous data record.
SOCIO/ECONOMIC
A. Near Term Benefit (Protection and Stewardship Projects only)	Provides immediate benefit the first year.	Provides near-term benefit for 1-3 years.	Provides benefit after 5-years or more.
B. Likelihood of Success or Technical Feasibility	Experience shows that this type of project has been successfully undertaken before or has reasonable likelihood of success; permitting is reasonably straightforward; and no phasing or sequencing is required.	Likelihood for success is not as great; permitting may be more complex and difficult; and phasing or sequencing may be required.	Project is experimental and unproven, permit conditions are difficult to predict or assess or needs a code change; and phasing or sequencing is required.
C. Degree of Urgency or Opportunity	Project urgency is critical. Opportunity is present and project may not be implemented if opportunity lost.	Project urgency is high Project completion would create opportunities for multiple additional projects. Opportunities are possible but have not been assessed.	Project urgency is moderate. No opportunities have been identified.
D. Landowner Support (Protection and Monitoring Projects only)	Project includes public or one private property and landowner support; or project includes multiple private or public properties and has a critical mass of landowner support.	Project includes public or one private property and landowner’s support is mixed or has not been assessed; or project includes multiple private or public properties and has a mix of landowner support.	Project includes public or one private property and landowners are not generally supportive; or project includes multiple private or public properties and has little landowner support.
E. Stakeholder Support	General stakeholder support for project is evident. Stakeholders include: cities, resource and regulatory agencies, volunteers, schools, local citizens or groups, etc..	General stakeholder support has not been assessed.	General stakeholder support includes some opposition.
F. Partners Identified	Implementing Partners have been identified and are supportive of the project.	Implementing Partners have been identified but support has not been assessed.	Implementing Partners have not been identified as yet. Partners could include local, state, or federal agencies; non-profit, community, or neighborhood groups; schools and students; businesses; or other volunteers.
G. Educational Opportunities	Project is highly visible. Access is easily attained (e.g., adjacent to Springwater Trail). Educational objectives are included in project design or objectives. Project related to top limiting factors. Educational opportunities are watershed-wide.	Project is not highly visible; Access is moderate; Project is local.	Educational opportunities have not been identified.
H. Funding Opportunity ID	Funding opportunities have been identified and secured and include: capital; project budget, donations, grants, other outside funds, etc..	Funding opportunities have been identified but not secured.	Funding opportunities have not been identified.

4.2 Criteria for Fish Passage Projects

Water Environment Services (WES) staff have inventoried, assessed, and prioritized culverts throughout Clackamas County. The Joint Johnson Creek Committee also performed a phase I project to inventory the culverts, barriers, dams, and other structures throughout the Johnson Creek watershed. For more details on this project please see Chapter 2 – Watershed Assessment and Appendix D (PDF, 47 KB). For a list of fish passage projects that were recommended but not ranked as part of this Action Plan - see Appendix I (PDF, 119 KB).

Coho jumping at Tideman Johnson Park The City of Portland is attempting to gather additional information on privately owned culverts, culverts that are not directly located beneath roads, and on other instream passage obstructions such as dams, weirs, and exposed pipe crossings. Criteria have not been developed for fish passage projects as part of this Action Plan. These projects will require a separate evaluation. As part of its response to the listing of salmonids under the ESA, the City of Portland and other local municipalities have been investigating the degree to which culverts obstruct salmonid access and movement within local watersheds. The City of Portland is evaluating culverts for the purpose of prioritizing impassable or partially passable culverts for replacement. Preliminary criteria for rating culverts and other passage obstructions have been developed by the City of Portland ESA Program’s Riparian and Waterbody Construction and Maintenance technical team.

It is recommended that the Joint Johnson Creek Crossing Regional Inventory Group reconvene and perform a second phase of this project to include a ranking of all fish passage projects throughout the Johnson Creek watershed using similar criteria (see Appendix D (PDF, 47 KB)).