Laserfiche WebLink
EDUCATIONAL RANKING CRITERIA <br />1999 <br />CRITERIA 3. GOOD 2. SATISFACTORY 1. POOR <br />1. Overall strength of Project is well thought Project seems reasonable Project raises unanswered <br />proposal. out and seems likely to and may succeed. questions and seems <br /> succeed. (4 pts) unlikely to succeed. <br /> 6 ts) 1 t <br />2. Overall strength of Proposal gives good Proposal identifies Proposal does not include <br />project timeline. definition of activities, activities, timeline and or is unclear on activities, <br /> timeline and responsible responsible party. timeline and responsible <br /> art. art. <br />_ <br />3. Overall total project Matching amount is Matching amount is 25- Matching amount is 25% <br />cost and matching greater than 50% of total 50% of total project cost. of total project cost. <br />amount. project cost. <br />4. Likelihood of proposal Proposal clearly identifies Proposal is unclear on Proposal does not identify <br />changing land use appropriate message, target appropriate message, appropriate message, <br /> <br />practices, behaviors, and audience, delivery tar et audience, delive <br />g rY tar et audience, deliver <br />g y <br /> <br />reduce NPS pollution. mechanism and evaluation <br />mechanism and <br />mechanism or evaluation <br /> of pr°~"`'~~ evaluation of ro~ect. of ro~ect. <br />5. Project reflected in Implements priority Implements priority Implements priority <br />watershed plan or local action in WMO plan and action of WMO plan. action of local plan. <br />plan. local plan. <br />