Laserfiche WebLink
TECHNICAL RANKING CRITERIA <br />1999 <br />CRITERIA 3. GOOD 2. SATISFACTORY 1. POOR <br />1. Overall strength of Project is well thought Project seems Project raises unanswered <br />proposal. out and seems likely reasonable and may questions and seems unlikely <br /> to succeed. succeed. to succeed. <br /> 6 is 4 is 1 t <br />2. Overall strength of Proposal gives good Proposal identifies Proposal does not include or <br />project timeline. definition of activities, activities, timeline and is unclear on activities, <br /> timeline and responsible party. timeline and responsible <br /> res onsible art . art . <br />3. Overall total project Matching amount is Matching amount is 25- Matching amount is 25% of <br />cost and matching amount. greater than 50% of 50% of total project total project cost. <br /> total ro'ect cost. cost. <br />4. Addresses water quality Implements priority Implements priority Implements action in local <br />goal in plan. action in WMO plan action of WMO plan. comp plan. <br /> and local lan. <br />5. Has an educational Is in cooperation with Has astand-alone long Will have aone-time <br />component. an on-going nps term education education component as part <br /> education program. component as part of the of the project. <br /> ro' ect. <br />~ Project addresses Protect addresses Preject addresses Protect addresses ot~;er <br />pollutant reduction goals. Council; target TMDL pollutant pollutant reduction goals. <br /> ollution oals. reduction oafs. <br />