



■A*y 





-Ai I 



Social and financial rank 



Prioritizing by social and financial 

 considerations sections incorporated three 

 fields: 1) landowner/manager cooperation, 

 2) restoration feasibility (cost/mile), and 3) 

 demonstration/educational value, with 

 scoring weighed more heavily towards the 

 first two fields. Scoring generated six 

 classes (Appendix B), which for summary 

 purposes we classified into high, moderate 

 and low priorities (Figure 12). Only 8 of 33 

 (24%) project and 7 of 50 (14%) non- 

 project streams ranked in the high priority 

 class. The highest number, 40 of 83 (48%) 

 of project and non-project streams scored in 

 the moderate class, with 18 (55%) project 

 and 23 (46%) non-project streams classified 

 as such. Receiving low ranks were 7 (21%) project and 20 (40%) non-project streams. 



•High 



. Moderate 



.Low 







■X% 



Figure 12. Generalized map of streams prioritized by 

 social and fmancial considerations. 



I' .'.-., >! ■A"' 



1JE.:,L 



■-Ir 



ri 



21 



