30 Year Permanent Easements

Document Sample
30 Year  Permanent Easements Powered By Docstoc
					WASHINGTON STATE WRP RANKING CRITERIA
FOR PERMANENT OR 30 - YEAR EASEMENTS

Use this ranking form for Permanent & 30 - Year Easements containing either eligible wetlands only or eligible wetlands plus a riparian zone. Do not use this form for cost share agreements. Fill in the green shaded boxes and upon completion of the form the yellow boxes will self populate. To delete old data press the delete key, NOT the space bar.
All ratings are based on anticipated functions and values following installation of restoration practices and a sufficient period of time for plant communities to become established.

Landowner Name: Total Score: Date: Address: City: Home Phone: Work Phone: Planning Team Members Name Agency Percent:

County: FIPS: Farm Number: Tract Number: State: ZIP Code: USGS Quadrangle: Township: Range: Section(s): Maximum Cap: Landowner Bid or Cap: Landowner's Initials to Bid: Landowner Point Credit:

Easement Type: Contract Number:
For State Office use only

(for bids under the easement cap)

Rank:
For State Office use only

Latitude:

Longitude:

Applicant's Race:

Estimated Easement Cost:

#VALUE!

Estimated Restoration Cost:

$0.00

Page 1

RV 10/16/2006

WRP Land Eligibility Determination
Note: See Wetland Review Worksheet for assistance with determining the category(s) of the project's eligible acres. Eligible Acres in Easement Restorable Acres 1/
Existing, functional riparian. Existing, degraded riparian to restore. Existing upland Prior converted cropland. PC Farmed wetland. FW Restorable upland acres to treat. Lands altered by floods. PW Converted wetlands. CW Wetland farmed under natural conditions. W Farmed wetland pasture. FWP Other:

Other Adjacent Acres Allowed (Up to 50% of Easement) 2/
Existing wetland, (non-ag. land). W

Justification:
Eligible CRP. Commenced conversion wetlands. Degraded wetlands. W

Restored wetland with less than a 30 year easement. Existing wetlands up to 10 %. Total Eligible Acres:

Attach a separate statement of more space is needed. 0.0 0.0
Total Other Acres Allowed:

0.0

Non-eligible acres offered by participant at no cost to the government. Total acres in easement area:

0.0

Landowner Name:

Page 2

RV 10/16/2006

Maps
The following maps must be attached to this ranking to complete the Preliminary Plan. The easement area boundaries must be delineated clearly on ALL maps. 1. Soils Map with the areas presently determined to have hydric soils (verified by field investigations) highlighted. Attach a copy of the county hydric soils legend. 2. Planning Map showing the present and planned conditions on site. Two maps may be needed, one for the present conditions and one for the planned restoration. The map must show : Present conditions - Tract or property boundaries clearly identified. - Easement boundaries clearly identified. - Access route clearly identified for (ingress and egress). - Show drainage features including: streams, ditches, waterways, tile systems and outlets. - Utilities, buildings, and land use if this map is also to be used for the Preliminary - Certificate of Inspection & Possession. Planned Restoration - Fields with location and type of planned restoration practices and vegetative cover type identified. (show tract boundary and ingress and egress) 3. NWI Map covering all of offer Comment Area: Use this space to make any comments you may have or need to make about the proposed project area.

EXCEPTIONS TO RANKING CATEGORIES

Riparian Areas
Does this project contain eligible degraded wetlands and a riparian area? Yes / No If yes, complete the Easement Ranking Criteria and include riparian practices in the Preliminary Plan. Does this site ONLY contain one or more riparian zones that connect two protected wetlands? Yes / No 0.0 Acres of Eligible Riparian Acres of Protected Wetland

If Yes, complete easement ranking criteria and submit a Preliminary Restoratin Plan that outlines planned practices and costs. The project will compete with other applications or may be considered for funding as a Special Project.

Landowner Name:

Page 3

RV 10/16/2006

Does this property contain wetlands that are ecologically significant but whose values may not be captured through this quantitative ranking system?

Yes / No If Yes, explain why these wetlands are significant in the box below.

FACTOR 1 - ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

100 Points Possible

Category 1: Habitat 35 Points Possible For items A through I below, rate the restoration plan's anticipated effects for providing key wetland habitat objectives. Rank based on planned wetland community type after 10 years. A. Habitat quality for waterfowl, shorebirds, neotropical migrants, and / or other migratory birds including production and / or seasonal use. (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 10 Points

B. Habitat quality for other wildlife, such as amphibians, reptiles, and/or amphibious mammals (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 5 Points

C. Habitat quality for fish, such as spawning, rearing, refuge, etc. (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 5 Points

D. Habitat quality for wetland dependent terrestrial mammals. (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 5 Points

Landowner Name:

Page 4

RV 10/16/2006

E. Habitat quality for declining species such as Threatened & Endangered, proposed, candidate, species of concern, or State priority species. See below for scoring choices. Scoring Options: Are there any Federal or State Threatened or Endangered species located on or adjacent to the offered easement? Five points per species. Species Listing Status

0

Max of 10 Points

5 Points

Concentration area for state priority species (elk, waterfowl, shorebirds, etc.) located on or adjacent to the site (list priority species). Five points per species. Species Status

5 Points

State priority species outside identified concentration area list priority species. Two points per species. Species

Status

2 Points

Category 2: Water Quality/Physical Wetland Functions F. Rate the site for other wetland functions, such as:
Increasing Water Quality
Increasing Vegetative Diversity

10 Points Possible

Subsurface Water Recharge

Floodwater Storage

0
0 to 10 Points

Other :

2 points per function benefited

Please list and describe any additional functions below to justify the points awarded under section F.

Category 3: Hydrology Restoration

50 Points Possible

G. Amount of hydrologic restoration. Score only one G1 or G2. G1. Eligible Degraded Wetlands Column A Column B Degree of Percent of Acreage Increment of Restoration with Hydrologic Hydrologic Restoration Restoration 100% - 90% 75% - 89% 50% - 74% 30% - 49% 0% - 29% Insert points: Landowner Name: 20 Points 15 Points 10 Points 5 Points 0 Points 20 Points 15 Points 10 Points 5 Points 0 Points

Column C Final restored hydrology : % of "Natural" 10 Points 8 Points 6 Points 4 Points 0 Points

Page 5

RV 10/16/2006

G2: Size of the Riparian Zone - For Riparian Only Projects Average width Average width (left side) (right side) 300 feet 300 feet 250 feet 250 feet 150 feet 150 feet 100 feet 100 feet 50 Feet 50 feet <50 feet <50 feet Enter how many feet: Total Length (left side) 5000 + 4000 ft 3000 ft 2000 ft 1000 ft 400 ft Less than 400 ft Enter how many feet: Total Length (right side) 5000 + 4000 ft 3000 ft 2000 ft 1000 ft 400 ft Less than 400 ft

Points (total width one side) 12.5 pts 11 pts 8 pts 6.5 pts 5 pts 0 pts

Points (total length one side) 12.5 pts 10 pts 7.5 pts 5 pts 2.5 pts 1 pts 0 pts

0.0 0-50 Points Category 4: Location Significance 5 Points Possible

H. Proximity to Other Protected Habitat 0-5 Points Contiguous with a permanently protected area Permanently protected area within 1 mile Permanently protected area within 5 miles Type of Protected Area 5 points 3 points 1 points Distance in Miles

Subtotal for Ecological Considerations Factor:

of 100 Possible Points 50 Points Possible

FACTOR 2 - EASEMENT OFFER DYNAMICS

Category 1: Restoration of Degraded Agricultural Wetlands 30 pts I. Documented evidence of crop or forage production within the past five years on eligible degraded wetlands. Yes 5 pts 0 or 5 Points No 0 pts Yes / No J. What percentage of the offered acres meet the definition of prime farmland?

Note: Refer to worksheet titled "Prime Farmland Review" for guidance on prime farmland determinations
0%-5% 6%-20% 21%-49% 30% or more Landowner Name: Page 6 RV 10/16/2006 10 8 5 0 0-10 Points

K. Acreage of Converted Wetland Offered for Easement (Points for combined acres of restorable wetlands and/or riparian in offer) > 100 Acres 50 to 100 Acres 49-20 Acres < 20 Acres 10 pts 8 pts 5 pts 1 pts 1-10 Points

L. Type of Ownership Private or Tribal Agricultural Non-profit Unit of Government Category 2: Restoration Plan Complexity 5 pts 3 pts 1 pts 20 pts 1-5 Points

M. Cultural Resources Complexity Does the preliminary cultural resources review indicate that detailed cultural resources surveys or construction monitoring be required? YES NO 0 pts 5 pts

Yes / No

0 or 5 Points

N. Engineering Complexity Does the complexity of plan design require that extended engineering evaluation, outside the scope of "normal" NRCS activities, be completed? Examples include: water table studies, complex hydrologic modeling, etc. Low complexity equals high points, highly complex projects receive low or no points. 0-10 Points O. Public Perception Will the construction of levees, removal of levees, channel excavation, water control structure installation, or instream activities invoke public controversy. YES NO 0 pts 5 pts

Yes / No

0 or 5 Points of 50 possible points 50 Points Possible

Subtotal for Restoration Offer Dynamics Factor:

FACTOR 3 - PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS
Category 1: Restoration Implementation cost P. Per Unit Cost 20 pts

If overall restoration practice unit costs are estimated to be equal to the established WRP cost list unit costs, rate = 0 points. For each 5% greater than the established cost list, subtract 2 points. For each 5% less than the established cost list, add 2 points. Example: Projected total restoration cost is $250,000. The estimate based on the cost list is $180,000. The projected cost is 138% of the cost list estimate, therefore you would subtract 8 points. Estimate based on Cost List: Projected Total Restoration Cost: Landowner Name: Page 7 RV 10/16/2006 Score: Max of 20 Points

Category 2: Operation and Maintenance Q. Cost of Future O&M

15 pts

LOW: Minimal or no management required to maintain wetland conditions. Includes normal oversight, and clean-up and protection activities. Practices that may be in this category include: * * * * * * Ditch plugs Tile breaks Low berms (<2 feet) without water control structures Tree planting Seeding Water control structure with no required annual manipulation Early successional vegetation management that requires management on greater than a 10-year cycle (i.e.: tillage or re-seeding) 15 Points

MEDIUM: Infrequent maintenance and operation required such as: * Water control structure with two manipulations per year (i.e.: put boards in in fall and remove in spring) * Replacement of rock riprap at culvert inlet/outlet after flood events * Invasive weed control * Early successional vegetation management that requires management on a 5-10 year cycle (i.e.: occasional disking) HIGH: Long-term intensive management required such as: * Water control structure manipulation (multiple drawdowns per year) * Early successional vegetation management that requires management on less than a 5-year cycle (i.e.. Disking, mowing, fertilizer, etc)

5 Points

0 Points

0-15 Points Note: If an organization is willing to sign an agreement to maintain a management system for the landowner and at no further cost to NRCS, the maximum number of points will be given regardless of the intensity of management required. Category 3: Structure Replacement Cost 5 pts

R. Anticipated future NRCS Financial Assistance Needs 0 Points - High likelihood of a need to repair or replace levees or other structures on less than a 10-year cycle 3 Points - Structures will need to be replaced at NRCS cost in future 5 Points - No structures on project or no need for future replacement Category 4: Partnership contribution 10 pts 0-5 Points

Does this application qualify as a cooperative partnership agreement containing partners that are willing to provide implementation expertise and fund leveraging to the extent that an obvious increase in the ecological and cost efficiencies of the WRP effort would be achieved via such a partnership approach?
No

Yes / No Agency
Agency Contact Person
Cost Share Restoration Cost Share Easement

Cost Share Total: Landowner Name: Page 8 RV 10/16/2006

S. Allow 1 point for each 5% of restoration cost estimate where partners are willing to place funds under NRCS "financial control". Credit at NTE rate where TechReg certified partners contribute technical assistance at no cost to NRCS. Cost Reduction: Points: 0 Max of 10 Points

Subtotal for Project Cost Factor :

of 50 possible points

SUMMARY OF RANKING FACTORS
Maximum FACTOR 1: ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 100 FACTOR 2: EASEMENT OFFER DYNAMICS 50 FACTOR 3: PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS 50 Score

TOTAL SCORE FOR APPLICATION :
(Includes landowner bid points)

Landowner Name:

Page 9

RV 10/16/2006

Wetland Classification for the Preliminary Plan (Use the Cowardin System and list the three dominant species.) Match the system letter with the site location on the plan map. System: A Initial Acreage Planned Acreage

Species: Species: Species: Initial System: B Species: Species: Species: Initial System: C Species: Species: Species: Initial System: D Species: Species: Species: Initial System: E Species: Species: Species: Initial System: F Species: Species: Species: Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage

Landowner Name: Page 10 RV 10/16/2006

Essential Restoration Practices Structural Wetland Restoration Practices A Cultural Resources Review Form must be completed for all "Undertakings" (Refer to GM Subpart D Appendices 401.40)

Practice Code

Description

Quantity

Unit

Estimated Cost per Unit

TOTAL COST
Vegetative Cover Establishment
Estimated Cost per Unit

Total Estimated Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Practice Code

Description

Quantity

Unit

TOTAL COST

Total Estimated Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED EASEMENT COST: TOTAL ESTIMATED RESTORATION COST * :
* Use only numbers from the Cost List.

#VALUE! $0.00

Landowner Name:

Page 11

RV 10/16/2006

WRP Ranking Narrative
General Comments
Complete WRP Ranking Packets will include: 1. Appropriate ranking form 2. Preliminary Restoration Plan List of practices with amounts and cost Preliminary plan map Soil map with areas presently determined to have hydric soils highlighted plus legend 4. Cultural Resources Review Worksheet 5. Hazardous Materials Checklist (Easements only) 6. AD-1026 WC and HEL Compliance Form 7. CCC-526 Payment Eligibility Average 8. Eligibility Letter from DC to State Conservationist 9. Preliminary Certificate of Inspection and Possession (Easements only)
Easement Cost Instructions The maximum easement cap for W. WA is $2500/acre and $1500/acre in E. WA. Enter the appropriate figure in the "Maximum Cap" block. If a landowner wishes to sell the easement for less than the maximum cap, enter this figure in "Landowner Bid or Cap" block. Obtain the landowners initials in the "Landowner Initials to Bid" block to document this commitment. If the landowner wishes to keep their options open and wait for the agricultural appraisal to be completed, then enter the appropriate easement cap in this block.

Landowner point credit: For each $50 reduction from the easement cap, the landowner's ranking score will increase by 1 point. If the landowner does not wish to commit to an easement payment less than the easement cap, the landowner will not receive any additional points.

1/ WC and HELC must be determined for program eligibility. AD-1026 must be completed to validate WRP eligible acres. This information is used for eligibility determination not for ranking separation. 2/ Describe in detail the values of adjacent uplands to WRP. Attach a separate page if more space is needed. Examples include: wetland–dependent species require upland areas for nesting or protection from predators, the wetland basins could become degraded from agricultural activities on adjacent lands not in the easement area, failure to include adjacent uplands would create unmanageable easement boundaries, or the land remaining outside of the easement area would create uneconomic remnant parcels to the landowner.

RV 10/16/2006 Page 12

Extent of adjacent upland acres included in offers should be minimized to the largest degree possible. Landowner should be encouraged to leave adjacent productive agricultural lands in production where practical. Acquisition and restoration of adjacent uplands substantially increases program costs. Eligibility determination is the responsibility of field office staff. The District Conservationist will review the eligibility determination and concur with this determination by signing the AD-1153 application form before the application will be ranked. A letter to the State Conservationist will be developed and signed by the District Conservationist for all easements and cost share projects. National wetland inventory maps are beneficial in the determining of what type of habitat existed before the wetland was converted. In addition, they identify other wetlands that may be included in the larger wetland complex and aid in restoration planning. For example, if wetlands located within a 1/4 section are predominately forested, the planner may wish to promote biodiversity by including an emergent or scrub-shrub wetland community on the easement or project area.

If a site has eligible wetlands and riparian, we should be including the riparian improvement practices in the site's overall restoration plan. The Manual allows the STC to fund any project that involves only riparian (with protected wetlands on either end) to be a special project. The wetlands can be "protected" by the proposed WRP easement closing. These projects will initially compete with all other applications but may be funded as special projects as funding is available. Applications that have significant ecological benefits may be considered for special projects, even if they don't rank particularly well. Examples could be a small addition to adjacent existing protected wetlands, an isolated freshwater wetland on an island surrounded by salt water, etc. A. Consideration must be given to the expected habitat conditions without maintenance. Long term shorebird habitat generally should be credited to tidal estuaries. Neotropical bird habitat is most valuable with mixed compositions of trees and shrubs. RCG impacts most shallow waterfowl and shorebird habitats. If long term maintenance of emergent wetland habitat can be ensured and a high score is awarded, document reasons. B. Amphibian habitats are generally 18-24" in depth and have adjacent uplands in close proximity. These habitats should not be dissected by busy roads etc. Habitat components for amphibians should contain shallow water during the spring months, a variety of emergent plants, and provide adequate cover during the nonbreeding season. The majority of reptiles found in Washington require brushy or rocky upland habitats with adequate exposure to the sun for thermoregulation. Amphibious mammals require healthy riparian areas and/or off channel and depressional wetlands that have emergent and shrub vegetation.

RV 10/16/2006 Page 13

C. Consider habitat elements such as quality spawning gravel (1/2"-4" for most salmonids) with low sediment embeddedness, physical cover (overhanging banks, large wood, floating vegetation, etc.), riparian health (overhanging vegetation, mixture of species, age class, diameters, etc.), and off-channel refuge areas (sloughs, oxbows, side channels, floodplains, etc). D. Examples in this category include moose, mink, elk (grazing in estuary), etc. Habitats typically consist of emergent wetland species and other early sucessional vegetation. E. Direct habitat benefits are required to credit points for T & E species and other priority species. Document how this restoration project will aid in the recovery of these species. We need to rely on our partners at WDFW and USFWS to get us T&E data. WRP requires them to be a part of the ranking team, so our field staff needs to include our agency partners as part of the IDT. The planner alerts WDFW and USFWS of the project location before they meet to rank it so the partners can bring along hard copy PHS maps. If maps are not available, they always have a pretty good idea of what is using the site or nearby properties so this section of the ranking form can be properly completed.

F. List additional functions and detail how the restoration will provide these benefits. G1. Score this element if the project has eligible restorable wetlands. Column A: What percentage of the offered acres will have restored hydrology? This includes ALL acres in offer or project area. Including upland acres in offer will have a negative impact on this column. Column B: On acres where hydrology will be restored, the Increment of hydrologic restoration will be scored on the difference between the current hydrology as a percent of "natural" and the planned final restored hydrology as a percent of "natural". Example 1: A tract is actively farmed; the drainage has been maintained; and you are able to restore hydrology completely (no active drainage easements, no dams limiting flood flows upstream, etc.), the project would score 20 points. Example 2: A tract has not been farmed in 20 years; drainage ditches have grown up in shrubs; the fields are saturated to the surface 7 months a year; and you are able to restore hydrology completely, the site would score 10 points.

Column C: What is the increment of final hydrologic restoration that will be achieved compared to the historical (pre-converted) condition? Consider active drainage districts, water withdrawals, upstream dams that regualte flood flows, etc.

RV 10/16/2006 Page 14

G2. Score this element if the project contains ONLY riparian corridors connecting protected wetlands. The State Conservationist can issue a waiver to allow riparian buffers greater than 300 feet wide if planner can provide justification.

H. Protected Habitats must be have wetlands or wildlife as a primary objective of the property. Examples can include other WRP easements, USFWS refuges, WDFW wildlife areas, Land trust properties, TNC parcels, etc. I. It is a principal objective of WRP to restore converted wetlands on active cropland and pastureland. This issue is emphasized in the WRP manual. J. Local farmers and governing bodies have expressed concern over WRP removing the most valuable croplands from production. Additionally, it is the goal of WRP to restore the most marginal farmland to functional wetland. K. Consider only eligible restorable wetlands. Upland areas or natural wetlands do not count in total acreage. L. The WRP manual gives priority to private lands. M. Obtain assistance from the Area Cultural Resources Specialist when scoring this element. Detailed cultural resources work would be completed outside the agency by a contractor. N. Complex restoration plans drive up associated TA cost as well FA costs and require more time to implement. O. Community reception of a WRP project is critical to timely implementation of a project. Extended negative public comment increases the amount of TA needed from NRCS to get the project implemented. P. To complete this element, a preliminary plan must be completed on page 11 of the ranking sheet. Utilize the NRCS cost list to estimate component costs. Consult NRCS Technicians or Engineering staff if you need assistance. The total estimated Government cost will automatically be entered under "Estimate based on Cost List". For "Projected Total Restoration Cost" enter a cost provided by a sponsor, if available. If none is available, consult a NRCS Engineer to obtain a site specific cost estimate. Q. If the landowner or a partner organization is willing to sign an agreement to operate and manage a system at no further cost to NRCS, then the maximum number of points may be awarded regardless of the intensity of the management required. A compatible use agreement will need to be developed and authorized for any maintenance or management activity occurring on the easement.

RV 10/16/2006 Page 15

R. More points will be awarded if NRCS will not have to provide additional funds to the project in the future. S. Applications that have significant partnership contributions may be considered for special projects, even if they don't rank particularly well. This element also provides a opportunity to identify special technical assistance that may be available from partner agencies and groups. For cost share agreements, the partner contribution must exceed 25% before points will be awarded.

RV 10/16/2006 Page 16

WASHINGTON STATE WRP RANKING CRITERIA
FOR 10 - YEAR RESTORATION AGREEMENTS

Use this ranking form for 10-Year Restoration Agreements containing either eligible wetlands only or eligible wetlands plus a riparian zone. Do not use this form for potential easements. Fill in the green shaded boxes and upon completion of the form the yellow boxes will self populate. To delete old data press the delete key, NOT the space bar.
All ratings are based on anticipated functions and values following installation of restoration practices and a sufficient period of time for plant communities to become established.

Landowner Name: Total Score: Date: Address: City: Home Phone: Work Phone: Planning Team Members Name Agency Percent:

County: FIPS: Farm Number: Tract Number: State: ZIP Code: USGS Quadrangle: Township: Range: Section(s):

Contract Number:
For State Office use only

Rank:
For State Office use only

Latitude:

Longitude:

Applicant's Race:

White Male Not Hispanic

Estimated Restoration Cost:

$0.00

Page 17

RV 10/16/2006

WRP Land Eligibility Determination
Note: See Wetland Review Worksheet for assistance with determining the category(s) of the project's eligible acres. Eligible Acres in Proposed Restoration Agreement
Existing, functional riparian. Existing, degraded riparian to restore. Existing upland Prior converted cropland. PC Farmed wetland. FW Restorable upland acres to treat. Lands altered by floods. PW Converted wetlands. CW Wetland farmed under natural conditions. W Farmed wetland pasture. FWP Other:

Other Adjacent Acres Allowed (Up to 50% of Proposed Project Area)
Existing wetland, (non-ag. land). W

Justification:
Eligible CRP. Commenced conversion wetlands. Degraded wetlands. W

Restored wetland with less than a 30 year easement. Existing wetlands up to 10 %. Total Eligible Acres:

Attach a separate statement of more space is needed. 0.0 0.0
Total Other Acres Allowed:

0.0

Non-eligible acres offered by participant at no cost to the government. Total acres in easement area:

0.0

Landowner Name:

Page 18

RV 10/16/2006

Maps
The following maps must be attached to this ranking worksheet to complete the Preliminary Plan. The restoration area boundaries must be delineated clearly on ALL maps. 1. Soils Map with the areas presently determined to have hydric soils (verified by field investigations) highlighted. Attach a copy of the county hydric soils legend. 2. Planning Map showing the present and planned conditions on site. Two maps may be needed, one for the present conditions and one for the planned restoration. The map must show :

Present conditions - Tract or property boundaries clearly identified. - Restoration Project boundaries clearly identified. - Access route clearly identified for (ingress and egress). - Show drainage features including: streams, ditches, waterways, tile systems and outlets.

Planned Restoration - Fields with location and type of planned restoration practices and vegetative cover type identified. (show tract boundary and ingress and egress) 3. NWI Map covering all of Proposed Restoration Area (show tract boundary) Comment Area: Use this space to make any comments you may have or need to make about the proposed project area.

EXCEPTIONS TO RANKING CATEGORIES

Riparian Areas
Does this project contain eligible degraded wetlands and a riparian area? Yes / No If yes, complete the Restoration Agreement Ranking Criteria and include riparian practices in the Preliminary Plan. Does this site ONLY contain one or more riparian zones that connect two protected wetlands? Yes / No 0.0 Acres of Eligible Riparian Acres of Protected Wetland

If Yes, complete cost share ranking criteria and submit a Preliminary Restoration Plan that outlines planned practices and costs. The project will compete with other applications or may be considered for funding as a Special Project. Landowner Name: Page 19 RV 10/16/2006

Does this property contain wetlands that are ecologically significant but whose values may not be captured through this quantitative ranking system?

Yes / No If Yes, explain why these wetlands are significant in the box below.

FACTOR 1 - ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

100 Points Possible

Category 1: Habitat 35 Points Possible For items A through I below, rate the restoration plans' anticipated effects for providing key wetland habitat objectives. Rank based on planned wetland community type after 10 years. A. Habitat quality for waterfowl, shorebirds, neotropical migrants, and / or other migratory birds including production and / or seasonal use. (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 10 Points

B. Habitat quality for other wildlife, such as amphibians, reptiles, and/or amphibious mammals (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 5 Points

C. Habitat quality for fish, such as spawning, rearing, refuge, etc. (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 5 Points

D. Habitat quality for wetland dependent terrestrial mammals. (List Benefited Species & Habitat Objectives)

0 - 5 Points

Landowner Name:

Page 20

RV 10/16/2006

E. Habitat quality for declining species such as Threatened & Endangered, proposed, candidate, species of concern, or State priority species. See below for scoring choices. Scoring Options: Are there any Federal or State Threatened or Endangered species located on or adjacent to the proposed restoration area? Five points per species. Species Listed Status

0

Max of 10 Points

5 Points

Concentration area for state priority species (elk, waterfowl, shorebirds, etc.) located on or adjacent to the site (list priority species). Five points per species. Species Status

5 Points

State priority species outside identified concentration area list priority species. Two points per species. Species Status

2 Points

Category 2: Water Quality/Physical Wetland Functions F. Rate the site for other wetland functions, such as:
Increasing Water Quality
Increasing Vegetative Diversity

10 Points Possible

Subsurface Water Recharge
Floodwater Storage

0
0 to 10 Points

Other :

2 points per function benefited

Please list and describe any additional functions below to justify the points awarded under section F.

Category 3: Hydrology Restoration

50 Points Possible

G. Amount of hydrologic restoration. Score only one G1 or G2. G1. Eligible Degraded Wetlands Column A Column B Degree of Percent of Acreage Increment of Restoration with Hydrologic Hydrologic Restoration Restoration 100% - 90% 75% - 89% 50% - 74% 30% - 49% 0% - 29% Insert points: Landowner Name: Page 21 20 Points 15 Points 10 Points 5 Points 0 Points 20 Points 15 Points 10 Points 5 Points 0 Points

Column C Final restored hydrology : % of "Natural" 10 Points 8 Points 6 Points 4 Points 0 Points

RV 10/16/2006

G2: Size of the Riparian Zone - For Riparian Only Projects Average width Average width (left side) (right side) 300 feet 300 feet 250 feet 250 feet 150 feet 150 feet 100 feet 100 feet 50 Feet 50 feet <50 feet <50 feet Enter how many feet: Total Length (left side) 5000 + 4000 ft 3000 ft 2000 ft 1000 ft 400 ft Less than 400 ft Enter how many feet: Total Length (right side) 5000 + 4000 ft 3000 ft 2000 ft 1000 ft 400 ft Less than 400 ft

Points (total width one side) 12.5 pts 11 pts 8 pts 6.5 pts 5 pts 0 pts

Points (total length one side) 12.5 pts 10 pts 7.5 pts 5 pts 2.5 pts 1 pts 0 pts

0.0 0-50 Points Category 4: Location Significance H. Proximity to Other Protected Habitat 0-5 Points Contiguous with a permanently protected area Permanently protected area within 1 mile Permanently protected area within 5 miles Type of Protected Area 5 points 3 points 1 points Distance in Miles 5 Points Possible

Subtotal for Ecological Considerations Factor:

of 100 Possible Points 50 Points Possible

FACTOR 2 - RESTORATION OFFER DYNAMICS

Category 1: Restoration of Degraded Agricultural Wetlands 30 pts I. Documented evidence of crop or forage production within the past five years on eligible degraded wetlands. Yes 5 pts 0 or 5 Points No 0 pts Yes / No J. What percentage of the offered acres meet the definition of prime farmland?

Note: Refer to worksheet titled "Prime Farmland Review" for guidance on prime farmland determinations
0%-5% 6%-20% 21%-49% 30% or more Landowner Name: 10 pts 8 pts 5 pts 0 pts Page 22

0-10 Points

RV 10/16/2006

K. Acreage of Converted Wetland Offered for Restoration (Points for combined acres of restorable wetlands and /or riparian in offer) > 100 Acres 50 to 100 Acres 49-20 Acres < 20 Acres 10 pts 8 pts 5 pts 1 pts

1-10 Points

L. Type of Ownership Private or Tribal Agricultural Non-profit Unit of Government Category 2: Restoration Plan Complexity 5 pts 3 pts 1 pts 20 pts

1-5 Points

M. Cultural Resources Complexity Does the preliminary cultural resources review indicate that detailed cultural resources surveys or construction monitoring be required? YES NO 0 pts 5 pts Yes / No 0 or 5 Points

N. Engineering Complexity Does the complexity of plan design require that extended engineering evaluation, outside the scope of "normal" NRCS activities, be completed? Examples include: water table studies, complex hydrologic modeling, etc. Low complexity equals high points, highly complex projects receive low or no points. 0-10 Points O. Public Perception Will the construction of levees, removal of levees, channel excavation, water control structure installation, or instream activities invoke public controversy. YES NO 0 pts 5 pts Yes / No 0 or 5 Points of 50 possible points 50 Points Possible 20 pts

Subtotal for Restoration Offer Dynamics Factor:

FACTOR 3 - PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS
Category 1: Restoration Implementation Cost P. Per Unit Cost

If overall restoration practice unit costs are estimated to be equal to the established WRP cost list unit costs, rate = 0 points. For each 5% greater than the established cost list, subtract 2 points. For each 5% less than the established cost list, add 2 points. Example: Projected total restoration cost is $250,000. The estimate based on the cost list Estimate based on Cost List: Projected Total Restoration Cost: Score: Max of 20 Points

Landowner Name:

Page 23

RV 10/16/2006

Category 2: Operation and Maintenance Q. Cost of Future O&M

15 pts

LOW: Minimal or no management required to maintain wetland conditions. Includes normal oversight, and clean-up and protection activities. Practices that may be in this category include: * * * * * * Ditch plugs Tile breaks Low berms (<2 feet) without water control structures Tree planting Seeding Water control structure with no required annual manipulation Early successional vegetation management that requires management on greater than a 10-year cycle (i.e.: tillage or re-seeding) 10 Points

MEDIUM: Infrequent maintenance and operation required such as: * Water control structure with two manipulations per year (i.e.: put boards in in fall and remove in spring) * Replacement of rock riprap at culvert inlet/outlet after flood events * Invasive weed control * Early successional vegetation management that requires management on a 5-10 year cycle (i.e.: occasional disking) HIGH: Long-term intensive management required such as: * Water control structure manipulation (multiple drawdowns per year) * Early successional vegetation management that requires management on less than a 5-year cycle (i.e.. Disking, mowing, fertilizer, etc)

5 Points

0 Points

0-10 Points

Category 3: Likelihood of Habitat Retention

10 pts 10 Points 3 Points 0 Points 0-10 Points

R. Benefit from Cost Share Funds Expended. Project is located on parcel that has a non-NRCS easement that will protect habitat from re-conversion to agriculture or urban development. Project is located on a parcel owned by a unit of government or non-profit group that currently manages the parcel for wildlife habitat. Project area not located on lands as stated above Category 4: Partnership Contribution 10 pts

Does this application qualify as a cooperative partnership agreement containing partners that are willing to provide implementation expertise and fund leveraging to the extent that an obvious increase in the ecological and cost efficiencies of the WRP effort would be achieved via such a partnership approach? Yes / No Agency
Agency Contact Person
Cost Share Restoration

Cost Share Total: Landowner Name: Page 24 RV 10/16/2006

S. Allow 1 point for each 5% of restoration cost estimate where partners are willing to place funds under NRCS "financial control". Credit at NTE rate where TechReg certified partners contribute technical assistance at no cost to NRCS.

Cost Reduction:

Points: Max of 10

Subtotal for Project Cost Factor :

of 50 possible points

SUMMARY OF RANKING FACTORS
Maximum FACTOR 1: ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 100 FACTOR 2: EASEMENT OFFER DYNAMICS 50 FACTOR 3: PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS 50 Score

TOTAL SCORE FOR APPLICATION :

Landowner Name:

Page 25

RV 10/16/2006

Wetland Classification for the Preliminary Plan (Use the Cowardin System and list the three dominant species.) Match the system letter with the site location on the plan map. System: A Initial Acreage Planned Acreage

Species: Species: Species: Initial System: B Species: Species: Species: Initial System: C Species: Species: Species: Initial System: D Species: Species: Species: Initial System: E Species: Species: Species: Initial System: F Species: Species: Species: Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage Acreage Planned Acreage

Landowner Name: Page 26 RV 10/16/2006

Essential Restoration Practices
A Cultural Resources Review Form must be completed for all "Undertakings" (Refer to GM Subpart D Appendices 401.40)

Structural Wetland Restoration Practices
Estimated Cost per Unit

Practice Code

Description

Quantity

Unit

TOTAL COST
Vegetative Cover Establishment
Estimated Cost per Unit

Total Estimated Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Practice Code

Description

Quantity

Unit

TOTAL COST

Total Estimated Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED RESTORATION COST * :
* Use only numbers from the Cost List.

$0.00

Landowner Name:

Page 27

RV 10/16/2006

PASSWORD:DATA White Male Not Hispanic White Female Not Hispanic White Male Hispanic White Female Hispanic Black Male Not Hispanic Black Female Not Hispanic Black Male Hispanic Black Female Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native Male Not Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native Female Not Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native Male Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native Female Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Male Not Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Female Not Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Male Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Female Hispanic Other Male Not Hispanic Other Female Not Hispanic Other Male Hispanic Other Female Hispanic

County Name Adams Asotin Benton Chelan Clallam Clark Columbia Cowlitz Douglas Ferry Franklin Garfield Grant Grays Harbor Island Jefferson King Kitsap Kittitas Klickitat Lewis Lincoln Mason Okanogan Pacific Pend Oreille Pierce San Juan Skagit Skamania Snohomish Spokane Stevens Thurston Thurston Wahkiakum Walla Walla Whatcom Whitman Yakima State Office Whitman (PMC)

Field Office Ritzille Clarkston Prosser Wenatches Port Angeles Brush Prairie Dayton Longview Waterville Republic Pasco Pomeroy Ephrata Montesano

Permanent Easement 30 Year Easement

Renton Port Orchard Ellensburg Goldendale Chehalis Davenport Olympia Okanogan Newport Puyallup Mount Vernon White Salmon Everett Spokane Colville Lacy Olympia Walla Walla Lynden Colfax Zillah Spokane Pullman

Yes No

0%-5% 6%-20% 21%-49% 30% or more

10 8 5 0

Page 28

RV 10/16/2006

FIPS Code 53001 53003 53005 53007 53009 53011 53013 53015 53017 53019 53021 53023 53025 53027 53029 53031 53033 53035 53037 53039 53041 53043 53045 53047 53049 53051 53053 53055 53057 53059 53061 53063 53065 53067 53067 53069 53071 53073 53075 53077 53075

Bid Cap 1500 1500 1500 1500 2500 2500 1500 2500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 1500 1500 2500 1500 2500 1500 2500 1500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 1500 1500 2500 2500 2500 1500 2500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1125 1125 1125 1125 1875 1875 1125 1875 1125 1125 1125 1125 1125 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1125 1125 1875 1125 1875 1125 1875 1125 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1125 1125 1875 1875 1875 1125 1875 1125 1125 1125 1125

Page 29

RV 10/16/2006

Wetland Determination Flowchart
Directions: Complete as many forms as ncessary to document the wetland labels on the site. Contact wetland specialist if you have any questions. Name: County: Address: City: ZIP CODE: Reviewer: Stop #: (reference on map) NO Nonwetland (NW)

Was/is the area a wetland ? Or are hydric soils present?

YES

Was the area converted prior to 12/23/1985? (Was woody vegetation and/or drainage installed to make possible the planting of a commodity crop?)

NO

Wetland (W) or Possible Converted Wetland (CW) or Possible Artificial Wetland (AW) if wetland is present due to artifacial means (irrigation induced, excavation, impoundment).

YES Was a commodity crop grown at least once prior to 12/23/1985? Was hay or pasture grown? NO Was some other non commodity crop grown? For example berries or trees) Possible Converted Wetland Non-ag Use (CWNA)

NO

YES

Farmed Wetland Pasture (FWP)

YES

YES

Does the area pond or flood for 15 consecutive days out of 10 years (50% frequency)

YES

Farmed Wetland (FW)

Notes: NO

Prior Converted Cropland (PC)
PASSWORD: WETFLOW

RV 10/16/2006

WRP Prime Farmland Review
Directions: Complete as many forms as necessary to document the conditions of the WRP intent. Circle answers and follow flowchart until determination is made. Contact a soil scientist if you have any questions. Definition - Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and that is available for these uses. (To see the complete definition refer to the National Soil Survey Handbook 622.04(a)) Is part or all of the intended WRP site mapped as prime farmland? Yes No

Is the soils mapping correct?

Is the soils mapping correct?

Yes

Yes Is the corrected mapping prime farmland?

No Not Prime Farmland

Are there conditions attached to the prime farmland map unit and are they being met? (see the following examples below for the most likely conditions to occur on land being ranked for WRP)

Yes

No

No

Prime Farmland (no conditions)

Yes

Prime if drained. Is there a drainage system installed and adequately maintained and functioning to allow the area to be farmed? (Examples - subsurface drainage tile, drainage ditches, pumping plant) Prime if protected. Is there a system installed that protects the site from frequent flooding? (Example - levee system) Prime if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded. A site may require both drainage and a levy system to be considered prime. If conditions are not met, the area is not prime farmland. Areas within urban or built-up areas are also not prime farmland. (See the National Soil Survey Handbook 622.04 (a) (1)) Name: County: Address: City: ZIP CODE: Reviewer: Stop #:
(reference on map)

Notes:

PASSWORD:PRIME

RV 10/16/2006

System P Palustrine

Class AB Aquatic Bed

WetMon Classification Codes (adapted from Cowardin System) Subclass Water Regime Modifiers 1. Algal 2. Aquatic Moss 3. Rooted Vascular 4. Floating Vascular 5. Unknown Submergent 6. Unknown Surface 1. Persistant 2. Non-persistant A. Temporarily Flooded B Saturated C. Seasonally Flooded F. Semipermanently Exposed G. Intermittently Exposed H. Permanently Flooded J. Intermittently Flooded K. Artificially Flooded N. Tidal U. Unknown

Special Modifiers b. Beaver d. Partially drained f. Farmed h. Dike/Impound k. Sand/Rock r. Artificial substrate s. Spoil x. Excavated z. None

EM Emergent SA Substantially Altered SS Scrub Scrub FO Forested OW Open Water HE Herbaceous WO Wooded SH Shrubs CR Cropland PC Prior Converted Cropland RP Riparian FW Farmed Wetland and Farmed Wetland Pasture SA Substantially Altered TD Tidal OC Other Hydric Cropland RB Rock Bottom UB Unconsolidated Bottom AB Aquatic Bed SB Stream Bed RS Rocky Shore US Unconsolidated Shore EM Non-Persistant Emergent Wetland

1. Broad-leaved decidous 2. Needle-leaved decidous 3. Broad leaved evergreen 4. Needle-leaved evergreen 5. Dead z. None 1. Native 2. Introduced 1. Deciduous 2. Evergreen 1. Deciduous 2. Evergreen z. None 1. Cropped 2. Herbaceous vegetation dominant 1. Cropped 2.Herbaceous 3. Woody 1. Cropped 2. Native Grass 3. Introduced Grass 1. Cropped 2. Herbaceous 3. Open Water z. None z. None

U Upland

O Other

R Riverine

A. Temporaily Flooded C. Seasonally Flooded E. Semi-permanently flooded G. Intermittently Exposed H. Permanently Flooded

Password:cowardin

RV 10/16/2006