**North Platte White-Yampa River Watershed\
NRCS Colorado EQIP 2004**

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**Water QUALITY/WATER QUANTITY**

Does the participant have or will install a measuring devise at the
participant's water source?

Yes = high No = medium

Does the project address both the off farm delivery system **and**
irrigation efficiency improvement on farm?

Yes = high No = medium

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Two answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

NORTH PLATTE-WHITE-YAMPA RIVER WATERSHED

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY-2004

Water QUALITY/WATER QUANTITY Ranking Criteria 12/12/03

*Minimum Score of [35]{.underline} is* necessary to be eligible

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Improve stream water quality by installing a permanent in-stream  |
|     diversion structure designed to eliminate annual heavy equipment  |
|     disturbance of the stream channel. (20 points)                    |
|                                                                       |
| > \_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2.  Improve the control of diverted water with the installation of a  |
|     positive shut off gate at the water source. **(10 points**)       |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3.  Control irrigation delivery ditch **active [gully]{.underline}**  |
|     erosion. with the installation of pipe, structures or new ditch   |
|     grade. (10 points)                                                |
|                                                                       |
| \<3ft. = **3 points**                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| 3-10 ft. = **5 points**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| \> 10 ft. = **10 points**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **4.** Improve the management of diverted water with the installation |
| of a measuring device at the water source. (**5 points**)             |
|                                                                       |
| > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **5.** Eliminate irrigation delivery ditch [seepage]{.underline} with |
| the installation of one of the following: **20 points**               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Install membrane lined ditch **10 points**                        |
|                                                                       |
| #### Install irrigation pipeline **20 points**                        |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6.  Construct irrigation regulating reservoir ( \< 10 acre feet) to   |
|                                                                       |
| > regulate adequate delivery of water to irrigated fields. (**5       |
| > points**)                                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

SECTION I: DELIVERY

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7.  Improve the management of diverted water with the installation of |
|     a measuring devise at the field. **(10 points**)                  |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_points**                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **8.** Install structures for water control adequate to increase      |
| water use efficiency to the systems capability. Check Structures,     |
| turn out slide gates, division boxes, pipe inlet etc. **15 points**   |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **9.** Improve irrigation efficiency, reduce deep percolation, and    |
| irrigation induced erosion by converting: (**Select only one**) (     |
| points = system efficiency change using FIRI)                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to lined ditch or gated pipe flood. (no          |
|     corrugations) **6 points**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations.  |
|     **17 points**                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to big gun sprinklers. **29 points**             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to pivots. **59 points**                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to all other sprinklers. **39 points**           |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Dirt ditch with corrugations to gated or lined ditch with         |
|     corrugation. **7 points**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch with corrugations to big gun sprinklers **19 points**  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch with corrugations to pivots **49 points**              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch with corrugations to all other sprinklers. **29        |
|     points**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe flood to (no corrugations) to big gun   |
|     sprinklers. **23 pts.**                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe flood to (no corrugations) to pivots.   |
|     **53 points**                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe flood to (no corrugations) to other     |
|     sprinklers. **33 points**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations to big gun            |
|     sprinklers. **12 points**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations to pivots. **42       |
|     points**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations to all other          |
|     sprinklers. **22 points**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **10**. Reduce deep percolation, and irrigation erosion caused by     |
| irrigation tail-water by:                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **(5 points max)**                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Install tail-water ditch on non-erosive grade. **(5 points)**         |
|                                                                       |
| Install erosion control structures i.e. concrete or pipe drops **(5   |
| points)**                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 11. Cost effectiveness = 10,000/Total Cost per Acre treated. . Total  |
|     cost not cost share cost. Acres treated are acres that will       |
|     realize resource improvement due to application of practices used |
|     in this ranking) **20 points max**                                |
|                                                                       |
|     **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**SECTION II: ON-FIELD**

**TOTAL POINTS \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Tie Breaker =** Total cost per acre treated. Same figure used in item
10 above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**North Platte White-Yampa Watershed\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening 2/12/03**

**Riparian**

Existing condition using Montana Riparian Assessment Method is.

At risk = High Priority

Sustainable = Medium Priority

Non-sustainable = Low Priority

Does producer agree to develop and follow a management plan that will
promote and maintain good riparian health for the life span of planned
practice(s) with the longest life expectancy?

Yes = high No = low

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Two answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

**NORTH PLATTE WHITE-YAMPA RIVER WATERSHED**

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004

RIPARIAN Ranking Criteria 12/1203

***A minimum score of [40]{.underline} points is necessary to be
eligible***

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **1)** Existing condition using Montana Riparian Assessment Method.  |
|                                                                      |
| At risk to degradation from moderate storm event = 25 points         |
|                                                                      |
| Sustainable - functions maintained after moderate storm event = **10 |
| points**                                                             |
|                                                                      |
| Not sustainable -- functions often lost for long term due to even    |
| small storm events = **5 points**                                    |
|                                                                      |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                             |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **2)** For each type of practice planned: 5 points/practice type (   |
| 60 points max)                                                       |
|                                                                      |
| **Planned practices must address elements identified in the ranking  |
| that make the area at risk Etc.)**                                   |
|                                                                      |
| Instream structures, (j-hooks, rock weirs, root wads, etc.)          |
|                                                                      |
| Bank Sloping                                                         |
|                                                                      |
| Rip-rapping                                                          |
|                                                                      |
| Bio-engineering (tree revetments, facines, willow mats, etc.)        |
|                                                                      |
| Fencing                                                              |
|                                                                      |
| Alternative water                                                    |
|                                                                      |
| Water gaps/crossings                                                 |
|                                                                      |
| Plantings (seeding, pole &stakes, sod mats, willow clumps etc.)      |
|                                                                      |
| Invasive species control (brush management)                          |
|                                                                      |
| Buffers **(10 points for this practice)**                            |
|                                                                      |
| Channel reconstruction                                               |
|                                                                      |
| Predator control                                                     |
|                                                                      |
| Implement IPM Plan for noxious weed control                          |
|                                                                      |
| > \_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3.  100 divided by total cost per foot of stream treated (measured   |
|     at center line of stream):                                       |
|                                                                      |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                             |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # Total Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**North Platte White-Yampa Watershed\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 2/12/03**

**GRAZING LAND**

Does project apply cross fences that will facilitate improved
management?

Yes = high No = medium

Does project apply water development that will facilitate improved
management?

Yes = high No= medium

Does the client(s) agree to include Prescribed Grazing (Practice 528) in
the

Operation and Maintenance Agreement and agree to apply during life span

of supporting practices (i.e. fence, water development etc.)?

Yes = High No = Low

Does the producer have a current range inventory and grazing management
plan (less than 7 years old)?

Yes = high No = medium

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Three answers are high, one is medium and one is low --
the project will be considered a low priority and will be funded only
after higher priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

NORTH PLATTE WHITE-YANPA RIVER WATERSHED

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004

GRAZING LAND Ranking Criteria 12/12/03

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Improve grazing land health, by increasing plant diversity        |
|     through the application of one or more of the following           |
|     conservation practices: (5 points per practice type 15 points     |
|     max)                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Brush management to improve plant diversity                       |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Re-establishment of native plant species forbs, grasses and       |
|     shrubs on rangeland                                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Establishment of introduced plant species of legumes on pasture   |
|     and hayland that will be managed separately from native plant     |
|     communities.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Implement IPM plan for noxious weed control                       |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ points**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2.  Converting cropland to permanent perennial cover. (**25 points**) |
|                                                                       |
| > HEL fields (**10 additional points**)                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ points**                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3.  Improve distribution of grazing animals with the installation of  |
|     permanent water source(s) with spacing based on terrain and       |
|     travel distance standards. Locate to draw animals away from heavy |
|     use areas. **20 points.**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ points**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4.  Facilitate uniform grazing and allow for planned grazing and rest |
|     periods to allow for plant growth and reproduction. **(choose     |
|     only 1)**                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Install cross fence to facilitate a switchback grazing system     |
|     **/or/** facilitate a deferred grazing system that rests the same |
|     pasture during the same season in consecutive years. **5 points** |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Install cross fence to facilitate a deferred grazing system that  |
|     allows deferment of pastures for different seasons in consecutive |
|     years **/or/** facilitates a rest rotation grazing system. **10   |
|     points**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Install cross fence to facilitate a high intensity low frequency  |
|     (HILF) grazing system. **15 points\                               |
|     **                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ points**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5.  Improve deteriorated riparian areas by installing one or more of  |
|     the following conservation                                        |
|                                                                       |
| practices. **(5 points per practice type, 15 points max)**            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Fence riparian areas to facilitate proper grazing management, can |
|     include water gaps and alternative water sources.                 |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Establish adapted grasses, forbs and woody species to protect     |
|     eroded stream banks and adjacent areas.                           |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Install adapted structural erosion control practices to stop      |
|     stream bank and Channel erosion                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6.  Cost Effectiveness = 650/Total Cost per acre treated. Total cost  |
|     not cost share cost. Acres treated are acres that will realize    |
|     resource improvement due to application of practices used in this |
|     ranking) **20 points max.**                                       |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***A minimum score of [35]{.underline} points is necessary to be
eligible***

**Total points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Tie Breaker =** Total cost per acre treated. Same figure used in item
6 above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**North Platte White-Yampa River Watershed\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**Wildlife**

**High Priority -** Primary purpose of the project is to improve habitat
for one of the following species. Circle species.

Colombian sharp-tailed grouse

> greater sage grouse

burrowing owl,

Colorado River cutthroat trout

greater sandhill crane

> Long-billed curlew
>
> kit fox

boreal toad

**Medium Priority -** Primary purpose of the project is to improve
habitat for one of the following species. Circle species.

> black footed ferret Colorado pikeminnow
>
> humpback chub
>
> razorback sucker
>
> pronghorn
>
> mule deer
>
> bonytail chub

bald eagle

> fish- other native Colorado River species

**Low Priority -** Primary purpose of the project is to improve habitat
for one of the following species. Circle species.

> grassland birds

Pheasant

bighorn sheep (desert and Rocky Mountain)

elk

trout, and mountain white fish (stream habitat only)

turkey

Species with stable or increasing populations, or not otherwise listed

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: The wildlife species is medium but the previous contract
history is high the project will be considered a medium priority and
will be funded only after higher priority projects have been ranked and
funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

North Platte White-Yampa River Watershed

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004

Wildlife Ranking Criteria 1/20/04

***A minimum score of [55]{.underline} points is necessary to be
eligible***

1\) The proposed contract is located within a priority wildlife area and
addresses the target species and habitat. See attached map or
descriptions (riparian areas) for locations of wildlife areas.

Within a wildlife area **10 pts**

> Outside wildlife areas **0 pts**
>
> **points**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2\) The proposed practice(s) are intended to maintain, enhance, or
restore which habitat types?

Pick one habitat type only for a maximum of 15 points. Habitat type
selected must correspond to habitat used by species selected in #3.

Sagebrush-steppe, riparian, mountain shrub, coldwater stream **15 pts**

Wetland, pasture & hayland or water stream, ponds **7 pts**

Pinion-Juniper, deciduous/coniferous woodland, cropland, other **1 pts**

**points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

3\) Project applies practice(s) for: (You should pick the one highest
category or species if a species fits in more than one category or if
you have more than one species on this item).

A State species of special concern, a state threatened species, a
Federal candidate

species, or a declining species. The bold **D** designates disturbance
sensitive species for

answering question #7

Includes:

> Columbia sharp-tailed grouse **D**
>
> greater sage grouse **D**

Colorado River cutthroat trout

greater sandhill crane **D 10 pts**

long-billed curlew **D**

kit fox **D**

boreal toad

**OR**

A state endangered or a Federal threatened or endangered species

Includes:

> black footed ferret **D** Colorado pikeminnow
>
> humpback chub
>
> razorback sucker **7 points**
>
> pronghorn **D**
>
> bonytail chub

bald eagle **D**

> fish- native Colorado River species

**OR**

Declining native species, or economically important species

Includes:

> grassland birds **D**

Pheasant **D**

bighorn sheep (desert and Rocky Mountain) **D 5 points**

elk **D**

mule deer **D**

trout, and mountain white fish (stream habitat only)

turkey **D**

**OR**

Species with stable or increasing populations, or not otherwise listed
**2 pts**

**Points** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\) Practices planned address limiting factors for target species.
Species specific practices found in Biology Technical Notes \# 10-20 are
worth 10 points. If the project is applying practices not listed in the
Biology Tech Notes, the local Work Group may assign a point value in
concurrence with the NRCS Area Biologist or other designated Area
representative. **Maximum of 10 points.**

**Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

5\) Will the planned practices alleviate or increase an identified game
damage problem?

> Alleviate damage = **5 pts**

No effect = **0 pts**

Increase damage **= minus 5 pts**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

6\) **Two points** for each partner contributing dollars towards the
participants cost. Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, etc. Landowners
and NRCS do not count as a partners. **No more than 6 points** (3
different partners) maximum for this factor.

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

7\) Proximity to occupied dwelling or other area of measured from
dwelling to center of area treated. For disturbance sensitive species
designated with a bold **D** in question 3. **Non-sensitive species
receive 10 points.**

\> 1/4 mile = **10 pts**

1/8 - 1/4 mile = **5 pts**

\< 1/8 mile = **0 pts**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

8)  Will project have significant positive impacts on water quality?
    (i.e. shallow water wetland, riparian buffer, buffers adjacent to
    perennial water etc.

> Yes = **5 pts**
>
> No **= 0 pts**
>
> **Points**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9)  Do planned practices encourage the establishment or maintenance of
    native vegetation?

> Yes = **5 pts**

No = **0 pts**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

10) Implement IPM plan for noxious weed control

**Yes = 5 pts**

**No = 0 pts**

**Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

11) Habitat Improvement **= 2 points for every 1/10^th^ of point
    improvement** in Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Index using species
    models in Bio Tech Note 40 or if a model is not available for the
    species being targeted use the Colorado Wildlife Evaluation Guide
    (Bio Tech Note #7).

**(10 points Maximum**

**Points \_\_\_\_\_\_**

12) Cost effectiveness = 800/Total Cost per Acre treated. . Total cost
    not cost share cost. Acres treated are acres that will realize
    resource improvement due to application of practices used in this
    ranking) **20 points max.**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Total points (Maximum of 111 points possible) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Tie Breaker = Total cost per acre treated. Same figure used in item11
above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Priority Wildlife Areas**

(See map)

# Riparian Habitat Areas

Riparian areas within designated critical habitats (as per U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service designation) in the Yampa, White, and North Platte
River Basin for fish. Contact Area or State Biologist if unsure of
critical habitat locations.

**Greater Sage Grouse**

(See map)

**Columbia Sharptail Grouse**

(See map)

**Sandhill Crane**

(See map)

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.946527777777778in" height="6.4125in"}

**EQIP 2004**

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**WATER QUALITY/ANIMAL Waste Management**

**North Platte White-Yampa Watershed**

Does the client have a current CNMP plan for the proposed project?

Yes = high No = medium

Is the project within a 100 year flood plain?

Yes = high No = medium

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Two answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

**(circle one)**

North Platte White-Yampa River Watershed

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004

WATER QUALITY/ANIMAL Waste Management Ranking Criteria 12/12/03

*A minimum score of 50* *points is necessary to be eligible*

***You can only use ranking A. or B. not both***.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **1a)** Practices reduce pollution contributions to water course:     |
|                                                                       |
| > (10 points/each) **30 points max**                                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > Diversion and collection                                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > Filter strips and/or buffers                                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > Water conveyance                                                    |
| >                                                                     |
| > Fencing                                                             |
| >                                                                     |
| > Alternate watering sources                                          |
| >                                                                     |
| > Collection and transport                                            |
|                                                                       |
| ## Composting facility                                                |
|                                                                       |
| **1b)** Relocate facility (**30 points**.) **Points                   |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2)  Ground water = 100/depth in feet to ground water (**10 points.    |
|     max.)**                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3)  Distance to surface water = 1000/distance in feet to surface      |
|     water                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **(10 points max.**)                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4)  Documented water quality (associated to animal waste pollution)   |
|                                                                       |
| problem in drainage. **(10 points**)                                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5)  Proximity to urban development (4 houses per 40 acres)            |
|                                                                       |
| > \< ¼ mile **10 points**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| ¼ to ½ mile **5 points**                                              |
|                                                                       |
| \> ½ mile **0 points**                                                |
|                                                                       |
| **Points** \_\_\_\_\_\_                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6)  Cost Effectiveness = 1600/Total Cost per animal unit treated.     |
|     Total cost not cost share cost. **20 points max.**                |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **\                                                                   |
| Total Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Tie Breaker = Total cost per animal unit. Same figure used in item 6  |
| above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**A. Operations -- animal confinement areas** (usually less than 50
animals) **:** (Use either 1a or 1b, but not both)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **1) Locality of existing facility:**                                 |
|                                                                       |
| 1A. In a 100 yr. Floodplain (**yes = 10 points**) **Points            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| 1B. Depth to groundwater (**10 points**) **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**  |
|                                                                       |
| 100/depth in feet to groundwater                                      |
|                                                                       |
| #                                                                     |
| ##  1C. Distance to surface water (10 points) Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                                       |
| 1000/Distance in feet to surface water                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **2) Plan Components:**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| adequate exists nonexistent                                           |
|                                                                       |
| inadequate                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **0.0 pts**. **5 pts**. **10 pts**.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Collection and Transport \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_          |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Storage or Treatment \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_              |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Seepage Control \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                   |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Transfer and Utilization \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_          |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **3)** Cost Effectiveness = 1600/Total Cost per animal unit treated.  |
| Total cost not cost share cost.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **20 points max.**                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Total Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Tie Breaker = Total cost per animal unit. Same figure used in item 3  |
| above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**B. Operations-large livestock and feeding operations** (usually
dairies, feed lots etc.)**.**

**EQIP 2004**

North Platte White-Yampa River Watershed

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**Forest LANDS**

Does the project treat aspen or lodgepole forest stands?

Yes =high No = see next question

Does the project treat Pinyon Juniper Woodland?

Yes = medium No = low

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Two answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

North Platte White-Yampa River Watershed

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004

FOREST LANDS Ranking Criteria 12/12/03

***Minimum Score of [50]{.underline} points necessary to be eligible***