Spreadsheet: 04a91b3d-6dec-4482-a103-e40afc663af0
Sheet: Sheet1

LAND EVALUATION  (LE)  Component | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5
NOTE:    Important Farmlands (LE - A)  OR  Historic/Archaeological Resources (LE - B) will be evaluated.
 | Parcels that clearly possess BOTH high value soils AND significant historic or
 | archaeological resources may be scored in both categories and accorded a premium in the rankings.
LE | A)  [NAME]  < Point Weight = 0.30 >
[N] | Percent of parcel composed of soils identified as "Prime," "Unique" or "Farmland of Statewide Importance"*
 | Category | Factor Scale | Acres | % of Area | Points
 | Prime if…. | 100 | 0
 | Unique 1 | 90 | 0
 | Farmlands of Statewide Importance 2 | 80 | 0
 | Local 3 | 70 | 0
 | Other agricultural lands | 40 | 0
 | Non-ag. Areas (e.g., HQ, water bodies) |  | 0
 |  |  | 0
 |  | Totals: | 0
 | 1 Unique - Used for production, but doesn't meet soil criteria.
 | 2 Farmlands of Statewide Importance - Irrigated but not prime, inadequate water, high potential dry cropland.
 | 3 Local - Has potential to be used.
 | Notes:
 | (1)  At least 50% of cropland parcels must be composed of soils designated as [NAME].  Ranch parcels
 | may be considered if they contain less than 50%--but at least 20%--Important Farmland soils.  Parcels qualifying with
 | less than 50% Important Farmland, may be offered less than full funding at the discretion of the State Conservationist.
 | (2) Water rights must be tied to the easement in order to preserve the "Important Farmlands" status
 | and to ensure optimal production potential and agricultural viability.
----  OR  ----
LE | B)  Historic & Archaeological Resources  < Point Weight = 1.0 >
 | Circle applicable points and add together in Sub-total box.
 | Diversity of Resources (1) | Factor Scale | Significance (2) | Factor Scale
 | All 4 criteria* represented | 9 | National | 9
 | 2 or 3 critieria represented | 6 | State | 6
 | 1 criterion represented | 2 | Local | 2
 | Diversity of Resources (3) | Factor Scale | Percent of Site | Factor Scale
 | 3 or more periods represented | 9 | > 70% | 3
 | 2 periods represented | 6 | 40%  -  69% | 1.5
 | 1 period represented | 2 | <  40% | 0.5
 | (1)  Diversity of resource types within parcel |  | Score:
 | (2)  "Significance" is as depicted in the National, State, or Tribal Register
 | (3)  Diversity of time periods represented within parcel
 | Note:  The four (4) "criteria" are described in 36 CFR 60.4.  They include--in simplified terms--things that:  (a) are associated with
 | significant historical events;  (b) associated with the lives of significant persons of our past;  (c)  embody distinctive/significant
 | artistic or architectural style/value;  (d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.
LE | C)  Percent of Cropland & Grassland (Pasture, Range) in the Offered Parcel     < Point Weight = 0.01 >
[N] | [Note:  Although this is a national ranking criterion, this factor will seldom be of any relevance in Colorado.]
 | If less than 1/3 of area is cropland and/or grassland, application is ineligible.
 | Percent (%) Cropland/Grassland:
 |  | % | Factor Scale
 |  | 0 | 0
 |  |  | Score: | 0 | (100 points [NAME].)
SITE ASSESSMENT  (SA)  Component
SA-1 | AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY & VIABILITY
SA-1 | A)  [NAME]  < Point Weight = 0.05 >
[N] | Ratio of the acres in the offered parcel to the median farm size of the county, according to the most recent Census of Agriculture
 | A.  Parcel Size (Ac.):
 | B.  Median Farm Size (Ac.):
 | >>  Ratio (A/B) =
 |  | Ratio | Factor Scale
 |  | < 1.0 | 0
 |  |  | Score: |  | (100 points [NAME].)
SA-1 | B)  Proximity to other Protected Lands    < Point Weight = .10 >
[N] | Nearest distance(s) from parcel boundary to other protected lands at least as large as the county median farm size
 | (such as land owned in fee title by the United States or a State or local government, or by an entity whose purpose
 | is to protect agricultural uses and related conservation values, or land that is already subject to an easement
 | or deed restriction that limits the conversion of the land to nonagricultural uses)
 | Scoring:  Multiply the number of parcels in each category by the appropriate points.
 | Proximity | Points | No. of Parcels | Points sub-total
 | Adjacent to:
 | 75% or more of parcel boundaries | 75 |  | 0
 | 50 - 74% of parcel boundaries | 60 |  | 0
 | 25 - 49% of parcel boundaries | 45 |  | 0
 | <25% of parcel boundaries | 30 |  | 0
 | Within:
 | 1 mile | 25 |  | 0
 | 1-2 miles | 20 |  | 0
 | 2-4 miles | 15 |  | 0
 | 4-8 miles | 10 |  | 0
 | > 8 miles | 0 |  | 0
 |  |  | Score: | 100 | (100 points [NAME].)
SA-1 | C)  Proximity to other Agricultural Lands and Infrastructure    < Point Weight = .10 >
[N] | Nearest distance from parcel boundary to other agricultural operations.  Count only those ag parcels that
 | are at least as large as the median farm size for in the county (or region) and considered economically viable.
 | Scoring:  Multiply the number of parcels in each category by the appropriate points.
 | Proximity | Points | No. of Parcels | Points sub-total
 | Adjacent to:
 | 50% or more of parcel boundaries | 50 |  | 0
 | 25 - 49% of parcel boundaries | 40 |  | 0
 | <25% of parcel boundaries | 25 |  | 0
 | Within:
 | 1 mile | 20 |  | 0
 | 1-2 miles | 15 |  | 0
 | 2-4 miles | 10 |  | 0
 | 4-8 miles | 5 |  | 0
 | > 8 miles | 0 |  | 0
 |  |  | Score: | 100 | (100 points [NAME].)
SA-2 | CONVERSION PRESSURE
SA-2 | A)  Conversion Pressure    < Point Weight = 0.10 >
 | Degree to which parcel is subject to land use conflicts or pressure to convert to non-agricultural uses.  There are two aspects
 | to this criterion:  (1) distance to urban or non-agricultural land use and (2) threat of conversion.   "Distance" is from parcel
 | boundary to urban infrastructure or non-agricultural land use  (e.g.,  urban land uses; a municipal boundary;  rural
 | residential development on parcels < 35 acres).   "Level of Threat" considers the parcel in the context of "community dynamics,"
 | i.e.,  the nature and intensity of population growth,  trends in land subdivision & development, agricultural land conversion rates, etc.
 |  | Level of Threat:
 | Distance from Parcel | High | Medium | Low
 | >  20 miles | 0 | 0 | 0
 | 15  -  20 miles | 20 | 10 | 0
 | 10  -  15 miles | 40 | 20 | 0
 | 6  -  10 miles | 60 | 30 | 10
 | 4  -  6 miles | 80 | 50 | 20
 | 2  -  4 miles | 90 | 60 | 30
 | within 2 miles | 100 | 70 | 40
 |  |  | Score: | 100
SA-2 | B)  Decrease in agricultural lands    < Point Weight = 0.005 >
[N] | Decrease in percentage of farm and ranch land acreage in the county in which parcel is located between last two Censuses of Agriculture
 | [Note:  Although this is a national ranking criterion, the Census data is not accurate enough in the West to warrant giving it much weight.]
 |  | % Decrease | Factor Scale
 |  | > 10.0 | 100
 | County Rate:  -27 | 4.5 - 9.9 | 50
 |  | < 4.5 | 0
 |  |  | Score: | 100
SA-2 | C)  Increase in county population    < Point Weight = 0.03 >
[N] | Percentage increase in county's population growth compared to State's (7/1/2000 to 7/1/2008), per the U.S. Census
 | If less than 14.1% (CO increase), zero (0) points will be awarded.
 | County Percent Change (%):
 | Colorado Percent Change (%): | 14.1
 |  | % | Factor Scale
 |  | -14 | -236.6
 |  |  | Score: | -236.6 | (Min. Pts. = 0; [NAME]. pts. = 100)
SA-2 | D)  Population Density    < Point Weight = 0.005 >
[N] | Based on county population as of 7/1/2008 divided by the non-federal land area in the county
 | [Note:  Although this is a national ranking criterion, Colorado is not giving it much weight.  The criterion is not meaningful
 | in much of Colorado, where the scales of agricultural operations may be significantly different within a span of 30 miles,
 | and where tourism and recreation drive local growth and development, not just resident population changes.]
 | Persons/Sq.Mi.:  10 | Persons/Sq.Mi. | Factor Scale
 |  | > 150 | 100
 |  | 50 - 149 | 50
 |  | < 50 | 0
 |  |  | Score: | 100
SA-3 | OTHER PUBLIC VALUES
SA-3 | A)  Other Conservation Values  < Point Weight = 0..30 >
 | Degree to which parcel possesses other Conservation Values and/or supports important ecological functions and values.
 | Examples:  wetlands; playas; streams; riparian areas; floodplains; groundwater recharge zones; important wildlife habitat; relict native
 | plant communities; habitat for Federal or State T&E, candidate, or other at-risk species; scenic values; unique geologic resources; etc.
 | Credit may also be given to parcels that lie within areas designated as priority conservation areas by public or private organizations.
 |  | Factor Scale | Points
 | Rangeland and Cropland Management | 1-20 | 0
 | Habitat Value | 1-10 | 0
 | Other Conservation Values | 1-20 | 0
 |  | Reviewer Rating > > | 100
 |  |  | Score:
 | Other Conservation Values cont'd:
 | Rangeland and Cropland Management:
 | 1)  Is there good diversity of grass species?
 | 2)  What condition are the grasses in?
 | 3)  Is the rangeland managed to maintain long-term sustainability?
 | 4)  Does the producer utilize crop rotation on the offered parcel?
 | 5)  Is the cropland managed to maintain long-term sustainability?
 | Habitat Value:
 | 1)  Does the offered parcel offer diverse habitat?
 | 2)  Is there proper habitat for Federal or State T&E?
 | 3)  Is there at risk species on the offered parcel?
 | 4)  Is the parcel managed properly to maintain a high quality habitat?
 | Other Conservation Values:
 | 1)  50% or more of the property lies within a core habitat area identified for Sage Grouse or Lesser Prairie Chicken.
 | 2)  50% or more of the property lies within a general habitat area identified for Sage Grouse or Lesser Prairie Chicken.