08N. Appendix NBig Sky. Big Land. Big History.
Montana
December 19, 2011
Jeff Walla
Stelling Engineers, Inc.
1372 Airport road
Kalispell MT 59901
RE: KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE: ALTERNATIVE C.
SHPO Project #: 2011121906
Dear Mr. Walla:
Historic Preservation
Museum
Outreach &Interpretation
Publications
Research Center
I have conducted a cultural resource file search for the above -cited project located in Section
27, T29N R22W. According to our records there have been no previously recorded sites within
the designated search locale. The absence of cultural properties in the area does not mean that
they do not exist but rather may reflect the absence of any previous cultural resource inventory
in the area, as our records indicated none.
It is SHPO's position that any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If any structures are to
be altered and are over fifty years old we would recommend that they be recorded and a
determination of their eligibility be made.
Based on the amount of new ground disturbance that would be associated with this project and
the lack of previous inventory in the area we feel that this project may have the potential to
impact cultural properties. We, therefore, recommend that a cultural resource inventory be
conducted in order to determine whether or not sites exist and if they will be impacted.
If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-
mail at dmurdo@mt.gov. I have attached an invoice for the file search. Thank you for
consulting with us.
Sincerely,
Damon Murdo
Cultural Records Manager
State Historic Preservation Office
File: FAA/2011
225 North Roberts Street
P. 0. Box 2o12o1
Helena, MT 59620-1201
(406)444-2694
(406) 444-2696 FAX
montanahistoricalsociety. org
Big Sky. Big Land. Big History.
Montana
r •
State Historic Preservation Office DATE: December 19, 2011
1410 8th Avenue
PO Box 201202
Helena, MT 59620
Phone 406.444.7715
Bill To: SHPO Invoice #: 2011121906
Jeff Walla
Stelling Engineers, Inc.
1372 Airport road
Kalispell MT 59901
I DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT i
File Search conducted for project:
KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE: ALTERNATIVE C
Total sections searched for SHPO Project #: 2011121906 1 2
TOTAL amount to be paid: 1 $ 25.00
Please make all checks payable to: OR
Montana Historical Society Pay Online by clicking
1410 8th Avenue HERE
Helena, MT 59620
If you have any questions concerning this invoice, contact Damon Murdo, 406.444.7767, dmurdo@mt.gov
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
Big Sky. Big Land. Big History.
Montana
December 19, 2011
Jeff Walla
Stelling Engineers, Inc.
1372 Airport road
Kalispell MT 59901
RE: KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE: ALTERNATIVES A & B.
SHPO Project #: 2011121905
Dear Mr. Walla:
Historic Preservation
Museum
Outreach &Interpretation
Publications
Research, Center
I have conducted a cultural resource file search for the above -cited project located in Sections
20, 29, T28N R21W. According to our records there have been a few previously recorded sites
within the designated search locale. In addition to the sites there have been a few previously
conducted cultural resource inventories done in the area. I've attached a list of these sites and
reports. If you would like any further information regarding these sites or reports you may
contact me at the number listed below.
It is SHPO's position that any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If any structures are to
be altered and are over fifty years old we would recommend that they be recorded and a
determination of their eligibility be made.
Based on the amount of new ground disturbance that would be associated with project
alternatives A&B, we feel that they may have the potential to impact cultural properties. We,
therefore, recommend that a cultural resource inventory be conducted in order to determine
whether or not sites exist and if they will be impacted.
If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-
mail at dmurdo@mt.gov. I have attached an invoice for the file search. Thank you for
consulting with us.
Sincerely,
Damon Murdo
Cultural Records Manager
State Historic Preservation Office
File: FAA/2011
225 North Roberts Street
P.O. Box 2o12o1
Helena, MT 5962o-1201
(4o6) 444-2694
(4o6) 444-2696 FAX
montanahistoricalsociety.org
Big Sky. Big Land.Bigxistory. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Montana Cultural Resource Information Systems
1 CRIS Township, Range, Section Report Report Date:
12/19/2011
Site # Twp Rng Sec Qs Site Typel Site Type 2 Time Period Owner NR Status
24FH0289 28 N 21W 20 NW Historic Architecture Historic Residence Historic Period Private Undetermined
24FH0288 2B N 21W 20 SE Historic Architecture Historic Residence Historic Period Private undetermined
24FHO267 28 N 21W 20 SE Kistarlc AYChLCQCture Historic 8e514enta Historic Period Private undetermined
24FH0350 28 N 21W 29 Comb Historic Railroad Null
Historic More Than One Private CO
24FH0265 28 N 21W 29 NE Historic Architecture Historic Residence Historic Period Private undetermined
24FHOO99 28 N 21W 29 NW Historic Outbuildings Null Historic More Than One Private undetermined
--- fiGGa1�
24FH0284 28 N 21W 29 SE Historic Historic Residence Historic Period Private undetermined
Big Sky. Big Land, Big History. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Montana Cultural Resource Annotated Bibliography System
CRABS Township, Range, Section Report
Report Dote;
121191201I
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:20
CHOQUETTE WAYNE T., ET AL.
11 /27 /1981 A CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE OF THE PROPOSED CITY OF KALISPELL SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CRABS Document Number:
FH 6 3228 Agency Document Number:
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:20
TAYLOR DEE C. AND W. JEFFREY KINNEY
5 /20/1981 GREENACRES WEST UNIT #4
CRABS Document Number: FH 6 14053 Agency Document Number:
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:20
STIPE FRANK T.
2 / /2011 A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF THE MT1 BURBOUT CELLULAR TOWER FACILITY PROJECT IN
FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA
CRABS Document Number: FH 6 32846 Agency Document Number:
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:20
BRUMLEY JOHN H.
2 / /2002 A CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF THE PROPOSED KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT PROJECT IN
FLATHEAD COUNTY MONTANA
CRABS Document Number: FH 5 24546 Agency Document Number:
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:29
MCLEOD CHARLES M
8 /24 /2009 RESULTS OF A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY OF THE US 93 ALTERNATE BIKE PATH
KALISPELL BYPASS, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA MDT PROJECT # NH5-3 (59) 109 (CONTROL #
2038)
CRABS Document Number: FH 4 32275 Agency Document Number: NH5-3(59)109
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:29
BRUMLEY JOHN H.
2 / /2002 A CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF THE PROPOSED KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT PROJECT IN
FLATHEAD COUNTY MONTANA
CRABS Document Number: FH 5 24546 Agency Document Number:
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:29
FERGUSON DAVID M. AND KATHY MCKAY
1 / /1999 CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE KALISPELL BYPASS PROJECT
CRABS Document Number: FH 4 22062 Agency Document Number: NH5-3(59)109 CONTROL #2038
Township:28 N Range:21W Section:29
CHOQUETTE WAYNE T., ET AL.
11 /27/1981 A CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE OF THE PROPOSED CITY OF KALISPELL SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CRABS Document Number: FH 6 3228 Agency Document Number:
Big Sky. Big Land. Big History.
MontanaHistorical Society
�.
State Historic Preservation Office DATE:
1410 8th Avenue
PO Box 201202
Helena, MT 59620
Phone 406.444.7715
Bill To: SHPO Invoice #:
Jeff Walla
Stelling Engineers, Inc.
1372 Airport road
Kalispell MT 59901
December 19, 2011
Please make all checks payable to: OR
Montana Historical Society Pay Online by clicking
1410 8th Avenue HERE
Helena, MT 59620
2011121905
If you have any questions concerning this invoice, contact Damon Murdo, 406.444.7767, dmurdo@mt.gov
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
United States Department of Agriculture
�NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
3550 Mullan Road, Suite 106
Missoula, MT 59808
Date: 1 /2/ 12
Jeff Walla, P.E.
Stelling Engineers
450 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
Kalispell, MT 59901
Jeff,
(406) 829-3395-Office
(406)829-3455-Fax
I am responding to your request to Angel Rosario for information regarding soils that are of
special importance as it relates to the proposed airport expansion. In the case of work that is
done outside of the city limits there is a requirement to assess the acres of prime, unique or soils
of local importance that may be converted to another use. I have attached soil maps of the area
showing the soil types. It appears that each alternative (A-C) will have some impact on soils that
are important for farmland. When an alternative is selected then a form AD-1006 (Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating) will need to be completed. You as the consultant should be able to
complete Part III and Part IV and I will complete the rest. I have included a copy of the AD-
1006 for you to use.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Jay Brooker
Area Resource Soil Scientist
Jay.Brooker@mt.usda.gov
(406) 829-3395 x 117
Helping People Help the Land
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
46
�{ Kalispell City Limits Near Airport Expansion
--_rR.:-
' •'A OFA
! - l • . .L Ik i t y- = I ' yak �f*
( AIWO
-' Kalispell-77
•�� _e-�rirj�3,. I� ► s7 V�f _
vx
IV
.., ..t.
f «,,;0 -'
r t..A-
�5
35� 10 'f,A20 2: 1$40
Feet
,i � t
48° 11' 13"
48° 9' 35"
Farmland Classification —Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana
(Alternative A and B Airport Master Plan Soils Map)
a
V N
m O
R V
Bo $ kbp Scale: 1:14,400 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11') sheet
N hielers
A 0 100 200 400 600
0 500 1.000 2,000 3,000
48° 11' 11"
W 9' 33"
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/3/2012
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4
a
O)
a)
m
LO
O
O)
C
E
O
a)
m
N
co
a) $
3 C tLi)
m N
(
�
>
U
� C6
O
m
N
00
J
y O O
L
V) a)
L)
N
a)
7
C
O
10
O
O C_
am
C
:— a
�O
C y
O`
a)
U
CD
N
O O) E
y -0
X m
N
itT M
O)
co
�L-. w N
C6 a)L
co
CD a)
ly
Q C)
3
a
`O MZ
a
°'N
L° m
C
'y Q
Q 7
E
U
y O Z
CD
U)
>
0
a
m
C N
O� Q a)
O
o >
O)
d
2 a) W
�3c
a)
o
�Q
O)
O
O- .- >
caai(D
N� O
N
m°'
o
E aCa a)
2 N
C
d
�
L~
°-0
)L o
a
N
Nn E T
Z° N
n E
O
N
N
>
d ur
O E
a>
3
E
>
�—
�
y
to a)
N
�
Z
C v
a)
OR
O O fa
a)
N
CD
YO
p •= -0 V
CD
O
mZ
N C
Q
O� f6
•-
C
a
U
N
? .52
N N
lD
'Q)
L0
d N
N O
2 a)
0 0 O7
a)
Z Q
O
L-0'a 7
Vl
O_ O C
N fN
O1 O)
7 L O
a)
N w
fn a)
—
+O+
O O. N
a) E m E
cu r�
a E
A3:d
o
COOU)
o
ff$ o
w
0
L
� N
O
m
m O
O O
E2 0� o
m
CU) W
� �
U
J
C)
d — N y
m
a
T OI N 6 Ng) U
G) — E U t x
m
ca
.ca
C
N
13
w o m .._. Ov N ;«.
m O O'
m
m
C
E O
UCMWZJ
O N
x N
EoBE
oaoa)
Uy
°C
U"°
m
>w
c
EW
E
E
E0 0
a E
U)U,°
c
d
«
`JL' `
awaca a)w
ca l0
O
z
JmJ
aaC
uE�
m
�a
Q
LL
L
%CL
`(
a
m
3
O N d
(u m
mETc
c E 3
w
d
m
mETm
m E c 3
° v
° (D rn
45 rn._
a) o
� ,
rn
q) - a) o
�dm
m
a',
m y
d
c c E> o c
�d
c o o
a
c
v:
c o p ra
° c w LD
m
m mo m
E E m E
mnc
E 5
m,
E m
mCL c
E
O c m E me
Q °
wa wd0f; -
wr-'c
'
am
�tol
a E E
m m
S
E E° E
Sa)°
E� o o
m Ev
Smc
Ev o 0
0
a U) a) z° ¢
m c
IL a` n vJ CL
a` m ° °
N a` cm
a` `m �° �°
C m
®
❑ ❑
❑
❑
a y
N V
O O
N N
M a)
� O)
O)
a
> O
() U)
45)
O N
a
3:U
N
O
m
Z
a)
u
ID Z
7 N
O C
ea
� d
Z U
Farmland Classification -Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana
Farmland Classification
Alternative A and B Airport Master Plan Soils Map
Farmland Classification- Summary by Map Unit - Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana (MT617)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Aa
Alluvial land, poorly drained
Not prime farmland
Not prime farmland
63.2
30,0
7.3%
Kd Kalispell gravelly loam, moderately
3.5%
deep over gravel, 12 to 40
percent slopes
14.3%
Ke Kalispell loam, 0 to 3 percent
Prime farmland if irrigated
124.0
slopes
Prime farmland if irrigated
Kg Kalispell loam, 3 to 7 percent
8.1
0.9%
slopes
Prime farmland if irrigated
34.1
3.9%
Kp Kalispell loam, moderately deep
over sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Kr
Kalispell loam, moderately deep
Prime farmland if irrigated
17.2
2.0%
over sand, 3 to 7 percent slopes
Kalispell loam, moderately deep
Kt
Not prime farmland
105.8
12.2%
over sand, 12 to 40 percent
slopes
Ku
Kalispell silt loam, heavy subsoil, 0
Prime farmland if irrigated
46.2
5.3%
to 3 percent slopes
210.7
Kw
Kalispell -Demers silt loams, 0 to 3
Not prime farmland
24.3%
percent slopes
Kalispell -Demers silt loams, 3 to 12
Not prime farmland
Kx
40.8
4.7%
percent slopes
Kza
Kalispell-Tuffit silt loams, 0 to 3
Not prime farmland
7,1
0.8%
percent slopes
Pf
Prospect stony loam, 7 to 12
Not prime farmland
17.3
2.0%
percent slopes
Saline -Alkali land
Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead
Not prime farmland
Sa
128.6
14.8%
Ta
Not prime farmland
21.5
2.5%
soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead
Not prime farmland
Tc
0.8
0.1 %
soils, 3 to 7 percent slopes
Te
Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead
Not prime farmland
11.5
1.3%
soils, 7 to 12 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
867.0
100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies
the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,
and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands
are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/3/2012
Page 3 of 4
Farmland Classification —Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie -break Rule: Lower
Alternative A and B Airport Master Plan Soils Map
M us Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/3/2012
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4
Farmland Classification —Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana
(Alternative C Airport Master Plan Soils Map)
48° 16' 17"
480 14' 17"
v
Map Scale: 1:17,700 if printed on A size (8 5" x 11'� sheet, N
N N
N Meters a
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
48' 16' 14"
49' 14' 14'
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/3/2012
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4
m
c
m
0
2
c6 a
m
a�
N O
lD U)
> c
m
�a
L N
N N
LL�
m
a O
d 0
Q
oU
_ N
U
!F
N C
41 �
m m
UQ
_m
E
cD
LL
N
co
m
Ln
CD
C�
E
m
a
co
N
cQ
N
3 c w
_
L m
7 m
N
m
2 C
W
a
U N
m U
r
O
Lij
CD
C
- O)•-
E
r a
C N
U
o
N
—°
O m a)m
x E
O O`
Z
U)
U
m(O
d a)
N
co
w .0E
y
TM
L N NC
a'
QO
( 3
N O
O_ CO > Z
c6 (� y
Q
N N
-°
t° -p
3w e
E o Z
D
U (
U)
D
>
O)
n
[2
c m
0 CD
O < :2
Q 7
C T
N 3 c
:5 p
L a
O
mCM N N
°
L
N� O
°
N
�c
O
E -a, c-, U)
c
a)N
U �Lj
oa
LL0
a
ymET
a °
3
m aL w
J
N
L_ N
p
) Z z) E
C v
O Y O m
.Lm.
w
m
EN0m.
O
m
c m
c¢
mA
0o7
ono
�o
om
d
Qm
°r�m
�
a>
°
>>
m
mapU
��.��
o nm
0 o
mm ° a o
n
E m E
F
nE U) U
U) cnF-
o
o E o
3
r
2 ti
W
v
m
N d O
m o
2 0:O
m
CU) W
5
U
J
O
T
Ol N N Ol U
m
N
w d O N
w O V m w N
_d
m O'
m m
° t
c
CO)
c E
O
E"r°
N
E °x0 EE°
601
60' °a)
N C
o c
0+ U
m
w C
m. C
U
c
U
m
U
'Co
V
N °
�U
EvUo f 4
O
E
o
mN
avi v
co N
CJ
acancaco0
CO N w
v a
iEE
m
n°a
O
C
m
Q
c
m
m �
E w
y
c
w
m
C
m m
m E
O
n
m
E
my
Q o
a
am
i m m
m
d
m @ E
d ¢
`w
c
w
rn z°
c
�
¢ w a`
m
IL
cc
❑ ❑
d \( LL O +}
CL
• ❑
❑
0
IL
A \ A +
3
O cO N
m m
E
a�i T c
c_2E3
N
m
N E T 01
w°c3
cvm rn
m to
w-m°
'o O rn
rn
m-4)2
O
.- 00 8
v m
_
O O
C E >, O c
c O p Ol
c
vm
c O p p
m Q m
E m m E
m a c e
E
m
E m
!2 .c .5
E �
w _m
t 07 C
w c
w t Ol C
N C
E E
m m 0
N' C
Ev o o m
N
Ev
p
C Qi
Ev o o
o
a` ac'a a
a` mom= U)'
a` m
a"m ° O
N It
O O
N N
M (D
� 01
m
IL
>,
Z
U)
m
Z
11
Farmland Classification -Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana
Farmland Classification
Alternative C Airport Master Plan Soils Map
Farmland Classification- Summary by Map Unit - Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana (MT617)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Aa
Alluvial land, poorly drained
Not prime farmland
_ 17.8
13.6
L_ 1.3%
1.0%
Bt
Blanchard very fine sandy loam,
Not prime farmland
7 to 12 percent slopes
Bu
Blanchard very fine sandy loam,
Not prime farmland
11.6
0.9%
12 to 20 percent slopes
By
Blanchard very fine sandy loam,
I Not prime farmland
1.8
0.1 %
20 to 45 percent slopes
Ke
Kalispell loam, 0 to 3 percent
Prime farmland if irrigated
540.4
39.7%
slopes
Kf
Kalispell loam, 0 to 3 percent
Prime farmland if irrigated
35.3
2.6%
slopes, wind eroded
Kg
Kalispell loam, 3 to 7 percent
Prime farmland if irrigated
62.4
4.6%
slopes
70.5
5.2%
Kk
Kalispell loam, 7 to 12 percent
Not prime farmland
slopes
Not prime farmland
Km
Kalispell loam, 12 to 25 percent
20.5
1.5%
slopes
70.0
5.1 %
Kn
Kalispell loam, moderately deep
Farmland of statewide
over gravel, 0 to 7 percent
importance
slopes
Pa
Prospect loam, 0 to 3 percent
Prime farmland if irrigated
3.4
0.3%
slopes
Pb
Prospect loam, 3 to 7 percent
Farmland of statewide
64.1
4.7%
slopes
importance
Pc
Prospect loam, 7 to 12 percent
Not prime farmland
39.9
2.9%
slopes
Pd
Prospect loam, 12 to 20 percent
Not prime farmland
5.0
0.4%
slopes
Not prime farmland
Pf
Prospect stony loam, 7 to 12
4,5
0.3%
percent slopes
Pg
Prospect stony loam, 12 to 20
Not prime farmland
4.7
0,3%
percent slopes
Not prime farmland
Ta
Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead
145.8
10.7%
soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Tc
Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead
Not prime farmland
62.4
4.6%
soils, 3 to 7 percent slopes
Te
Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead
Not prime farmland
21.9
1.6%
soils, 7 to 12 percent slopes
Tg
Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead
Not prime farmland
2.8
0.2%
soils, 12 to 20 percent slopes
Not prime farmland
21.0
F 1.5%
W
Water
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/3/2012
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4
Farmland Classification —Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana
Alternative C Airport Master Plan Soils Map
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana (MT617)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name i Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Ym Yeoman gravelly loam, Farmland of statewide
6.7
0.5%
moderately deep over sand, 7 importance
to 12 percent slopes
30.0
2.2%
Yn Yeoman gravelly loam, Not prime farmland
moderately deep over sand,
12 to 20 percent slopes
70.7
5.2%
Yp Yeoman loam, moderately deep Prime farmland if irrigated
over sand, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
Yr
Yeoman loam, moderately deep
Farmland of statewide
23.2
1.7%
over sand, 3 to 7 percent
importance
slopes
Ys
Yeoman loam, moderately deep
Not prime farmland
11.0
0.8%
over sand, 7 to 12 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
1,361.1
100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies
the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,
and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands
are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie -break Rule: Lower
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/3/2012
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project I Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use
County And State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ❑ ❑
Acres Irrigated
Average Farm Size
Major Crop(s)
Farmable land In Govt. JurisdicVon
Acres: %
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Ratin
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
0
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
1. Area In Nonurban Use _
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
Maximum
Points
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On -Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility Wlth Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
0
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local
site assessment)
16❑
❑
0
❑
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
0
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Reason For Selection:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ® No
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff
STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step 1— Federal agencies involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form.
Step 2 — Originator will send copies A, B and C together with maps indicating locations of site(s), to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) local field office and retain copy D for their files. (Note: NRCS has a field office in most counties
in the U.S. The field office is usually located in the county seat. A list of field office locations are available from the NRCS
State Conservationist in each state).
Step 3 — NRCS will, within 45 calendar days after receipt of form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the pro-
posed project contains prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland.
Step `4 — In cases where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS field offices will com-
plete Parts II, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 — NRCS will return copy A and B of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project. (Copy C will be retained for
NRCS records).
Step 6 — The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form.
Step 7 — The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conver-
sion is consistent with the FPPA and the agency's internal policies.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Part I: In completing the "CountyAnd State" questions list all the local governments that are responsible
for local land controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: In completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:
1 . Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conver-
sion, because the conversion would restrict access to them.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification
(e.g. highways, utilities) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI if a local site assessment is used.
Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5 (b) of CFR. In cases of
corridor -type projects such as transportation, powerline and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply
and will, be weighed zero, however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points, and criterion
#I I a maximum of 25 points.
Individual Federal agencies at the national level, may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment
criteria other than those shown in the FPPA rule. In all cases where other weights are assigned relative adjust-
ments must be made to maintain the maximum total weight points at 160.
In rating alternative sites, Federal agencies shall consider each of the criteria and assign points within the
limits established in the FPPA rule. Sites most suitable for protection under these criteria will receive the
highest total scores, and sites least suitable, the lowestscores.
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used
and the total maximum number of points is other than 160, adjust the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned Site A = 180 x 160 = 144 points for Site "A."
Maximum points possible 200
Site Assessment Scoring for the Twelve Factors Used in FPPA
The Site Assessment criteria used in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) rule are designed to
assess important factors other than the agricultural value of the land when determining which alternative
sites should receive the highest level of protection from conversion to non agricultural uses.
Twelve factors are used for Site Assessment and ten factors for corridor -type sites. Each factor is listed
in an outline form, without detailed definitions or guidelines to follow in the rating process. The purpose
of this document is to expand the definitions of use of each of the twelve Site Assessment factors so
that all persons can have a clear understanding as to what each factor is intended to evaluate and how
points are assigned for given conditions.
In each of the 12 factors a number rating system is used to determine which sites deserve the most
protection from conversion to non -farm uses. The higher the number value given to a proposed site, the
more protection it will receive. The maximum scores are 10, 15 and 20 points, depending upon the
relative importance of each particular question. If a question significantly relates to why a parcel of land
should not be converted, the question has a maximum possible protection value of 20, whereas a
question which does not have such a significant impact upon whether a site would be converted, would
have fewer maximum points possible, for example 10.
The following guidelines should be used in rating the twelve Site Assessment criteria:
1. How much land is in non -urban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is
intended?
More than 90 percent: 15 points
90-20 percent: 14 to 1 points
Less than 20 percent: 0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the area within one mile of the proposed
site is non -urban area. For purposes of this rule, "non -urban" should include:
• Agricultural land (crop -fruit trees, nuts, oilseed)
• Rangeland
• Forest land
• Golf Courses
• Non paved parks and recreational areas
• Mining sites
• Farm Storage
• Lakes, ponds and other water bodies
• Rural roads, and through roads without houses or buildings
• Open space
• Wetlands
• Fish production
• Pasture or hayland
Urban uses include:
• Houses (other than farm houses)
• Apartment buildings
• Commercial buildings
• Industrial buildings
• Paved recreational areas (i.e. tennis courts)
• Streets in areas with 30 structures per 40 acres
• Gas stations
• Equipment, supply stores
• Off -farm storage
• Processing plants
• Shopping malls
• Utilities/Services
• Medical buildings
In rating this factor, an area one -mile from the outer edge of the proposed site should be outlined on a
current photo; the areas that are urban should be outlined. For rural houses and other buildings with
unknown sizes, use 1 and 1/3 acres per structure. For roads with houses on only one side, use one half
of road for urban and one half for non -urban.
The purpose of this rating process is to insure that the most valuable and viable farmlands are protected
from development projects sponsored by the Federal Government. With this goal in mind, factor S1
suggests that the more agricultural lands surrounding the parcel boundary in question, the more
protection from development this site should receive. Accordingly, a site with a large quantity of non -
urban land surrounding it will receive a greater
number of points for protection from development. Thus, where more than 90 percent of the area
around the proposed site (do not include the proposed site in this assessment) is non -urban, assign 15
points. Where 20 percent or less is
non -urban, assign 0 points. Where the area lies between 20 and 90 percent non -urban, assign
appropriate points from 14 to 1, as noted below.
Percent Non -Urban Land
Points
within 1 mile
90 percent or greater
15
85 to 89 percent
14
80 to 84 percent
13
75 to 79 percent
12
70 to 74 percent
11
65 to 69 percent
10
60 to 64 percent
9
55 to 59 percent
8
50 to 54 percent
7
45 to 49 percent
6
40 to 44 percent
5
35 to 39 percent
4
30 to 24 percent
3
25 to 29 percent
2
21 to 24 percent
1
20 percent or less
0
2. How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in non -urban use?
More than 90 percent: 10 points
90 to 20 percent: 9 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent: 0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the land adjacent to the proposed site is non -
urban use. Where factor #1 evaluates the general location of the proposed site, this factor evaluates
the immediate perimeter of the site. The definition of urban and non -urban uses in factor #1 should be
used for this factor.
In rating the second factor, measure the perimeter of the site that is in non -urban and urban use.
Where more than 90 percent of the perimeter is in non -urban use, score this factor 10 points. Where
less than 20 percent, assign 0 points. If a road is next to the perimeter, class the area according to the
use on the other side of the road for that area. Use 1 and 1/3 acre per structure if not otherwise known.
Where 20 to 90 percent of the perimeter is non -urban, assign points as noted below:
Percentage of Perimeter
Points
Bordering Land
90 percent or greater
10
82 to 89 percent
9
74 to 81 percent
8
65 to 73 percent
7
58 to 65 percent
6
50 to 57 percent
5
42 to 49 percent
4
34 to 41 percent
3
27 to 33 percent
2
21 to 26 percent
1
20 percent or Less
0
3. How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)
more than five of the last ten years?
More than 90 percent: 20 points
90 to 20 percent: 19 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent: 0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the proposed conversion site has been used or
managed for agricultural purposes in the past 10 years.
Land is being farmed when it is used or managed for food or fiber, to include timber products, fruit, nuts,
grapes, grain, forage, oil seed, fish and meat, poultry and dairy products.
Land that has been left to grow up to native vegetation without management or harvest will be
considered as abandoned and therefore not farmed. The proposed conversion site should be evaluated
and rated according to the percent, of the site farmed.
If more than 90 percent of the site has been farmed 5 of the last 10 years score the site as follows:
Percentage of Site Farmed Points
90 percent or greater
20
86 to 89 percent
19
82 to 85 percent
18
78 to 81 percent
17
74 to 77 percent
16
70 to 73 percent
15
66 to 69 percent
14
62 to 65 percent
13
58 to 61 percent
12
54 to 57 percent
11
50 to 53 percent
10
46 to 49 percent
9
42 to 45 percent
8
38 to 41 percent
7
35 to 37 percent
6
32 to 34 percent
5
29 to 31 percent
4
26 to 28 percent
3
23 to 25 percent
20 to 22 percent percent or Less
Less than 20 percent
4. Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect
farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected: 20 points
Site is not protected: 0 points
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which state and local government and private programs
have made efforts to protect this site from conversion.
State and local policies and programs to protect farmland include:
State'Policies and Programs to Protect Farmland
1. Tax Relief:
A. Differential Assessment: Agricultural lands are taxed on their agricultural use value, rather
than at market value. As a result, farmers pay fewer taxes on their land, which helps keep them
in business, and therefore helps to insure that the farmland will not be converted to
nonagricultural uses.
1. Preferential Assessment for Property Tax: Landowners with parcels of land used for
agriculture are given the privilege of differential assessment.
2. Deferred Taxation for Property Tax: Landowners are deterred from converting their land
to nonfarm uses, because if they do so, they must pay back taxes at market value.
3. Restrictive Agreement for Property Tax: Landowners who want to receive Differential
Assessment must agree to keep their land in - eligible use.
B. Income Tax Credits
Circuit Breaker Tax Credits: Authorize an eligible owner of farmland to apply some or all of the
property taxes on his or her farmland and farm structures as a tax credit against the owner's
state income tax.
C. Estate and Inheritance Tax Benefits
Farm Use Valuation for Death Tax: Exemption of state tax liability to eligible farm estates.
2. "Right to farm" laws:
Prohibits local governments from enacting laws which will place restrictions upon normally
accepted farming practices, for example, the generation of noise, odor or dust.
3. Agricultural Districting:
Wherein farmers voluntarily organize districts of agricultural land to be legally recognized
geographic areas. These farmers receive benefits, such as protection from annexation, in
exchange for keeping land within the district for a given number of years.
4. Land Use Controls: Agricultural Zoning.
Types of Agricultural Zoning Ordinances include:
A. Exclusive: In which the agricultural zone is restricted to only farm -related dwellings, with, for
example, a minimum of 40 acres per dwelling unit.
B. Non -Exclusive: In which non -farm dwellings are allowed, but the density remains low, such
as 20 acres per dwelling unit.
Additional Zoning techniques include:
A. Slidinq Scale: This method looks at zoning according to the total size of the parcel owned.
For example, the number of dwelling units per a given number of acres may change from
county to county according to the existing land acreage to dwelling unit ratio of surrounding
parcels of land within the specific area.
B. Point System or Numerical Approach: Approaches land use permits on a case by case
basis.
LESA: The LESA system (Land Evaluation -Site Assessment) is used as a tool to help
assess options for land use on an evaluation of productivity weighed against commitment to
urban development.
C. Conditional Use: Based upon the evaluation on a case by case basis by the Board of
Zoning Adjustment. Also may include the method of using special land use permits.
5. Development Rights:
A. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR): Where development rights are purchased by
Government action.
Buffer Zoning Districts: Buffer Zoning Districts are an example of land purchased by
Government action. This land is included in zoning ordinances in order to preserve and
protect agricultural lands from non -farm land uses encroaching upon them.
B. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): Development rights are transferable for use in other
locations designated as receiving areas. TDR is considered a locally based action (not
state), because it requires a voluntary decision on the part of the individual landowners.
6. Governor's Executive Order: Policy made by the Governor, stating the importance of agriculture,
and the preservation of agricultural lands. The Governor orders the state agencies to avoid the
unnecessary conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural uses.
7. Voluntary State Programs:
A. California's Program of Restrictive Agreements and Differential Assessments: The
California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, allows
cities, counties and individual landowners to form agricultural preserves and enter into
contracts for 10 or more years to insure that these parcels of land remain strictly for
agricultural use. Since 1972 the Act has extended eligibility to recreational and open space
lands such as scenic highway corridors, salt ponds and wildlife preserves. These
contractually restricted lands may be taxed differentially for their real value. One hundred -
acre districts constitute the minimum land size eligible.
Suggestion: An improved version of the Act would state that if the land is converted
after the contract expires, the landowner must pay the difference in the taxes between
market value for the land and the agricultural tax value which he or she had been
paying under the Act. This measure would help to insure that farmland would not be
converted after the 10 year period ends.
B. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program: Agricultural landowners within
agricultural districts have the opportunity to sell their development rights to the Maryland
Land Preservation Foundation under the agreement that these landowners will not
subdivide or develop their land for an initial period of five years. After five years the
landowner may terminate the agreement with one year notice.
As is stated above under the California Williamson Act, the landowner should pay the back
taxes on the property if he or she decides to convert the land after the contract expires, in
order to discourage such conversions.
C. Wisconsin Income Tax Incentive Program: The Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program
of December 1977 encourages local jurisdictions in Wisconsin to adopt agricultural
preservation plans or exclusive agricultural district zoning ordinances in exchange for credit
against state income tax and exemption from special utility assessment. Eligible candidates
include local governments and landowners with at least 35 acres of land per dwelling unit in
agricultural use and gross farm profits of at least $6.000 per year, or $18,000 over three
years.
8. Mandatory State Programs:
A. The Environmental Control Act in the state of Vermont was adopted in 1970 by the Vermont
State Legislature. The Act established an environmental board with 9 members (appointed
by the Governor) to implement a planning process and a permit system to screen most
subdivisions and development proposals according to specific criteria stated in the law.
The planning process consists of an interim and a final Land Capability and Development
Plan, the latter of which acts as a policy plan to control development. The policies are
written in order to:
• prevent air and water pollution;
• protect scenic or natural beauty, historic sites and rare and irreplaceable
natural areas; and
• consider the impacts of growth and reduction of development on areas of
primary agricultural soils.
B. The California State Coastal Commission: In 1976 the Coastal Act was passed to establish
a permanent Coastal Commission with permit and planning authority The purpose of the
Coastal Commission was and is to protect the sensitive coastal zone environment and its
resources, while accommodating the social and economic needs of the state. The
Commission has the power to regulate development in the coastal zones by issuing permits
on a case by case basis until local agencies can develop their own coastal plans, which
must be certified by the Coastal Commission.
C. Hawaii's Program of State Zoning: In 1961, the Hawaii State Legislature established Act
187, the Land Use Law, to protect the farmland and the welfare of the local people of
Hawaii by planning to avoid "unnecessary urbanization". The Law made all state lands into
four districts: agricultural, conservation, rural and urban. The Governor appointed members
to a State Land Use Commission, whose duties were to uphold the Law and form the
boundaries of the four districts. In addition to state zoning, the Land Use Law introduced a
program of Differential Assessment, wherein agricultural landowners paid taxes on their
land for its agricultural use value, rather than its market value.
D. The Oregon Land Use Act of 1973: This act established the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) to provide statewide planning goals and guidelines.
Under this Act, Oregon cities and counties are each required to draw up a comprehensive
plan, consistent with statewide planning goals. Agricultural land preservation is high on the
list of state goals to be followed locally.
If the proposed site is subject to or has used one or more of the above farmland protection programs or
policies, score the site 20 points. If none of the above policies or programs apply to this site, score 0
points.
5. How close is the site to an urban built-up area?
The site is 2 miles or more from an
15 points
urban built-up area
The site is more than 1 mile but less
10 points
than 2 miles from an urban built-up area
The site is less than 1 mile from, but is
5 points
not adjacent to an urban built-up area
The site is adjacent to an urban built-up
0 points
area
This factor is designed to evaluate the extent to which the proposed site is located next to an existing
urban area. The urban built-up area must be 2500 population. The measurement from the built-up area
should be made from the point at which the density is 30 structures per 40 acres and with no open or
non -urban land existing between the major built-up areas and this point. Suburbs adjacent to cities or
urban built-up areas should be considered as part of that urban area.
For greater accuracy, use the following chart to determine how much protection the site should receive
according to its distance from an urban area. See chart below:
Distance From Perimeter
Points
of Site to Urban Area
More than 10,560 feet
15
9,860 to 10,559 feet
14
9,160 to 9,859 feet
13
8,460 to 9,159 feet
12
7,760 to 8,459 feet
11
7,060 to 7,759 feet
10
6,360 to 7,059 feet
9
5,660 to 6,359 feet
8
4,960 to 5,659 feet
7
4,260 to 4,959 feet
6
3,560 to 4,259 feet
5
2,860 to 3,559 feet
4
2,160 to 2,859 feet
3
1,460 to 2,159 feet
2
760 to 1,459 feet
1
Less than 760 feet (adjacent)
0
6. How close is the site to water lines, sewer lines and/or other local facilities and services
whose capacities and design would promote nonagricultural use?
None of the services exist nearer than 15 points
3 miles from the site
Some of the services exist more than 10 points
one but less than 3 miles from the site
All of the services exist within 1/2 mile 0 points
of the site
This question determines how much infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) is in place which could facilitate
nonagricultural development. The fewer facilities in place, the more difficult it is to develop an area.
Thus, if a proposed site is further away from these services (more than 3 miles distance away), the site
should be awarded the highest number of points (15). As the distance of the parcel of land to services
decreases, the number of points awarded declines as well. So, when the site is equal to or further than
1 mile but less than 3 miles away from services, it should be given 10 points. Accordingly, if this
distance is 1/2 mile to less than 1 mile, award 5 points; and if the distance from land to services is less
than 1/2 mile, award 0 points.
Distance to public facilities should be measured from the perimeter of the parcel in question to the
nearest site(s) where necessary facilities are located. If there is more than one distance (i.e. from site to
water and from site to sewer), use the average distance (add all distances and then divide by the
number of different distances to get the average).
Facilities which could promote nonagricultural use include:
• Water lines
• Sewer lines
• Power lines
• Gas lines
• Circulation (roads)
• Fire and police protection
• Schools
7. Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average -size
farming unit in the county? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS
field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage
of Farm Units in Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)
As large or larger: 10 points
Below average: Deduct 1 point for 9 to 0 points
each 5 percent below the average,
down to 0 points if 50 percent or more
is below average
This factor is designed to determine how much protection the site should receive, according to its size in
relation to the average size of farming units within the county. The larger the parcel of land, the more
agricultural use value the land possesses, and vice versa. Thus, if the farm unit is as large or larger
than the county average, it receives the maximum number of points (10). The smaller the parcel of land
compared to the county average, the fewer number of points given. Please see below:
Parcel Size in Relation to Average County Points
Size
Same size or larger than average (100 percent)
10
95 percent of average
9
90 percent of average
8
85 percent of average
7
80 percent of average
6
75 percent of average
5
70 percent of average
4
65 percent of average
3
60 percent of average
2
55 percent of average
1
50 percent or below county average
0
State and local Natural Resources Conservation Service offices will have the average farm size
information, provided by the latest available Census of Agriculture data
8. If this site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become
non-farmable because of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly 10 points
converted by the project
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres 9 to 1 point(s)
directly converted by the project
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres 0 points
directly converted by the project
This factor tackles the question of how the proposed development will affect the rest of the land on the
farm The site which deserves the most protection from conversion will receive the greatest number of
points, and vice versa. For example, if the project is small, such as an extension on a house, the rest of
the agricultural land would remain farmable, and thus a lower number of points is given to the site.
Whereas if a large-scale highway is planned, a greater portion of the land (not including the site) will
become non-farmable, since access to the farmland will be blocked; and thus, the site should receive
the highest number of points (10) as protection from conversion
Conversion uses of the Site Which Would Make the Rest of the Land Non-Farmable by Interfering with
Land Patterns
Conversions which make the rest of the property nonfarmable include any development which blocks
accessibility to the rest of the site Examples are highways, railroads, dams or development along the
front of a site restricting access to the rest of the property.
The point scoring is as follows:
Amount of Land Not Including the
Points
Site Which Will Become Non-
Farmable
25 percent or greater
10
23 - 24 percent
9
21 - 22 percent
8
19 - 20 percent
7
17 - 18 percent
6
15 - 16 percent
5
13 - 14 percent
4
11 - 12 percent
3
9 - 11 percent
2
6 - 8 percent
1
5 percent or less
0
9. Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm
suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?
All required services are available 5 points
Some required services are available 4 to 1 point(s)
No required services are available 0 points
This factor is used to assess whether there are adequate support facilities, activities and industry to
keep the farming business in business. The more support facilities available to the agricultural
landowner, the more feasible it is for him or her to stay in production. In addition, agricultural support
facilities are compatible with farmland. This fact is important, because some land uses are not
compatible; for example, development next to farmland cam be dangerous to the welfare of the
agricultural land, as a result of pressure from the neighbors who often do not appreciate the noise,
smells and dust intrinsic to farmland. Thus, when all required agricultural support services are available,
the maximum number of points (5) are awarded. When some services are available, 4 to 1 point(s) are
awarded; and consequently, when no services are available, no points are given. See below:
Percent of Points
Services Available
100 percent 5
75 to 99 percent 4
50 to 74 percent 3
25 to 49 percent 2
1 to 24 percent 1
No services 0
10. Does the site have substantial and well -maintained on farm investments such as barns,
other storage buildings, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways,
or other soil and water conservation measures?
High amount of on -farm investment 20 points
Moderate amount of non -farm 19 to 1 point(s)
investment
No on -farm investments 0 points
This factor assesses the quantity of agricultural facilities in place on the proposed site. If a significant
agricultural infrastructure exists, the site should continue to be used for farming, and thus the parcel will
receive the highest amount of points towards protection from conversion or development. If there is little
on farm investment, the site will receive comparatively less protection. See -below:
Amount of On -farm Investment
Points
As much or more than necessary to
20
maintain production (100 percent)
95 to 99 percent
19
90 to 94 percent
18
85 to 89 percent
17
80 to 84 percent
16
75 to 79 percent
15
70 to 74 percent
14
65 to 69 percent
13
60 to 64 percent
12
55 to 59 percent
11
50 to 54 percent
10
45 to 49 percent
9
40 to 44 percent
8
35 to 39 percent
7
30 to 34 percent
6
25 to 29 percent
5
20 to 24 percent
4
15 to 19 percent
3
10 to 14 percent
2
5 to 9 percent
1
0 to 4 percent
0
11. Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the
support for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these
support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?
Substantial reduction in demand for support 10 points
services if the site is converted
Some reduction in demand for support 9 to 1 point(s)
services if the site is converted
No significant reduction in demand for 0 points
support services if the site is converted
This factor determines whether there are other agriculturally related activities, businesses or jobs
dependent upon the working of the pre -converted site in order for the others to remain in production.
The more people and farming activities relying upon this land, the more protection it should receive from
conversion. Thus, if a substantial reduction in demand for support services were to occur as a result of
conversions, the proposed site would receive a high score of 10; some reduction in demand would
receive 9 to 1 point(s), and no significant reduction in demand would receive no points.
Specific points are outlined as follows:
Amount of Reduction in Support
Points
Services if Site is Converted to
Nonagricultural Use
Substantial reduction (100 percent)
10
90 to 99 percent
9
80 to 89 percent
8
70 to 79 percent
7
60 to 69 percent
6
50 to 59 percent
5
40 to 49 percent
4
30 to 39 percent
3
20 to 29 percent
2
10 to 19 percent
1
No significant reduction (0 to 9 percent)
0
12. Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with
agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of the surrounding
farmland to nonagricultural use?
Proposed project is incompatible with existing 10 points
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
Proposed project is tolerable of existing 9 to 1 point(s)
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
Proposed project is fully compatible with existing 0 points
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
Factor 12 determines whether conversion of the proposed agricultural site will eventually cause the
conversion of neighboring farmland as a result of incompatibility of use of the first with the latter. The
more incompatible the proposed conversion is with agriculture, the more protection this site receives
from conversion. Therefor-, if the proposed conversion is incompatible with agriculture, the site receives
10 points. If the project is tolerable with agriculture, it receives 9 to 1 points; and if the proposed
conversion is compatible with agriculture, it receives 0 points.
CORRIDOR - TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor - type site configuration
connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines,
highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess
the suitability of each corridor -type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the
land evaluation information.
For Water and Waste Programs, corridor analyses are not applicable for distribution or collection
networks. Analyses are applicable for transmission or trunk lines where placement of the lines are
flexible.
(1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile form where the project is intended?
(2) More than 90 percent
(4) 90 to 20 percent
(6) Less than 20 percent
(3) 15 points
(5) 14 to 1 point(s).
(7) 0 points
(2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?
(3) More than 90 percent
(5) 90 to 20 percent
(7) less than 20 percent
(4) 10 point(s)
(6) 9 to 1 points
(8) 0 points
(3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more
than five of the last 10 years?
(4) More than 90 percent
(6) 90 to 20 percent
(8) Less than 20 percent
(5) 20 points
(7) 19 to 1 point(s)
(9) 0 points
(4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or
covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected
Site is not protected
20 points
0 points
(5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average - size farming unit
in the County? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in
each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture, Acreage of Farm Units in
Operation with $1,000 or more in sales.)
As large or larger 10 points
Below average deduct 1 point for each 5 9 to 0 points
percent below the average, down to 0 points if
50 percent or more below average
(6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-
farmable because of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of 25 points
acres directly converted by the project
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of 1 to 24 point(s)
the acres directly convened by the project
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the 0 points
acres directly converted by the project
(7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e., farm
suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?
All required services are available 5 points
Some required services are available 4 to 1 point(s)
No required services are available 0 points
(8) Does the site have substantial and well -maintained on -farm investments such as barns, other
storage building, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation, waterways, or other soil
and water conservation measures?
High amount of on -farm investment 20 points
Moderate amount of on -farm investment 19 to 1 point(s)
No on -farm investment 0 points
(9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for
farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and
thus, the viability of the farms remaining in the area?
Substantial reduction in demand for support 25 points
services if the site is convened
Some reduction in demand for support 1 to 24 point(s)
services if the site is convened
No significant reduction in demand for support 0 points
services if the site is converted
(10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture
that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural
use?
Proposed project is incompatible to existing 10 points
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
Proposed project is tolerable to existing 9 to 1 point(s)
agricultural use of surrounding farmland
Proposed project is fully compatible with 0 points
existing agricultural use of surrounding
farmland
Call From: e5 b W l a b aaf� _ Phone
Call To: �1� Phone
Time: 5 A
Date: \
Project Name/Topic: ),,It, S k .c k AC. � � rf +t d ,
Discussion:
Page: 1 ' of
le- f4e� �r,rA de-'e'J, n
rrcA «cs �
V- LA % .• "'F In G w v 01 k i�-k—A r o% •a--e f e\fA I' %&W
f v
Z Troject-Active\Airports\0043 - Kalispell City\003-2010\Project Management\Work Plan\KCA Phone Record.doc