United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service		 Connecticut Go to Accessibility Information
Skip to Page Content

Connecticut WHIP Ranking Criteria - 2004

Project Name___________________________________________________ Total Points______________

Habitat objective(s): ____________________________________________________________________
 
Ecological Considerations

Points
A. WHIP HABITATS
  Imperiled Habitats (NDDB to Governor's Task Force) 15
  Beaches, Dunes, and Other Coastal Habitats Large Rivers and Associated Riparian Habitats Atlantic White Cedar Swamps  
  Coastal Plain Ponds Un-dammed Streams and Rivers Acidic Bogs and Peatlands  
  Off-Shore Islands Calcareous Uplands Cove Forests  
  Sandplain Habitats Calcareous Fens and Associated Wetlands Un-fragmented Forests blocks exceeding 500 acres  
  Pitch Pine - Scrub Oak Barrens Vernal Pools    
  Surface-Springs, Cold Headwater Streams, and Seeps Grassy Glades and Balds, Traprock Ridges, and Cold (frigid) Summit Habitats    
  Priority Habitats 10
  Early-Successional Old Fields & Early-Successional Woodlands Grasslands: Warm & Cool Season Wetlands: Tidal- & Nontidal-  
    Riparian Areas Streams & Rivers (running water habitats)  
  Important Non-Priority Wildlife Habitats   5
  Forests < 500 acres Woodlands    
  Other       0
B. PRESENCE OF FEDERAL- OR STATE-LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES CONSIDERED RARE, SENSITIVE, THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN (Lists in eFOTG sec. II)
  Directly benefits Listed Species present on site 10
  Indirectly benefits Listed Species present OR benefits imperiled habitat type   5
  No direct benefits to Listed Species by proposed project OR site has no Listed Species   0
C. QUALITY OF IMPROVED HABITAT (NATIVE SPECIES OR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS)
  Project results in high quality habitat 10
  Project improves habitat quality   5
  Habitat improvements negligible   1
D. SUITABILITY OF ON-SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT SETTING
  Site AND Setting Suitable for restoration (site example - wetland restored on former hydric soils) AND (for setting, - no evidence that something in project setting would limit achievement of goal) 10
  Moderate site AND / OR setting Limitations (site example - narrow riparian area) (setting example - riparian area surrounded by hostile habitat)   5
  Severe Site AND / OR Setting Limitations (site example - vernal pool in site that can't hold
water 2 months) (setting example - vernal pool surrounded by development)		   1
E. CONNECTIVITY OF HABITAT
  Connects like habitat to like habitats or complementary habitats (e.g., like habitat, connects
riparian buffer segments; e.g., complementary, - vernal pools and adjacent upland forest)		 10
  Potential to connect like habitats or complementary habitats   5
  Little or no probability to achieve habitat connections   1
F. HABITAT SPECIFIC CRITERIA (CUMULATIVELY RANK ALL HABITATS IN WHICH PROJECT IS BEING DONE)
  Imperiled Habitats  
     - Yes 10
     - No   0
  Forests, or Woodlands  
  >25 acres 10
  10 - 25 acres   5
  3 - 10 acres   1
  Grasslands  
  >10 acres 10
  5 - 10 acres  .5
  3 - 5 acres   1
  < 3 acres   0
  Early-Successional Old Fields or Early-Successional Woodlands  
  >5 acres 10
  2 - 5 acres   5
  < 2 acres   1
  Wetlands  
  >2 acres 10
  1 - 2 acres   5
  < 1 acres   1
  Riparian Areas  
  > 1/2 acres 10
  1/2 - 1/4 acres   5
  < 1/4 acres   1
  In-Stream Projects (use SVAP Scores)  
  < 7.4 10
  7.5 – 8.9   5
  > 9.0   1
  Fish Passage Projects (use Fish Passage Index Scores)  
  8-10 10
  4-7   5
  1-3   1
Other Considerations  
G. LOGISTICAL AND SOCIAL FEASIBILITY
  High level of confidence that people, equipment, etc. are in place to accomplish conservation plan 10
  Moderate level of confidence OR minor constraints on feasibility of conservation plan   5
  Known major constraints on feasibility of accomplishment of conservation plan   1
H. AVERAGE TOTAL COSTS/ACRE TO USDA (TOTAL PROJECT COST FOR CONTRACT LIFE/TOTAL PROJECT ACRES)
  Less than $ 750 per acre   5
  Between $ 750 - $ 1,500 per acre   3
  Greater than $ 1,500 per acre   1
I. PARTNERSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS TO COST OF OVERALL PROJECT IN $ AND IN-KIND SERVICES (LANDOWNER, NGO'S, PUBLIC AGENCIES, OTHER INTERESTS)
  Partnership contribution greater than 1/2 of the project cost   5
  Partnership contribution between 1/4 and 1/2 of the project cost   3
  Partnership contribution equal to 1/4 of the project cost (cannot be less)   1
J. OTHER SOCIETAL BENEFITS (ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, RESEARCH/STUDY, PASSIVE RECREATION, WATER QUALITY, CULTURAL RESOURCES, PROTECTED LAND, HUNTING/FISHING, OTHER COMPATIBLE PUBLIC USES)
  3 or more benefits   5
  1 - 2 benefits   3
  Minor societal benefits   1

< Back to Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program