Exhibit 1 -2024-2026 Land Acquisition Monitoring Form~4.docx

I. PROJECT INFORMATION AND DATA

Project Name:

OWEB Grant #:

Project Type: Fee title purchase: |_| Conservation easement purchase: |_|

Signed Baseline: Yes |_| No |_| Approved Management Plan: Yes |_| No |_|

Documents:

|_| Conservation easement (or covenant) |_| Conservation easement baseline (including maps and photos, and description of restored conditions if applicable) |_| Grant agreement (or interagency agreement) |_| Required Habitat Documentation |_| Management plan; and any related documents (restoration designs, grants) |_| Monitoring reports |_| Project progress reports |_| Other documents identified by OWEB staff, project manager, or project partners:

|_| Miscellaneous project data, if any, on file at OWEB:

Date of last OWEB monitoring visit, or N/A if none:

A. Interview with property owner’s project manager (fee title project) or easement holder’s project manager (easement project)

· Primary Project Contact:

· Title:

· Date of Interview:

· Secondary Contacts Interviewed:

· Date(s):

1) Interview questions:

a) How is the property accessed?

· If the property is gated, the monitor needs to be provided with a key.

· If the project is a conservation easement project, ask the project manager to notify the landowner that OWEB will monitor, and to provide confirmation of the contact.

b) Are there recreationists or other property users that the monitor should be aware of?

c) What are the project’s successes and challenges?

d) Is the management plan being implemented in accordance with the activities and timelines it contains? Yes |_| No |_| Explanation:

· Ask the project manager to provide copies of any grants from entities other than OWEB, and any project reports, field data, analyses of land function and condition, and other relevant documents pertaining to management actions, including that not funded by OWEB. Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: Do we need the grants themselves. Isn't what matters the data? Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: How about removing grants and saying something like, “provide reports, field data, analyses of land function and condition, or other relevant documents for any work not funded by OWEB” ?

e) Is the project achieving the ecological goals described in the OWEB grant documents? Describe:

f) Is there anything on the property that the project manager thinks the monitor should pay special attention to, such as areas of recent work or areas of concern?

Describe:

B. Brief conversation with OWEB’s land acquisition coordinator, to cover any additional project information.

II. FIELD MONITORING

Date of Field Monitoring:

A. MONITORING OBJECTIVE 1: PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

1. Are the property boundaries identified appropriately? Explain as needed: Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: Make sure monitoring personnel understand what appropriate identification of boundaries includes. Not the same for all properties. Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: Great point. Would love to have you train them using your experience

If the property boundaries are not clear, what action is needed?

2. Is there any boundary encroachment? (large properties, use google earth for additional review and include date of imagery used) Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, describe:

B. MONITORING OBJECTIVE 2: ADJACENT LAND USE; TRESPASS

1. Do there appear to be any threats to the property posed by adjacent land uses?

Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, describe:

2. Is there evidence of trespass? Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, describe the trespass, its impact, and its threat to the property’s conservation values:

C. MONITORING OBJECTIVE 3: RIPARIAN AREAS

If no riparian areas are present, check box below and move to Section D. Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: This is a nice idea. Replicate it for all sections?

|_| No riparian monitoring required

General approach and methodology for riparian monitoring (e.g., walked entire length or walked a representative reach):

1. What is the percentage of bare ground in the riparian area?

· Naturally occurring:

· Bare due to disturbance (describe the disturbance):

2. List the dominant invasive plant species if any, and approximate percent cover of each.

· Are there any Class A Noxious Weeds present? Yes |_| No |_| Name:

· If possible, determine whether the invasive plant species are spreading onto the property from adjacent lands, or conversely, are spreading from the property onto adjacent lands:

· Severity: general assessment of the severity of invasive plant issues (invasives present but not a serious threat? invasives dominant, major control efforts needed?)

· Trend (increasing, decreasing, stable, or indeterminant) since the property was last monitored and from the baseline described at the time of acquisition; explain: Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: It seems that with "and," you're ensuring that trend is determined from two past points in time, rather than just the last monitoring effort. It seems this approach would result in more robust info. Replicate it in other sections?

3. Is the native riparian vegetation structurally diverse and/or species-rich? What is the overall condition of the vegetation community? Explain: Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: Again, not sure if the yes/no is needed. Also, think this could get at my comments in question 2. Combine the two? Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: yes/no reflects the fact that the form was developed by two former NRCS staff. :) I like your idea of combining the two questions, and it could be done for the other sections as well.

It would help to train the contractors on the type/breadth/amount of info being sought when questions are open-ended.

4. Is the condition of the riparian vegetation observed on the property consistent with the conservation goals and outcomes described in the project documents? Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: This should be limited to the conservation easement for simplicity and efficiency. The CE, BDR, and management plan all work together, so could limit the question to ask whether the riparian veg types correspond to the those in the conservation values identified in the CE? Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: Alternatively, not sure this is a necessary question at all. This is detail that is evaluated at the time of grant and the point of monitoring to evaluate the conditions of those conservation values. Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: For example, what would the follow up be if a "no" answer? Does that mean the property isn't serving the purposes anymore? What about inconsistent answers across monitoring years? In one year the monitor says no, in another the monitor says yes, but the reasoning/explanations do not provide an adequate description of why the veg types are no longer present. See Deer Creek in Region 2 for example. Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: This is another remnant question. I think you can simplify the approach while considering a couple of things:

Old projects have easements that don't necessarily pull in all important documents by reference - e.g., Whalen Island (99-446) has management plan and BDR not referenced in the CE.

We've invested in properties that were significantly altered at purchase; conservations values weren't present, only potential was. For those, specific restored conditions were agreed to. Old grants have a standalone doc describing the conditions to be restored and then monitored. If the conditions aren't present, the conversation is about getting restoration started. Where this document doesn't exist, the grant app. might be the place to look for the info.

Explain:

5. Does the management plan specify riparian restoration activities? Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, does it appear that the activities have been undertaken? To what extent?

If the activities have been undertaken, do they appear to have been successful in achieving the intended outcomes? To what extent?

6. What changes in riparian vegetation have occurred: 1) since the property was last monitored (if the property was previously monitored); and 2) since the baseline documentation report was signed (if one was signed)? Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: For consistency, it seems that all questions inquiring about change or trend need to be "and," to use two points in time as the last bullet of #3 now does How are the changes trending? positive |_| negative |_| indeterminant |_|

If the trend cannot be determined, explain why.

What appears to be the cause of the changes?

7. Are there other challenges facing the property’s riparian areas?

8. What is your overall assessment of the ecological condition of riparian areas on the property?

Very Good |_| Good |_| Fair |_| Poor|_|:

Explain:

9. Other comments:

Existing Riparian Photo Points: Update photos for existing photo points if there are any significant changes in previously documented conditions.

Existing photo point #

Coordinate (lat/long)

Coordinate (lat/long)

D. MONITORING OBJECTIVE 4: AQUATIC HABITAT (including tidal sloughs) If no aquatic habitat areas are present, check box below and move to Section E.

|_| No aquatic monitoring required

Describe the general approach and methodology for aquatic habitat monitoring:

1. Are there unstable or eroding stream banks on the property? Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, are the unstable or eroding stream banks reason for concern regarding the status of the conservation values? To what extent?

What appears to be the cause of the problem?

2. What is the level of stream/slough complexity? Is the level of complexity observed desirable or lacking? Explain:

3. Is there desirable connectedness to a floodplain? Explain:

4. Is there evidence of recent flooding? Yes |_| No |_| If yes, describe the evidence and the impacts to the conservation values?

5. Do the streams and/or tidal sloughs contain good quality spawning and/or rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead? If spawning and rearing habitat are not identified as conservation values in the project documents, write N/A.

Explain:

6. Is the condition of the aquatic habitat observed on the property consistent with the conservation goals and outcomes described in the project documents? Explain: Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: This should be limited to the conservation easement for simplicity and efficiency. The CE, BDR, and management plan all work together, so could limit the question to ask whether the riparian veg types correspond to the those in the conservation values identified in the CE? Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: Alternatively, not sure this is a necessary question at all. This is detail that is evaluated at the time of grant and the point of monitoring to evaluate the conditions of those conservation values. Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: For example, what would the follow up be if a "no" answer? Does that mean the property isn't serving the purposes anymore? What about inconsistent answers across monitoring years? In one year the monitor says no, in another the monitor says yes, but the reasoning/explanations do not provide an adequate description of why the veg types are no longer present. See Deer Creek in Region 2 for example. Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: This is another remnant question. I think you can simplify the approach while considering a couple of things:

Old projects have easements that don't necessarily pull in all important documents by reference - e.g., Whalen Island (99-446) has management plan and BDR not referenced in the CE.

We've invested in properties that were significantly altered at purchase; conservations values weren't present, only potential was. For those, specific restored conditions were agreed to. Old grants have a standalone doc describing the conditions to be restored and then monitored. If the conditions aren't present, the conversation is about getting restoration started. Where this document doesn't exist, the grant app. might be the place to look for the info. Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: See comment above in Riparian.

7. Does the management plan specify in-water restoration activities? Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, does it appear that the activities have been undertaken? To what extent?

If the activities have been undertaken, do they appear to have been successful in achieving the intended outcomes? To what extent?

8. What changes in aquatic habitat have occurred since the property was last monitored (if the property was previously monitored); and 2) since the baseline documentation report was signed, if one was signed?

How are the changes trending? positive |_| negative |_| indeterminant |_|

If the trend cannot be determined, explain why.

What appears to be the cause of the changes?

9. Are there other challenges facing the property’s aquatic habitat?

10. What is your overall assessment of the ecological condition of the property’s aquatic habitat?

Very Good |_| Good |_| Fair |_| Poor |_| Explain:

11. Other comments:

Existing Aquatic Photo Points: Update photos for existing photo points if there are any significant changes in previously documented conditions.

Existing photo point #

Coordinate (lat/long)

New Aquatic Photo Points: Add new photo points to depict any significant conditions or property features not previously documented.

New photo point #

Coordinate (lat/long)

E. MONITORING OBJECTIVE 5: WETLANDS

If no wetlands areas are present, check box below and move to Section F.

|_| No wetland monitoring required

Describe general approach and methodology for wetland monitoring:

1. List the dominant invasive plant species if any, and approximate percentage of each.

· Are there any Class A Noxious Weeds present? Yes |_| No |_| Name:

· If possible, determine whether the invasive plant species are spreading onto the property from adjacent lands, or conversely, are spreading from the property onto adjacent lands:

· Severity: general assessment of the severity of invasive plant issues (invasives present but not a serious threat? invasives dominant, major control efforts needed?)

· Trend (increasing, decreasing, stable, or indeterminant) since the property was last monitored, or from the baseline conditions; explain:

2. Is the native wetland vegetation structurally diverse and/or species-rich? What is the overall condition of the vegetation community? Explain:

3. Do the wetlands contain structures and features indicative of a healthy system? (e.g., tidal channels with desirable dimensions) Explain:

4. Is the condition of the wetland habitat observed on the property consistent with the conservation goals and outcomes described in the project documents? Explain: Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: This should be limited to the conservation easement for simplicity and efficiency. The CE, BDR, and management plan all work together, so could limit the question to ask whether the riparian veg types correspond to the those in the conservation values identified in the CE? Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: Alternatively, not sure this is a necessary question at all. This is detail that is evaluated at the time of grant and the point of monitoring to evaluate the conditions of those conservation values. Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: For example, what would the follow up be if a "no" answer? Does that mean the property isn't serving the purposes anymore? What about inconsistent answers across monitoring years? In one year the monitor says no, in another the monitor says yes, but the reasoning/explanations do not provide an adequate description of why the veg types are no longer present. See Deer Creek in Region 2 for example. Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB: This is another remnant question. I think you can simplify the approach while considering a couple of things:

Old projects have easements that don't necessarily pull in all important documents by reference - e.g., Whalen Island (99-446) has management plan and BDR not referenced in the CE.

We've invested in properties that were significantly altered at purchase; conservations values weren't present, only potential was. For those, specific restored conditions were agreed to. Old grants have a standalone doc describing the conditions to be restored and then monitored. If the conditions aren't present, the conversation is about getting restoration started. Where this document doesn't exist, the grant app. might be the place to look for the info. Comment by MEACHER Robin M * OWEB: Value of this question? Isn't it a given that if wetlands are described in the conservation values, there are wetlands on the property? Again, think this would be better off as a question about the quality and functionality of the wetlands present.

5. Does the management plan specify wetland restoration activities? Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, does it appear that the activities have been undertaken? To what extent?

If the activities have been undertaken, do they appear to have been successful in achieving the intended outcomes? To what extent:

6. What changes in wetland conditions have occurred since the property was last monitored (if the property was previously monitored); and 2) since the baseline was signed?

How are the changes trending? positive |_| negative |_| indeterminant |_|

If the trend cannot be determined, describe why:

What appears to be the cause of the changes?

7. Do the amount, duration and timing of the wetlands’ hydrology appear to be appropriate for the region and wetland type? Explain.

If problems are identified, are they attributable to onsite or offsite conditions or disturbance? Explain:

8. Are there other challenges facing the property’s wetlands?

9. What is your overall assessment of the ecological condition of the property’s wetlands?

Very Good |_| Good |_| Fair |_| Poor |_|

Explain:

11. Other comments:

Existing Wetland Photo Points: Update photos for existing photo points if there are any significant changes in previously documented conditions.

Existing photo point #

Coordinate (lat/long)

New Wetland Photo Points: Add new photo points to depict any significant conditions or property features not previously documented.

New photo point #

Coordinate (lat/long)

F. MONITORING OBJECTIVE 6: UPLANDS

If no uplands are present, check box below and move to Section G.

|_|No upland monitoring required

Describe the general approach and methodology for upland monitoring:

1. Are there unstable or eroding soils in the uplands? Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, are the unstable or eroding soils reason for concern regarding the status of the conservation values? To what extent??

What appears to be the cause of the problem?

2. List the dominant invasive plant species if any, and approximate percentage of each.

· Are there any Class A Noxious Weeds present? Yes |_| No |_| Name:

· If possible, determine whether the invasive plant species are spreading onto the property from adjacent lands, or conversely, are spreading from the property onto adjacent lands:

· Severity: general assessment of the severity of invasive plant issues (invasives present but not a serious threat? invasives dominant, major control efforts needed?)

· Trend (increasing, decreasing, stable, or indeterminant) since the property was last monitored, and from baseline; explain:

3. Is the native upland vegetation structurally diverse and/or species-rich? What is the overall condition of the vegetation community?

4. Do the uplands contain structures and features indicative of a healthy system? (e.g., open-growth Oregon white oak in an oak savanna) Describe.

5. Does the management plan specify upland restoration activities? Yes |_| No |_|

If yes, does it appear that the activities have been undertaken? To what extent?

If the activities have been undertaken, do they appear to have been successful in achieving the intended outcomes? To what extent?

6. What changes in upland conditions have occurred since the property was last monitored (if the property was previously monitored); and 2) since the baseline was signed, if one was signed.

How are the changes trending? positive |_| negative |_| indeterminant |_|

What appears to be the cause of the changes?

7. Are there other challenges facing the property’s uplands?

8. What is your overall assessment of the ecological condition of the property’s uplands?

Very good |_| Good |_| Fair |_| Poor |_| Explain:

9. Other comments:

Existing Upland Photo Points: Update photos for existing photo points if there are any significant changes in previously documented conditions.

Existing photo point #

Coordinate (lat/long)

New Upland Photo Points: Add new photo points to depict any significant conditions or property features not previously documented.

New photo point #

Coordinate (lat/long)

G. MONITORING OBJECTIVE 7: CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENT TERMS Comment by FORNEY Miriam * OWEB [2]: Past monitors have requested guidance in identifying compliance concerns.

Consider as a way of thinking about compliance:

A "technical" violation is a violation that poses the potential for impacts to the Conservation Values. A "minor" violation is causing minimal impacts to the Conservation Values. A "moderate" violation is causing impacts to the Conservation Values that can be remedied in 3-5 years (the typical amount of time between OWEB monitoring visits). A "major" violation creates impacts to the Conservation Values that will take longer than 3-5 years to remedy.

RECORD INFORMATION ONLY IF CONCERNS ARE OBSERVED. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.

1. Prohibited Activity: Notes

2. Prohibited Activity: Notes:

3. Prohibited Activity: Notes:

4. Prohibited Activity: Notes:

1. Affirmative Obligation: Notes:

2. Affirmative Obligation: Notes:

3. Affirmative Obligation: Notes:

4. Affirmative Obligation: Notes:

III. MONITORING SUMMARY

For each heading identified below, please include the most applicable of the following statements in the box provided.

· No concerns or if concerns exist, they are minor Comment by WILLIAMS Eric * OWEB: Suggest including these as check boxes under each of the three categories rather than having them cut and paste. Then, include space for explanation below the check boxes.

· Substantive concerns but the concerns are currently not significantly impacting project outcomes or threatening violation of the conservation easement

· Significant concerns; grantee should prioritize follow-up, including contacting OWEB to discuss a plan for resolving the concerns

Management plan implementation:

Ecological goals:

Is the property management for the property being implemented? The property is achieving the ecological goals described in project documents. To what extentProvide an explanation:

Summary Statement

Further Observations/Considerations/Recommendations (e.g., additional evaluation needed):

Monitor’s Name:

Monitor’s Signature: Date: