FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROJECTS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCESS AND SCORING GUIDANCE

Updated August 2026

Table of Contents

Introduction:

Project Submission and Evaluation Process

Step 1: State Lead Agencies Submit Project Proposals in Grants.gov

Step 2: Forest Service Internal Review

Step 3: Project Proposals Sent to the National Review Panel

Step 4: National FLP Review Panel Meeting

Step 5: National FLP Project List Sent to OMB/Congress

Step 6: Forest Service and States Implement Funded Projects

Project Submission and Evaluation Roles

State Lead Agency (States) Roles:

Forest Service – Regional Roles:

Forest Service – National Roles:

National Review Panel Roles:

Project Requirements

Project Descriptions

National Core Criteria:

Importance

Threatened

Strategic

Additional Considerations:

Introduction:

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2028 project selection process for the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) will be competitive, merit-based, and coordinated by the Forest Service National Office. The Forest Legacy Program is funded by Congress through annual allocations of mandatory Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF).

This document provides guidance to States and Territories (States) on how to submit project proposals to the US Forest Service for funding consideration. Only designated State lead agencies are eligible to submit proposals. State agencies can partner with land trusts, land conservation, and local community organizations to develop and implement projects.

This document also provides guidance to the National Review Panel for scoring and ranking of proposals for LWCF funding consideration. Projects will be evaluated according to National Core Criteria, project readiness, and other evaluation considerations outlined below. Applicants should use these criteria as guides when developing and submitting project proposals.

Objectives of this Scoring Guidance:

• Provide direction on process and eligibility requirements,

• Provide a clear and defensible review process, and

• Ensure fair and thorough review of all projects.

The outcome from this process will be a ranked and prioritized list of FLP projects for consideration in the President’s Budget. The list will be approved and cleared by Agency and Department leadership before transmission to the Office of Management and Budget. Congress will approve the final project list for FY2028 funding through annual appropriations.

Project Submission and Evaluation Process

Step 1: State Lead Agencies Submit Project Proposals in Grants.gov Due Date: September 11, 2026

States can submit up to five projects for funding consideration, not to exceed a total of $30 million, with each project not exceeding $20 million.

Each Forest Service Region and the International Institute for Tropical Forestry (Regions) should work with State Lead Agencies to ensure all proposed projects are entered into Grants.gov by the due date.

States are encouraged to outreach and communicate with federal and state recognized Tribes, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other indigenous communities, who may have cultural practices, beliefs, identity, sacred sites, or treaty rights that connect them to the project area. Tribes and indigenous organizations have been important advocates for and beneficiaries of many projects. Regions can assist States with Tribal outreach, communication, and collaboration.

For lands within or that intersect with the boundaries of a designated federal Indian reservation, the State must secure documented concurrence from the impacted Tribal Nation(s). Regions should also communicate and coordinate with Tribal officials in accordance with federal trustee responsibilities. For lands where multiple Tribes have interests and/or conflicting positions, the program will not serve as an arbiter of those intergovernmental conflicts.

Step 2: Forest Service Internal Review Due Date: September 21, 2026

By this date, Forest Service program staff in each Region will evaluate and confirm that each project proposal meets the “Project Requirements” listed below.

In addition by this date, each Region will evaluate State compliance with core program requirements, status and amount of outstanding project grants, past performance, and project readiness to inform the National Review Panel ranking process. Regions will use the State Matrix template to summarize this information, and ensure all information provided is accurate and complete. See Additional Considerations section below for details on how this information will be used during the panel process.

Step 3: Project Proposals Sent to the National Review Panel Date: Early October

The Forest Service will compile all project proposals received in Grants.gov for distribution to the National Review Panel. These documents will be the primary source of project information used by the National Review Panel to score and rank the projects.

The National Review Panel will also receive copies of the State Matrices prepared by Forest Service regional staff with state-level information regarding core program requirements, outstanding funds, and past performance. This information will not be used by individual panel members for the initial scoring process but is considered by the full panel during the ranking process.

Step 4: National FLP Review Panel Meeting Date: November 17-19, 2026

The Forest Service will convene a National Review Panel to review project proposals and develop a National Project List. The panel will include federal and state program representatives from the National Office, Regional Offices, and State Lead Agencies.

If the National Review Panel considers making a significant change to a submitted project (e.g., project phasing, funding reduction, or selection out of state priority order), an attempt will be made to consult with the affected State. Regional and State Forest Legacy Program Managers should plan to be available during this timeframe to answer questions and provide information as requested by the National Review Panel.

Step 5: National FLP Project List Sent to OMB/Congress

The final project list will be submitted to Agency and Department leadership for approval and clearance. The Agency will provide the approved list to the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for budget consideration in accordance with current law, policy and direction.

Step 6: Forest Service and States Implement Funded Projects

Upon completion of the selection process, the Forest Service will issue project-specific grants to States for funding in accordance with the final project list. The performance period of the grant award will be two years. All projects submitted by States to the National Review Panel are expected to be sufficiently ready to be completed within this timeframe and the submitting State is expected to have capacity to complete the projects within this timeline. States can request an extension beyond the two-year grant period if challenges are encountered and an extension is warranted, but those situations should be the exception, not the norm.

For projects that were either phased or received reduced funding from the original proposal, the state will proceed with implementing the portion of the project it can complete with the awarded FLP grant funds. States can seek additional funding in a future fiscal year for a phased project, but they are expected to implement the funded portion of the project upon grant award and not wait for future funding.

Project proposals provided to the National Review Panel are expected to be an accurate representation of the property and of the interest to be acquired. During project implementation, modifications to the project size, configuration, or the estate presented for funding consideration can only be made with the approval of the Forest Service.

Some changes will require congressional notification prior to agency approval.

Project Submission and Evaluation Roles

State Lead Agency (States) Roles:

• Conduct outreach to landowners, local communities, and Tribes to develop projects.

• Solicit project proposals in alignment with program goals and procedures identified in the

State Forest Action Plan/Assessment of Need.

• Evaluate project applications for eligibility, quality, and readiness.

• Develop and submit proposals for national funding consideration with input from the

State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee.

• Enter project data into the Forest Legacy Information System (FLIS) upon grant award, in coordination with the landowner and project partners, and ensure all information provided is accurate.

• States can partner with land trusts, land conservation, and local community organizations to develop and implement projects.

Forest Service – Regional Roles:

• Work with States to produce eligible, high quality, and “ready” FLP projects.

• Work with States to ensure the proposed project meets eligibility and other requirements.

• Review and validate information for each project and confirm all project requirements have been met.

• Work with States to evaluate the State’s fulfillment of core program requirements.

• Communicate and coordinate with Tribal officials in accordance with federal trustee responsibilities.

• Provide the National Review Panel with information on each State’s capacity to undertake the proposed projects and compliance with core program requirements, status of outstanding grants, past performance, and project readiness using the State Matrix template. This matrix should be prepared and submitted by USFS Regional FLP Staff in coordination with the State.

Forest Service – National Roles:

• Work with Regions to produce highly competitive, and “ready” FLP submissions.

• Work with Regions to confirm the proposed project meets eligibility and other requirements.

• Organize and convene National Review Panels.

• Ensure that project selections meet congressional direction and national program goals.

National Review Panel Roles:

• Score projects using the National Core Criteria (Importance, Threatened, and Strategic).

• Develop a national list of ranked projects with recommended funding levels considering project scores, project readiness, and other evaluation considerations.

Project Requirements

All proposed projects must meet the following criteria:

• Complies with the May 2017 Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines, as amended (see Part III – Project Eligibility and Selection);

• Requested federal funds do not exceed $30 million per state (1-5 projects per state);

• Requested federal funds do not exceed $20 million per project;

• The landowner(s) is willing to sell or donate the interest in perpetuity;

• Reviewed, evaluated and selected by the State’s Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee and approved by the State Lead Agency;

• Consistent with the goals of the States’ Forest Legacy Assessment of Need as incorporated in the State Forest Action Plan;

• Located within a designated Forest Legacy Area;

• Project tracts have a minimum of 75 percent forestland, or a plan to reforest; and

• Sufficiently “ready” to be completed within two years of grant award;

• Modifications to a previously funded project must be approved by the Forest Service before submitting a proposal for additional phases.

States must provide the following information for each proposed project:

• The project’s priority rank, if indicated by the state. States may include priority ranking if more than one project is submitted, but it is not required;

• List of supporting tracts in order of priority, if applicable;

• Estimated total project costs;

• Estimated non-federal cost-share, which must be at least 25 percent of the total project cost;

• Estimated costs of proposed FLP funding rounded to the nearest $5,000;

• Project description;

• Project map;

• Written letters of support or concurrence for all parties listed in the project proposal must be made available upon Forest Service request, but are not required to be submitted via Grants.gov;

• Documentation supporting the comparative market analysis1 and readiness score

1 Comparative Market Analysis - For full fee acquisitions, estimate of market value based on recently sold, similar properties in an applicable market area. For conservation easement projects, an estimate of market value “as is” and an estimate of market value “as if encumbered with the proposed conservation easement” using comparable properties that are similarly encumbered. The difference between the “as is” and the “as if” market values would represent the estimated cost to acquire the conservation easement. If an appraisal has been recently completed for https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/15541-forest-service-legacy-program-508.pdf must be made available upon Forest Service request, but is not required to be submitted via Grants.gov;

• If the proposed project falls within the boundaries of a designated Federal management unit, a written letter of concurrence from the applicable Federal Official. This concurrence should be reaffirmed if the project includes additional phases, is resubmitted, or unit leadership changes; and

• If the proposed project falls within or intersects with the boundaries of a federal Indian reservation2, written documentation affirming concurrence from the impacted Tribal Nation(s) is required. This documentation should be updated if the project is a re-submittal or continuing phase.

the subject property, then it can be considered as a data point for the market analysis along with other applicable market research. A market analysis does not need to be conducted by an appraiser. The market analysis will include information about who prepared it, the date of the market analysis, information used and the source of that information. This must be in writing, and it must be submitted to the Region before the submission due date.

2 A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a Tribe or Tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the Tribe.

https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions#:%7E:text=A%20federal%20Indian%20reservation%20is,on%20behalf%20of%20the%20tribe.

Project Descriptions

Project proposals must represent the property proposed for acquisition, not the attributes of a larger proposed project area, previously acquired phases or the general geographic area where a project is located. Attributes of a larger project may be discussed in the General Description and in the Strategic section.

Projects with multiple landowners must show these as multiple tracts within the project table and in the project map. A multi-tract project will be scored based on how all the tracts fit within the criteria. For example, if only one tract meets the highest point criteria, the project will not likely obtain the highest points.

The expectation is that Importance and Strategic attributes highlighted in the project proposals will be maintained or enhanced through implementation of the project, including ensuring conservation easements, deed language, and management plans effectively conserve and manage for the public benefits described in the application.

All photos should include descriptions as well as credit information. States and project partners are granting the US Forest Service permission to use all submitted photos for program purposes with appropriate credits. Any photos of children under the age of 18 must have documented permission from a parent or legal guardian.

Considerations for Phased Projects:

If a project has multiple phases, the Review Panel will focus on evaluating the phase and associated tracts that are being proposed for the applicable fiscal year. Accordingly, the project proposal should be clear through all sections on the relative importance, threat, and strategic contribution of the tracts being currently proposed. If many different tracts are proposed, then the project proposal should speak to the collective attributes of the group of tracts being proposed for the applicable funding year.

A phased project will not receive higher consideration or priority than other submitted projects in each funding cycle. Each phase of a project will be evaluated on its merits as compared to other proposed projects. The program provides no guarantees that a phased project will receive funding across multiple fiscal years.

National Core Criteria:

The National Review Panelists will independently consider the Forest Legacy Program Core Criteria and score each project based on its alignment with the Importance, Threatened, and Strategic criteria.

Importance – This criterion focuses on the attributes of the property and the environmental, social, and economic public benefits gained from the protection and management of the property and its resources, now and into the future. This criterion reflects ecological assets as well as the economic and social values conserved by the project and its level of significance.

Significance of attributes is demonstrated by the quality, scope, and impact of the attributes, which may be illustrated through (but is not limited to) the following examples:

• Support of Federal Laws (such as Endangered Species Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, or Clean Water Act);

• Contributions to Federal Initiatives3 or Federal Designations (such as Sentinel Landscapes, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic Byways, National Recreation Trails, and National Historic Sites).

Scoring consists of evaluating a project for the attributes below and identifying a point score.

More points will be given to projects that demonstrate multiple public benefits of significance.

• High Importance (21-30 points) – The project contains a majority of the attributes, and those attributes are high-impact and high-quality, or one or more attributes are exceptionally important.

• Medium (11-20 points) – The project contains multiple attributes which are high-impact or high-quality.

• Low (0-10 points) – The project contains only a few attributes, or it contains all of them, but they are of limited or marginal impact and quality.

A project does not need to have all the attributes listed to receive maximum points for this category nor is it an exhaustive list of possible attributes. More points will be given to projects that exemplify a particular attribute or combination of attributes. The measure is the significance of the attributes discussed, not simply that there is an entry for each attribute.

3 Discussion about how the project fits within a landscape conservation initiative should be included under the “Strategic” category and not in this section.

Attributes to Consider: The descriptions listed below represents the ideal project for each attribute. These attributes are not listed in priority order – applicants may provide this information in the relative order of importance for the proposed project.

• Economic Benefits: Timber and Potential Forest Productivity – This category includes three independent components: (1) Landowner demonstrates sustainable forest management in accordance with a management plan. Additional points should be given to land that is third party certified (such as Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest Stewardship Council, and American Tree Farm System). (2) Forestry activities contribute to the resource-based economy for a community or region. (3) The property contains characteristics (such as highly productive soils) to sustain a productive forest over time.

• Economic Benefits: Non-timber Products and Recreation – Provides non-timber revenue to the local or regional economy through non-timber forest products (maple syrup, pine straw, ginseng collection, etc.); recreation and tourism (local or regional benefits related to lodging, rentals, bikes, boats, outdoor gear, guided tours for fishing, hunting, or birdwatching, etc.); hunting leases; and/or ranching.

• Public Access4 – Protection of the property will legally secure existing access, expand access, or establish new access by the public for recreation (including waterfront access);

however, restrictions on specific use and location of recreational activities may be allowed. More consideration should be given to projects that expand or provide certainty of public access as a result of the proposed project.

• Wildlife Habitat: Threatened or Endangered Species – The property has documented threatened or endangered plants and animals or designated habitat. Documented occurrence and use of the project area should be given more consideration in point allocation than if it is habitat without documented occurrence or use. Federally listed species should be given more consideration than state-only listed species when evaluating the significance of this attribute.

• Wildlife Habitat: Fish, Wildlife, Plants, and Unique Forest Communities – The property contains unique forest communities and/or important fish or wildlife habitat as documented by a formal assessment or wildlife conservation plan or strategy developed by a government or a non- governmental organization. Contributions to international initiatives to support and sustain migratory species can be considered here if the property will make a significant contribution, e.g. the target species has been documented to regularly use the property during seasonal migration.

• Water Supply, Aquatic Habitat, and Watershed Protection – (1) The property has a direct relationship with protecting the water supply or watershed, such as providing a buffer to public drinking water supply, containing an aquifer recharge area, or protecting an ecologically important aquatic or marine area, and/or (2) the property contains important

4 Public Access is access provided on a non-discriminatory basis at reasonable times and places but may be limited to protect cultural and natural resources or public health and safety. Access provided to only specific individuals or groups by landowner permission does not count as public access for this purpose.

riparian area, wetlands, shorelines, river systems, or sensitive watershed lands. When allocating points consider the importance of the resource, the scope and scale of the property, magnitude and intensity of the benefits that will result from protection of the property. Merely being located within an aquifer recharge area or in a water supply area should not be given the same consideration as a property that makes a significant conservation contribution to water, riparian, and aquatic resources and habitats.

• Cultural/Historic – The property contains features of cultural and/or historical significance that are documented by a governmental or a non-governmental organization.

A Federal designation should receive greater consideration.

• Tribal – The property provides meaningful benefits to Tribal and other indigenous communities, contains features or resources of cultural significance, and/or utilizes management techniques significant to Tribes (traditional ecological knowledge). Greater consideration should be given to projects that have been developed with active involvement and partnership with a Tribe, or where a Tribal organization has documented the importance of the property for cultural practices, resources, and benefits.

• Scenic – The property is located within a viewshed of a government designated scenic feature or area (such as a trail, river, or highway). Federal designation should be given more consideration than state-only designations when evaluating the significance of this attribute.

Threatened – This criterion estimates the likelihood for conversion. More points will be given to projects that demonstrate multiple conditions; however, a project need not have all the conditions listed to receive maximum points for this category.

During the evaluation of a threat, a landowner interested in conserving their land should not be penalized in allocating points because they are not marketing their lands, have not subdivided their land, or sought approval for a subdivision plan. Also, a property with an approved subdivision plan should not, without question, receive a high score in the Threatened section.

The attributes outlined below must be considered to determine if the conditions exist to make conversion of a property likely and points should be allocated accordingly.

If the property has been acquired by a third party at the request of and/or with the support of the State, threatened will be evaluated based on the situation prior to the third-party acquisition.

Conversion to non-forest uses can include residential or industrial development, agricultural expansion, installation of wind or solar technology, or other uses that substantially remove or fragment forest cover. This criterion considers the degree of threat and how much of a given parcel would be impacted by the conversion to non-forest uses5.

Scoring consists of evaluating a project for the attributes below and identifying a point score.

• Likely (11-20 points) – Multiple conditions exist that make conversion to non-forest uses likely.

• Possible (1-10 points) – A few conditions exist that make conversion to non-forest uses possible.

• Unlikely (0 points) – Current conditions exist that make conversion to non-forest uses unlikely.

Attributes to Consider: The descriptions listed below represent the ideal project for each attribute. These attributes are not listed in priority order – applicants may provide this information in the relative order of importance for the proposed project.

• Lack of Protection – The lack of temporary or permanent protections (e.g., current zoning, temporary or permanent easements, moratoriums, and encumbrances that limit subdivision or conversion) that currently exists on the property and the likelihood of the threat of conversion.

• Land and Landowners Circumstances – Land and landowner circumstances such as property held in an estate, age of landowner, interest of ownership and stewardship of property by heirs of current landowners is uncertain, property is for sale or has a sale pending, landowner anticipates owning the property for a short duration, landowner has

5 Discussion about which project attributes will be threatened if the project is converted should be included under the “Importance” category and not in this section.

received purchase offers, land has an approved subdivision plan, landowner has sold subdivisions of the property, etc.

• Adjacent Land Use – Adjacent land use characteristics such as existing land status, rate of development, growth, and conversion, rate of population growth (percent change), rate of change in ownership, etc.

• Ability to Develop – Physical attributes of the property that will facilitate conversion, such as access, buildable ground, zoning, slope, water/sewer, electricity, etc.

Strategic – This criterion reflects the project’s relevance or relationship to conservation efforts on a broader perspective considering scale, location, and relative contribution to landscape scale conservation goals.

Scoring consists of evaluating a project for the attributes below and identifying a point score.

• High (21-30 points) – The property makes an exceptional strategic contribution to multiple attributes.

• Medium (11-20 points) – The property makes a substantial strategic contribution to one or more of the attributes.

• Low (0-10 points) – The property makes a modest strategic contribution to one or more of the attributes.

The submitted project map should support this category, and it is important to make sure the text and map are consistent.

Attributes to Consider: The descriptions listed below represent the ideal project for each attribute. These attributes are not listed in priority order – applicants may provide this information in the relative order of importance for the proposed project.

• Conservation Initiative, Strategy, or Plan – How the project contributes to either an existing or new conservation initiative, strategy, or plan. Describe the relative contribution of the property to achieving the conservation goals of the plan, strategy, or initiative considering scale, location, and project attributes. Conservation plans that have been formally designated by a governmental, tribal, or non-governmental entity should be given more consideration. Contributions to a new strategy or a strategy under development may also be discussed. This can be useful if a project would contribute to, or catalyze, a new conservation initiative, strategy, or plan. For new initiatives, specific goals should be defined and potential contributions of how the project advances those goals should be highlighted.

• Complement Protected Lands – How the project is strategically linked to or enhances already protected lands, including past FLP projects, public lands (Federal, State, or local), or private lands conserved through permanent easements. Provide specifics on how the proposed tracts connect to and maintain cross-boundary benefits, e.g. ecological resilience, wildlife migration, watershed function, and scenic viewshed integrity.

• Other Landscape Scale Goals and Public Benefits – How the project strategically contributes to the advancement of larger scale conservation goals and public benefits.

Examples could include but are not limited to:

o Forest health and resilience;

o Proximity to critical wood products infrastructure;

o Reduced community impacts from wildfire, floods, invasive species;

o Expanded public access; and o Protection of critical water supplies.

Provide specifics on the project’s contributions to the larger scale goals and benefits.

Additional Considerations:

The following items will be considered by the National Review Panel when developing the final list of ranked projects and associated funding levels to ensure project quality, readiness, and alignment with administration priorities. These elements are not considered by individual panel members when scoring projects but instead considered by the full panel in making final ranking recommendations.

1. State Priority Ranks: States may include priority ranking if more than one project is submitted, but this is not required. For projects with multiple tracts, states can choose to prioritize these tracts as applicable. The National Review Panel is not bound by a State’s priority ranking of projects. If the National Review Panel ranks projects out of a State’s priority order, then the panel will call that State to discuss the situation. However, the panel will not move a lower ranked project up the list to maintain the State’s priority ranking.

2. Proximity to Critical Infrastructure: The National Review Panel will consider project proximity to wood product mills and other critical infrastructure. A critical infrastructure analysis will be conducted by the National Office and provided to the National Review Panel for consideration when ranking projects. Projects which offer strategic public benefits and are located in close proximity to local mills may be prioritized by the panel.

3. Public Access: The National Review panel will consider the public access type (full, restricted, or none) and any associated descriptions of public access. Projects which provide for full or partial public access with significant public benefits, may be prioritized by the panel.

4. State and Local Support: The National Review Panel will consider Letters of Support received from State and Local organizations, leadership, and nonprofit organizations when considering ranking. Projects which demonstrate significant support from State and Local organizations may be prioritized by the panel. Letter from Governor affirming state support and coordination with local governments is encouraged.

5. Greater than 25 Percent Cost-Share: Cost-share proposed above the 25 percent requirement can be a factor considered by the National Review Panel during ranking of recommended projects. Greater consideration will be given to projects where cost share commitment has been obtained from specified source(s). The panel may request documentation from States when considering this factor.

6. Outstanding Grant Funds: The National Review panel will consider outstanding project grant funding in determining ranking and funding recommendations. Outstanding grant funding information will be pulled from the Forest Legacy Information System (FLIS) following the annual reporting deadline on October 31, 2026. In addition, Regions will provide additional details and explanations for outstanding grants and projects on the State Matrix.

The National Review Panel will give additional attention to projects from States that have no outstanding grant balances, have not recently received funds, or are competing for the first time.

States with outstanding grant funding that is three years or older (FY 2024 or older obligated grant funds) may not be placed highly on the prioritized project list. States with significant outstanding funds and/or multiple outstanding projects/tracts, regardless of age, may have their projects placed lower on the prioritized project list.

7. State Past Performance

The National Review Panel may remove a project from consideration if a State is deficient in core program requirements. See State Core Program Requirements on the State Matrix for more details.

The panel may also consider the following performance metrics:

a. Average time to close projects for the last three projects (from FLIS)

The Region should provide additional details and explanation on the State Matrix for past projects that exceeded 24 months to complete.

b. Average funds leveraged for the last three completed projects (from FLIS)

8. Project Readiness: The National Review Panel will closely evaluate and consider readiness and will apply a higher degree of scrutiny the larger the proposal funding request.

To demonstrate project readiness, completed due diligence items need to be specified (including completion date) and credit will only be given to those items completed and documented (one tally for each completed item, with a minimum of one and maximum tally of five). Multi-tract projects must have the readiness task completed for a majority of the tracks being proposed for the given funding year before an affirmative tally is given.

The State must provide documentation, upon request, demonstrating completion of each of the items below to support the readiness score. Readiness scores can only be counted in the affirmative for items completed by the national deadline, as outlined in Step 2.

1. Draft conservation easement/deed language, or other comparable documentation, specific to the proposed project that demonstrates landowner and State agreement on easement or fee provisions including the requirements in the Implementation Guidelines (see Section 14 – Conservation Easement Language or Section 15 – Fee Simple Purchase Deed Language for specific examples).

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/15541-forest-service-legacy-program-508.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/15541-forest-service-legacy-program-508.pdf

2. Cost share commitment has been obtained from specified source(s) and documented through funding commitment letters6, bargain sale agreement with landowner, etc.

3. A signed option or purchase agreement is held by or at the request of the State OR at the request of the State, fee title has been pre-acquired by a third party.

4. Title search has been completed and reviewed, including identifying any temporary or permanent protections and reviewing whether existing encumbrances impact project eligibility.

5. Minerals rights have been evaluated through a title search and/or other research AND if rights are severed, then a minerals assessment and determination of remoteness has been completed.

6 Letter of Commitment – Signed letter that indicates the signatory’s commitment of resources to the proposed project should federal funds be awarded.