Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

West Virginia ALE Ranking

Inventory and Assessment in CART

CART is a decision support system designed to provide a consistent, replicable framework for the conservation planning process based on geospatially referenced information, client-provided information, field observations, and NRCS conservation planner expertise. CART is designed to assist NRCS conservation planners as they assess site vulnerability and existing conditions, and identify natural resource concerns on a unit of land.

In CART, assessments of existing management and conservation efforts are compared against conservation planning criteria thresholds to determine the level of conservation effort needed to address identified natural resource concerns.  The results are then used to inform NRCS conservation planning activities for the client. NRCS also uses CART to consolidate resource data and program information to prioritize program delivery and report outcomes of NRCS investments in conservation.

In general, resource concerns fall into one of three categories for the assessment method used in CART to assess and document a resource concern:

  • Client Input/Planner Observation: A streamlined list of options is presented to the planner to document the client input and/or planner observation of the resource concerns present. These observations are compared to the conservation planning criteria thresholds.
  • Procedural/Deductive: A large group of resource concerns fall into this category and are assessed using a resource concern-specific tool or a list of inventory-like criteria. Due to variability in State tools, assessment questions and answers will be broad in nature to allow States to more carefully align them with State conditions. 
  • Predictive: The remaining resource concerns are assessed using a predictive interactive model simulation. The CART systems attempt to replicate the outcomes related to the assessment threshold being met or not compared to the model outputs.

After identifying resource concerns and describing existing conditions, planned conservation practices and activities can be added to the existing condition to determine the state of the proposed management system. Supporting practices that are needed to support primary conservation practices and activities are also identified, but do not add conservation management points to the total.

If the client is interested in financial assistance through an NRCS conservation program, the inventory and assessment information, along with client decisions related to conservation practice adoption, are directly and consistently transferred from the assessment portion of CART to the ranking portion of CART.  Based on the transferred assessment information and the conservation practices proposed for implementation, CART identifies the appropriate program ranking pool(s).

Ranking in CART

In general, NRCS program ranking criteria uses the following guiding principles:

  • Degree of cost-effectiveness of the proposed conservation practices and activities;

  • The level of performance of proposed conservation practices and activities;

  • Treatment of multiple resource concerns or national priority resource concerns;

  • Magnitude of the environmental benefits resulting from the treatment of resource concerns reflecting the level of performance of proposed conservation practices and activities; and

  • Compliance with Federal, State, local or tribal regulatory requirements with regards to natural resources.

CART uses a set of National Ranking Templates developed for each NRCS program and initiative. The National Ranking Templates contain four parameters that are customized for each program to reflect the national level ranking criteria. The four parameters are:

  1. Land Uses - NRCS has developed land use designations to be used by planners and modelers at the field and landscape level. Land use modifiers more accurately define the land’s actual use and provide another level of specificity and help denote how the land is managed. Land use designations and modifiers are defined in  Title 180, National Planning Procedures Handbook, Part 600.

  2. Resource Concerns - An expected degradation of the soil, water, air, plant, or animal resource base to the extent that the sustainability or intended use of the resource is impaired. Because NRCS quantifies or describes resource concerns as part of a comprehensive conservation planning process, that includes client objectives, human and energy resources are considered components of the resource base.

  3. Practices - A specific treatment used to address resource concerns, such as structural or vegetative measures, or management techniques, which are planned and implemented in accordance with applicable standards and specifications.

  4. Ranking Component Weights – A set of five components comprise the ranking score for an individual land-based assessment. The five components are:

    • Vulnerability - Site vulnerability is determined by subtracting the existing condition and existing practice scores from the thresholds. This score is weighted by ranking pool to address the resource concerns prioritized by that ranking pool.

    • Planned Practice Effects - The planned practice effect score is based on the sum of the planned practice on that land unit which addresses the resource concern. This score is weighted by ranking pool to address the resource concerns prioritized by that ranking pool.

    • Resource Priorities - National and State resource priorities are established to address the most critical land and resource considerations and are based on NRCS national and State priorities identified with input from National, State, and local stakeholders. 

    • Program Priorities - National and State program priorities are established to maximize program effectiveness and advance program purposes and are based on NRCS national and State priorities identified with input from National, State, and local stakeholders. 

    • Cost Efficiency – Summation of ‘Planned Practice Points’ divided by the log of the ‘Average Practice Cost’. 

NOTE: The points for vulnerability, planned practice effects, and cost efficiency are garnered from the assessment portion of CART.

West Virginia created State-specific ranking pools within the above-described National Ranking Template parameters. The State ranking pools contain a set of questions that are divided into the following sections – applicability, category, program questions, and resource questions.  Ranking pool customization allows States to focus funding on priority resource concerns and initiatives identified at the State level with input from NRCS stakeholders.  Each eligible application may be considered for funding in all applicable ranking pools by program. 

Program-Specific Information

Ranking Criteria

  1. At least 50 percent of the weight of the ranking factors must be based on the national criteria comprising 200 points out of 400 points. The national criteria are as follows:
    1. Percent of prime, unique, and important farmland soils in the parcel to be protected.
    2. Percent of cropland, rangeland, grassland, historic grassland, pastureland, or nonindustrial private forest land in the parcel to be protected.
    3. Ratio of the total acres of land in the parcel to be protected to average farm size in the county according to the most recent USDA Census of Agriculture (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov).
    4. Decrease in the percentage of acreage of farm and ranch land in the county in which the parcel is located between the last two USDA Censuses of Agriculture (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov).
    5. Percent population growth in the county as documented by the U.S. Census (http://www.census.gov).
    6. Population density (population per square mile) as documented by the most recent U.S. Census (http://www.census.gov).
    7. Existence of a farm or ranch succession plan or similar plan established to address agricultural viability for future generations.
    8. Proximity of the parcel to other protected land, such as compatible military installations; land owned in fee title by the United States or an Indian Tribe, State or local government, or by a nongovernmental organization whose purpose is to protect agricultural use and related conservation values; or land that is already subject to an easement or deed restriction that limits the conversion of the land to nonagricultural use or protects grazing uses and related conservation values.
    9. Proximity of the parcel to other agricultural operations and agricultural infrastructure.
    10. Maximizing the protection of contiguous or proximal acres devoted to agricultural use.
    11. Whether the land is currently enrolled in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in a contract that is set to expire within 1 year and is grassland that would benefit from protection under a long-term easement.
    12. Whether the land is grassland of special environmental significance that would benefit from protection under a long-term easement.
    13. Decrease in the percentage of acreage of permanent grassland, pasture, and rangeland, other than cropland and woodland pasture, in the county in which the parcel is located between the last two USDA Censuses of Agriculture.
    14. Percent of the fair market value of the agricultural land easement that is the eligible entity’s own cash resources for payment of easement compensation to the landowner and comes from sources other than the landowner.
    15. Other national criteria as provided by EPD.
  2. The remaining weight (up to 200 points out of 400 points) of the ranking factors will be applied to NRCS State criteria approved by the State conservationist, with advice from the State technical committee. Such criteria may include only the following:
    1. The location of a parcel in an area zoned for agricultural use.
    2. The eligible entity’s performance in managing and enforcing easements. The measure of performance is the efficiency of easement transactions completion or percentage of parcels monitored annually and the percentage of monitoring results reported annually. For noncertified eligible entities, this may also include the eligible entity’s election to attach the ALE minimum deed terms addendum as written or the use of an existing EPD-approved entity-specific ALE deed template.
    3. Multifunctional conservation values or benefits of farm or ranch land protection, including—
      • Social, economic, historic, and archaeological benefits.
      • Enhancing carbon sequestration.
      • Improving climate change resiliency.
      • At-risk species protection.
      • Reducing nutrient runoff and improving water quality.
      • Other related conservation benefits.
    4. Geographic regions where the enrollment of particular lands may help achieve national, State, and regional agricultural or conservation goals and objectives or enhance existing government or private conservation projects.
    5. Diversity of natural resources to be protected or improved.
    6. Score in the land evaluation and site assessment system or equivalent measure for grassland enrollments. This score serves as a measure of agricultural viability (access to markets and infrastructure). (See 7 CFR Part 658 for additional information.)
    7. Measures that will be used to maintain or increase agricultural viability, such as succession plans, agricultural land easement plans (not including required highly erodible land (HEL) conservation plans), or entity deed terms that specifically address long-term agricultural viability.
    8. Criteria specific to ranking pools that will facilitate the prioritization of parcels within designated ranking pools that will best achieve ACEP-ALE purposes and maximize the benefit of the Federal investment under the program for which the ranking pools were designated.
  3. The State criteria may include a ranking factor that assigns points to eligible entities for meeting their existing agreement and monitoring responsibilities, and assigns no points under such criteria for parcels submitted by an entity that—
    1. Is delinquent on conducting annual monitoring or whose annual monitoring reports are insufficient, late, or not provided to NRCS annually.
    2. Has an existing ACEP-ALE agreement with funds remaining more than 2 years after the attachment or ACEP-ALE cost-share contract execution date without any expenditures or actions towards closings of easements in the third year.
    3. Has not submitted required documents in accordance with the timeframes required by the terms an existing ALE-agreement.
    4. Has not abided by the terms of an existing or closed Farmland Protection Program (FPP), Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), or ACEP-ALE agreement.
    5. Has not abided by the terms of or has failed to enforce an FPP, FRPP, or ACEP-ALE funded easement.

Matt Oliver, State Easement Specialist