Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

California Agricultural Conservation Easement Program - Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE) CART Ranking Process

On This Page

OVERVIEW

CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT RANKING TOOL (CART)

CART RANKING TEMPLATES

STATE RANKING POOLS


Overview

 

  • Any interested Eligible Entity may submit an application for participation in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program – Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE)

  • The State Conservationist has established a sign-up period to select the highest ranked applications for funding based on the NRCS screening and ranking process, contract approval is dependent on program eligibility determinations.

  • The State Conservationist, in consultation with the State Technical Committee has developed ranking criteria to prioritize and subsequently fund applications addressing priority natural resource concerns in California.

  • In Fiscal Year 2023, NRCS will use the Conservation Assessment Ranking Tool (CART) for all program ranking. 


Conservation Assessment Ranking Tool (CART)

CART is designed to assist NRCS conservation planners as they assess site vulnerability, existing conditions, and identify potential resource concerns on a unit of land. CART results are then used to support conservation planning activities for the client. CART also captures this information to prioritize programs and report outcomes of NRCS investments in conservation.

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 as appropriate, and planner expertise. Site evaluations for existing management and conservation efforts are then compared to the quality criteria threshold to determine what level of conservation effort is needed to address resource concerns on the client’s land.

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

  • Client Input/Planner Observation

  • Procedural/Deductive

  • Predictive

Client Input/Planner Observation: A streamlined list of options will be presented to the planner to document the client input and/or planner observation of present resource concerns. These observations will then be compared to the quality criteria threshold. Most of the Client Input or Planner Observation resource concerns will have a CART system threshold of 50. If the existing condition choice is below 50, then the assessment threshold is not met. 

Procedural/Deductive: A large group of the remaining resource concerns fall into this category and usually reference a tool to assist with a determination or have a list of inventory-like criteria in the assessment. Due to the local variability in state tools, these choices will be broad in nature to allow states to more carefully align them with State conditions.  As above, many of these have a set threshold of 50, but may have variable thresholds for the same reasons as above.

Predictive: The remaining group of resource concerns are assessed using a type of 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. Most of these have variable thresholds related to the intrinsic site conditions which reflect significant impacts on the model outputs.

After identifying resource concerns and answering existing condition questions, planned conservation practices and activities can be added to the existing condition to determine the state of the management system. Supporting practices may be necessary to support the primary conservation practices and activities and will be identified as necessary, but do not add conservation management points to the total. A comprehensive list of Conservation Practices and Activities and their points towards addressing each resource concern by land use is available as an attachment to this document.

If the client is interested in financial assistance, CART will directly and consistently transfer inventory and assessment information, along with client decisions related to conservation practice adoption, to the ranking tool to avoid duplication, increase prioritization on critical areas based on geospatial priorities and site-specific data, and provide better outcomes and a framework for continuous improvement.

CART will identify applicable financial assistance ranking pools to provide the most advantageous situation for the client and to help planners prioritize workload toward those clients who are most likely to receive funding.

CART Ranking Criteria will use the following guiding principles:

  • Client Input/Planner Observation;

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

  • Magnitude of the environmental benefits resulting from the treatment of national priorities;

  • Reflecting the level of performance of proposed conservation practices;

  • Magnitude of the environmental benefits resulting from the treatment of priority resource;

  • Concerns reflecting the level of performance of proposed conservation practices;

  • Treatment of multiple resource concerns; and

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

 

CART Ranking Templates

CART will utilize a set of National Ranking Templates created by National Program Managers for all NRCS programs and initiatives. The National Ranking Templates contain four parameters that will be customized for each program to reflect the national level ranking priorities. 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 GM180, Part 600 National Planning Procedures Handbook.

  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. A specific treatment, such as a structural or vegetative measure, or management technique, commonly used to meet specific needs in planning and implementing conservation, for which standards and specifications have been developed.

  3. Ranking Component Weights – A set of five components that comprise the ranking score for an individual assessed practice schedule. The components include vulnerability, planned practice points, program priorities, resource priorities, and efficiency. The points for vulnerability, planned practice points, and efficiency are garnered from the assessment portion of CART.

 

State Ranking Pools

  • California created state specific ranking pools from the parameters established in the National Ranking Templates.

  • Ranking pool customization allows states to focus funding on priority resource concerns and initiatives identified by the State Technical Committee.

  • The state ranking pools contain a set of questions that includes the following sections – applicability, category, program questions, and resource questions.

  • Program participants will be considered for funding in all applicable ranking pools by program.  This will allow more for participants to receive financial assistance.

CART Ranking Pools are customized to incorporate locally-led input and will evaluate the participant’s assessed practice schedule for five main areas:


ACEP-ALE Ranking Weights

Vulnerability: Site vulnerability is determined by subtracting the existing condition and existing practice scores from the thresholds - 5% weight

Planned Practice Effects: The planned practice score will be based on the sum of the planned practice on that land unit which address the resource concern. These two scores will be weighted by a ranking pool to address the resource concerns prioritized by that ranking pool - 5% weight

Resource Priorities: National and State Program Priorities are set through the Farm Bill, Secretary and Chief Priorities and Locally Led Input from the State Technical Committee which address land and resource considerations - 40% weight

Program Priorities: National and State Program Priorities are set through the Farm Bill, Secretary and Chief Priorities and Locally Led Input from Local Work Groups and State Technical Committee which address program purposes - 50% weight

 

ACEP-ALE General Resource Concern Categories

 

Concentrated Erosion - 3% Category Weight

  • Bank erosion from streams, shorelines, or water conveyance channels - 20% weight

  • Classic gully erosion - 40% weight

  • Ephemeral gully erosion - 40% weight

Degraded Plant Condition - 3% Category Weight

  • Plant productivity and health - 50% weight

  • Plant structure and composition - 50% weight

Livestock production limitation - 5% Category Weight   

  • Feed and forage balance - 40% weight

  • Inadequate livestock shelter - 15% weight

  • Inadequate livestock water quantity, quality, and distribution - 45% weight

Long term protection of land - 75% Category Weight  

  • Threat of Conversion - 100% weight

Pest pressure - 3% Category Weight

  • Plant pest pressure - 100% weight

Soil quality limitations - 2% Category Weight    

  • Compaction - 25% weight

  • Concentration of salts or other chemicals - 15% weight

  • Organic matter depletion - 25% weight

  • Soil organism habitat loss or degradation - 20% weight

  • Subsidence - 15% weight

Source water depletion - 4% Category Weight

  • Groundwater depletion - 35% weight

  • Inefficient irrigation water use - 35% weight

  • Surface water depletion - 30% weight

Wind and water erosion - 5% Category Weight    

  • Sheet and rill erosion - 50% weight

  • Wind erosion - 50% weight

 

ACEP-ALE Grassland Special Significance (GSS) Resource Concern Categories

 

Concentrated Erosion - 2% Category Weight

  • Bank erosion from streams, shorelines, or water conveyance channels - 20% weight

  • Classic gully erosion - 40% weight

  • Ephemeral gully erosion - 40% weight

Degraded Plant Condition - 5% Category Weight

  • Plant productivity and health - 50% weight

  • Plant structure and composition - 50% weight

Livestock production limitation - 5% Category Weight   

  • Feed and forage balance - 40% weight

  • Inadequate livestock shelter - 15% weight

  • Inadequate livestock water quantity, quality, and distribution - 45% weight

Long term protection of land - 75% Category Weight  

  • Threat of Conversion - 100% weight

Pest pressure - 2% Category Weight

  • Plant pest pressure - 100% weight

Soil quality limitations - 2% Category Weight    

  • Compaction - 25% weight

  • Concentration of salts or other chemicals - 15% weight

  • Organic matter depletion - 25% weight

  • Soil organism habitat loss or degradation - 20% weight

  • Subsidence - 15% weight

Source water depletion - 3% Category Weight

  • Groundwater depletion - 35% weight

  • Inefficient irrigation water use - 35% weight

  • Surface water depletion - 30% weight

Terrestrial habitat - 4% Category Weight

  • Terrestrial habitat for wildlife & invertebrates - 100% weight

Wind and water erosion - 2% Category Weight    

  • Sheet and rill erosion - 50% weight

  • Wind erosion - 50% weight

 

National Program Priorities

 

Percent of prime, unique, and statewide/locally important soil or rangeland that would be protected on the parcel.

  • 90-100%

  • 80-90%

  • 70-80%

  • 60-70%

  • 50-60%

  • 0-50%

Percent of cropland, pastureland, grassland, and rangeland in parcel to be protected.

  • 91-100%

  • 81-90%

  • 66-80%

  • 51-65%

  • 34-50%

  • 0-33%

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.

  • >3

  • 2-3

  • 1-1.9

  • <1

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.

  • >15%

  • 11-15%

  • 6-10%

  • 1-5%

  • 0% or Increase

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 years from the USDA Census of Agriculture.

  • >15%

  • 11-15%

  • 6-10%

  • 1-5%

  • 0% or Increase

Ratio of population growth in the county versus the statewide growth rate as documented by the most recent U.S. census. (www.census.gov)

  • >3

  • 2-3

  • 1-1.9

  • <1

Ratio of county population density (population per square mile) versus statewide population density based on the most recent U.S. census. (www.census.gov)

  • >3

  • 2-3

  • 1-1.9

  • <1

Proximity of the parcel to other protected land within 1 mile radius.

  • > 500 acres within 1 mile

  • 251 - 500 acres within 1 mile

  • 100 - 250 acres within 1 mile

  • < 100 acres within 1 mile

  • No protected land within 1 mile

Proximity of the parcel to other agriculture operations & infrastructure within 1 mile radius.

  • > 500 acres within 1 mile

  • 251 - 500 acres within 1 mile

  • 100 - 250 acres within 1 mile

  • < 100 acres within 1 mile

Parcel ability to maximize the protection of contiguous or adjacent agricultural easements.

  • Parcel links two agricultural easements

  • Parcel is adjacent to an agricultural easement

  • Parcel is non-contiguous to an agricultural easement

Evidence of farm or ranch succession plan for the landowner established to address farm viability for future generations.

  • Written Plan by industry professional

  • Written Plan

  • No plan

Parcel is currently enrolled in a CRP contract that is set to expire within a year and is a grassland that would be protected by the easement.

  • Yes

  • No

Parcel is a grassland of special environmental significance that will benefit from the protection under the long-term easement.

  • Yes

  • No

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.

  • >75%

  • 51-74%

  • 50%

  • 25-49%

  • <25%

 

State Resource Priorities


Parcel is located in an area zoned for agricultural use with a minimum ag zoning designation.

  • Zoned: < 40 acres

  • Zoned: 40 – 80 acres

  • Zoned: 80 – 160 acres

  • Zoned: >160 acres

Number of potential legal parcels under current zoning.

  • > 10

  • 5 - 10

  • 1 - 4

  • 0

Proximity to Sphere of Influence of an incorporated city.

  • Distance < 1/2 mile

  • Distance 1/2 to 1 mile

  • Distance 1.1 mile to 2 miles

  • Distance 2.1 miles to 4 miles

  • Distance > 4 miles

Agricultural water supply provided from more than one source (i.e. riparian, surface from water district, well). Multiple response may apply.

  • More than one source.

  • 1st priority or adjudicated.

Parcel is located within a region where enrollment will help achieve National, State, or Regional conservation goals and objectives, or enhance existing government or private conservation projects.  (Do not include a general plan citation unless it specifically identifies the area of the easement for agricultural conservation).

  • Yes

  • No

Eligible Entity has a strategic farmland protection plan with specific agricultural focal areas identified.

  • Yes

  • No

Unique multifunctional project benefits.  Multiple response may apply.

  • Social

  • Economic

  • Climate Change Resiliency

  • Parcel’s Access to Ag. Markets

  • On-Site Processing Facilities for Ag. Products

Property will protect at-risk species and/or habitat types.  Multiple response may apply.

  • At-risk species:

  • At-risk habitats:

Eligible Entity's experience in managing and enforcing agricultural easements.

  • Number of agricultural easements held > 10

  • Number of agricultural easements held 5 – 9

  • Number of agricultural easements held 1 - 4

  • Number of agricultural easements held  0

Eligible Entity has current Land Trust Alliance (LTA) Accreditation. 

  • Yes

  • No

Cooperating Entity's average efficiency closing NRCS easements.  If no NRCS easements are held, entity must provide evidence of closing efficiency for other easements.

  • Under or equal to 2 years

  • Over 2 years

Cooperating Entity's performance monitoring NRCS easements.  If no NRCS easements are held, entity must provide evidence of annual monitoring for other easements.

  • 100% annual monitoring report completion

  • 75-99% annual monitoring report completion

  • <75% annual monitoring report completion

Letters of Support (NRCS or RCD support letters do not count).

  • 4 or more

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • None

Landowner has a Conservation Plan, Grazing Management Plan, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan and is actively implementing conservation practices on the easement offering (plan must be provided to NRCS).

  • Yes

  • No

Parcel contains historical or archeological resources that will be protected by the easement (cultural resource must be recognized by SHPO/NRHP, National or State Historic Register).

  • Yes

  • No

 

Back to California ACEP