California Agricultural Conservation Easement Program - Wetland Reserve Easements (ACEP-WRE) CART Ranking Process
On This Page
CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT RANKING TOOL (CART)
Overview
-
Any interested farmer or rancher may submit an application for participation in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program – Wetland Reserve Easements (ACEP-WRE)
-
The State Conservationist has established a sign-up period to select the highest ranked applications for funding based on the NRCS 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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
Vulnerability: Site vulnerability is determined by subtracting the existing condition and existing practice scores from the thresholds - 10% 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 - 10% 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 - 60% 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 - 20% weight
ACEP-WRE Resource Concern Categories
Aquatic Habitat - 10% Category Weight
-
Aquatic habitat for fish and other organisms - 67% weight
-
Elevated water temperature - 33% weight
Concentrated Erosion - 2% Category Weight
-
Bank erosion from streams, shorelines, or water conveyance channels - 70% weight
-
Classic gully erosion - 15% weight
-
Ephemeral gully erosion - 15% weight
Degraded Plant Condition - 5% Category Weight
-
Plant productivity and health - 50% weight
-
Plant structure and composition - 50% weight
Field Sediment, Nutrient, and Pathogen loss - 2% Category Weight
-
Nutrients transported to groundwater - 35% weight
-
Nutrients transported to surface water - 28% weight
-
Pathogens and chemicals from manure, biosolids, or compost applications transported to surface water - 4% weight
-
Sediment transported to surface water - 29% weight
Long-term Protection of Land - 35% Category Weight
-
Loss of functions and values - 85% weight
-
Threat of conversion - 15% weight
Pest Pressure - 1% Category Weight
-
Plant pest pressure - 100% weight
Source Water Depletion - 2% Category Weight
-
Groundwater depletion - 40% weight
-
Surface water depletion - 60% weight
Storage and Handling of Pollutants - 1% Category Weight
-
Nutrients transported to groundwater - 50% weight
-
Nutrients transported to surface water - 50% weight
Terrestrial Habitat - 25% Category Weight
-
Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates - 100% weight
Weather Resiliency - 15% Category Weight
-
Ponding and flooding - 45% weight
-
Seasonal high water table - 45% weight
-
Seeps - 10% weight
Wind and Water Erosion - 2% Category Weight
-
Sheet and rill erosion - 85% weight
-
Wind erosion - 15% weight
Restoration Cost Effectiveness
-
Average WRPO restoration cost is less than 1000 dollars/acre.
-
Average WRPO restoration cost is between 1000-2000 dollars/acre.
-
Average WRPO restoration cost is greater than 2000 dollars/acre.
Partnership Points for Restoration
-
Landowner or other conservation partner will contribute 75% or greater cost-share to the WRPO restoration.
-
Landowner or other conservation partner will contribute 50% cost-share to the WRPO restoration.
-
Landowner or other conservation partner will contribute 25% cost-share to the WRPO restoration.
-
Not Applicable
Partnership Points for Easement Acquisition
-
Landowner is willing to contribute 50% of per-acre easement cost.
-
Landowner is willing to contribute 40% of per-acre easement cost.
-
Landowner is willing to contribute 30% of per-acre easement cost.
-
Landowner is willing to contribute 20% of per-acre easement cost.
-
Landowner is willing to contribute 10%of per-acre easement cost.
-
Not applicable
Extent to Which ACEP-WRE Purposes are Achieved
-
High probability of restoring wetland functions and values that benefits migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife on at least 50% of the offering.
-
High probability of restoring wetland functions and values that benefits migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife on 25-50% of the offering.
-
High probability of restoring wetland functions and values that benefits migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife on <25% of the offering.
Productivity of Offered Land: What amount of the land offering is classified as prime, unique, statewide or locally important farmland?
-
0-25%
-
26-50%
-
51-75%
-
76-100%
On-Farm or Off-Farm Environmental Threats: Are current production practices on the offered land creating on-site or off-site environmental impacts (e.g. sedimentation, pesticide drift, water quality impacts) that could be alleviated by easement acquisition and restoration?
-
Yes
-
No
Restoration Benefits to Migratory Birds and Wetland Dependent Wildlife: Will the restoration project restore a diversity of habitats that benefit the full life-cycle needs of migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife?
-
Project will restore wetlands, grasslands, AND riparian habitat and benefit the FULL life-cycle needs of migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife, including providing summer water.
-
Project will restore wetlands, grasslands, OR riparian habitat and meet MOST of the life-cycle needs of migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife.
Threatened & Endangered Species Use of Protected and Restored Habitats
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 5 or more listed State or Federal T and E species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 4 listed State or Federal T and E species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 3 listed State or Federal T and E species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 2 listed State or Federal T and E species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 1 listed State or Federal T and E species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are not specifically focused on the recovery of State or Federal T and E species.
At-risk Species Use of Protected and Restored Habitats: Only consider State Species of Special Concern and Proposed/Candidates for T & E listing
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of more than 10 at-risk species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 6-10 at-risk species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 4-5 at-risk species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 2-3 at-risk species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are specifically focused on the recovery of 1 at-risk species.
-
Protection and restoration activities are not specifically focused on the recovery of at-risk species.
Protection and Restoration of Native Plant Communities: Will the project protect or restore rare or unique native plants that are considered at-risk or serve to meet the life-cycle needs of at-risk wildlife? Only consider special status plants, or plants that directly meet the life cycle needs of at-risk wildlife (e.g. native milkweeds/monarch butterfly, elderberry/VELB, etc.).
-
Restoration will specifically protect and restore rare or unique native plants that are at-risk or serve to meet the life-cycle needs of at-risk wildlife.
-
Restoration will include native plants, but won't specifically focus on at-risk plants or wildlife.
-
Not applicable.
Habitat Complexity to be Restored. Choose the predominant wetland habitat type to be restored. Only consider habitat elements that were historically present in the wetland type.
-
Forested Wetland: Number of habitat elements to be restored (choose from open water, submergents, trees/shrubs, associated uplands).
-
Seasonal Herbaceous Wetland: Number of habitat elements to be restored (choose from mud flat, open water, emergents, trees/shrubs, associated uplands).
-
Semi-Permanent Herbaceous Wetland: Number of habitat elements to be restored (choose from mud flat, open water, submergents, trees/shrubs, associated uplands).
-
Coastal/Tidal Wetland: Number of habitat elements to be restored (choose from mud flat, open water, submergents, emergents, trees/shrubs, associated uplands).
-
Vernal Pool Wetland: Number of habitat elements to be restored (choose from mud flat, submergents, associated uplands).
Proximity & Connectivity to Protected Areas
-
Land is adjacent to an existing conservation easement, refuge, or other protected area.
-
Land is within less than a 1/2 mile of an existing conservation easement, refuge, or other protected area.
-
Land is between a 1/2 mile to 1 mile of an existing conservation easement, refuge, or other protected area.
-
Land is further than 1 mile from an existing conservation easement, refuge, or other protected area.
Extent of Beneficial Adjacent Land Uses: Wildlife-friendly habitat types (beneficial land uses) are defined as grasslands, woodlands, brush scrublands, wetlands, rice, irrigated pasture, or riparian.
-
Land is adjacent to wildlife-friendly habitat of three or more types, or wetlands making up >75% of adjacent land use.
-
Land is adjacent to wildlife-friendly habitat of two types, or wetlands making up >50% of adjacent land use.
-
Land is adjacent to wildlife-friendly habitat of one type, or wetlands making up >25% of adjacent land use.
-
Land is adjacent to wildlife-friendly habitat of one type, or wetlands making up <25% of adjacent land use.
-
Land is not adjacent to wildlife-friendly habitat or wetlands.
Extent of Wetland Loss: Will the project protect and restore a wetland habitat type that has experienced a disproportionately higher rate of loss in California, such as a vernal pool, riparian habitat, or coastal wetland?
-
Yes
-
No
Water Quality: Will the restored wetland have the potential to filter pollutants or sediments from floodwaters or agricultural return flows?
-
Yes
-
No
Water Quantity: Will the restored wetland have the potential to increase water storage or contribute to groundwater recharge through attenuation of floodwaters?
-
Yes
-
No
Proximity to Impaired Water Bodies: Is the land offered for enrollment within or adjacent to an impaired water body identified on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for California?
-
Yes
-
No
Carbon Sequestration: Will the restoration result in a significant land use change that restores carbon sequestering native plants such as trees, shrubs, sedges, and grasses?
-
Project restores cropland to wetland habitat.
-
Project restores pasture or rangeland to wetland habitat.
-
Project enhances existing, but degraded wetland habitat.
Climate Change Resiliency: Will the restoration provide benefits to urban or agricultural areas by reducing storm surge through floodwater attenuation or by creating space for wetland migration in coastal areas threatened by sea level rise?
-
Yes
-
No
Amount of Wetland Restoration
-
Restored wetland acres will be greater than or equal to 75% of offered acres.
-
Restored wetland acres will be less than 75% of offered acres.
Extent of Hydrology Restoration
-
Hydrology Functions Absent (high): Land has significant hydrologic modifications and the restoration of hydrology will result in a significant increase in wetland functions and values.
-
Hydrology Functions Degraded (moderate): Land has moderate hydrologic modifications and the restoration of hydrology will result in a moderate increase in wetland functions and values.
-
Hydrology Functions Degraded (minor): Land has minor hydrologic modifications and the restoration of hydrology will result in a minor increase in wetland functions and values.
Reliability of Hydrology Restoration
-
Natural hydrology can be passively restored and is not dependent managed water supplies.
-
Hydrology is partially dependent on existing managed water supplies and water rights.
-
Hydrology is entirely dependent on existing managed water supplies and water rights.
Flooding Potential: Temporary Inundation by Flowing Water
-
Frequent (>50 events in 100 years) or vernal pool with intact hardpan.
-
Occasional (5-50 events in 100 years).
-
Rare (1-5 events in 100 years).
-
None.
Drainage Class (Determined by Permeability)
-
Very Slow.
-
Slow.
-
Moderate.
-
Moderately Rapid.
-
Excessive.
Saturation (Depth to Water Table)
-
0 to 1 foot.
-
2 to 3 feet.
-
Greater than 3 feet.
Size of Easement Enrollment: What it the size of land offered for ACEP-WRE enrollment?
-
Greater than or equal to 100 acres.
-
Less than 100 acres.