Skip Navigation

EQIP 2012 Ranking Criteria

Kansas 2012 EQIP Application Evaluation Criteria

Applications are evaluated by a ranking category. Statewide criteria has been developed and eligible practices identified for each ranking category. The State Conservationist, with recommendations from the Local Work Groups and Kansas Technical Committee, established the ranking categories and priority resource concerns to be addressed in Kansas for Fiscal Year 2012.

The use of geo-spatial data and tools enable Kansas NRCS to implement a streamlined process that ensures the optimization of environmental benefits and standardization of application evaluation in EQIP. Geo-spatial data was compiled and used in the allocation and application process.

For the application process, a tool (CPGI) was constructed to gather information used to determine the amount of environmental benefit gained from each application and track location of applications. This tool is used extensively after funding decisions are made to evaluate program delivery, assess program effectiveness, and analyze before and after impacts of treatment.

In compliance with the 2008 Farm Bill, ranking categories for organic and the historically underserved were established.


Applications are ranked through the NRCS Programs Contracts System using four different factors: Efficiency, National Priorities, State Issues, and Local Issues.

In those ranking categories where Local Issues are used, the Efficiency section accounts for 10 percent of the application score. Efficiency is scored on the conservation practices to be installed, practice service life, and practice average annual cost.

National Priorities account for 25 percent of the application score. This section scores the application based on its treatment of EQIP national priorities. The five EQIP national priorities are:

  • Reduction of non-point source pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, or excess salinity in impaired watersheds consistent with Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDLs), where available; the reduction of surface and groundwater contamination; and reduction of contamination from agricultural point sources such as concentrated animal feeding operations.
  • Conservation of ground and surface water resources.
  • Reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds, and ozone precursors and depleters that contribute to air quality impairment violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
  • Reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land.
  • Promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation.

State Issues account for 40 percent of the application score. This section determines the application's benefits to Kansas natural resource priorities, as determined by the State Conservationist based on recommendations from the Local Work Groups and the Kansas Technical Committee.

Local Issues account for 25 percent of the application score. This section determines the application's benefits to issues of local concerns, based on recommendations from Local Work Groups.

The following documents require Adobe Reader.

At-Risk Species by Ranking Category (PDF; 68 KB)

Forestland Health

Grazing Lands Health; Grazing Lands Health - Beginning Farmer/Rancher (BF), Limited Resource Farmer/Rancher (LRF), Socially Disadvantaged Farmer/Rancher (SDF)

Livestock Waste

Sedimentation of Federal Reservoirs

Water Quality/Cropland Health; Water Quality/Cropland Health - BF, LRF, SDF

Water Quantity

Water Quantity - Quick Response Areas

Wildlife Habitat


On-Farm Energy Initiative

Organic Initiative

Seasonal High Tunnel Initiative

Ogallala Aquifer Initiative