Ranking Criteria for NRCS Programs – Fiscal Year 2023 Inflation Reduction 

Act (IRA) – Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) 

Application Overview 

Any applicant may submit an application for participation in IRA ACEP. NRCS has developed the 

following ranking criteria to prioritize and select applications that best address the applicable program 

purposes and priority natural resource concerns nationally. 

The Secretary of Agriculture established a national application batching period from February 13 to 

March 17, 2023. The Easement Programs Division will select the highest ranked applications for 

funding, based on applicant eligibility and the NRCS ranking process. In Fiscal Year 2023, NRCS will 

use the Conservation Assessment Ranking Tool (CART) to assess and rank all eligible applications for 

IRA ACEP. 

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 for a unit of land. 

CART assessments of existing management and conservation efforts are compared against 

conservation planning criteria thresholds to determine the additional level of conservation efforts 

needed to address identified natural resource concerns. NRCS uses the results to identify 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’s activities and the planner’s 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 evaluation tool or a list of inventory-like criteria. 

Due to the variability in State tools, assessment questions and answers will be broad in nature 

to allow States to 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 outcomes compared to the model outputs. 

Page 1 of 9 March 2023 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 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 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 the 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 – The resource condition that does not meet minimum acceptable condition 

levels as established by resource planning criteria. This implies 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, which 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 that 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: 

a. 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. 

b. Planned Practice Effects – The planned practice effect score is based on the sum of the 

planned practice on that land unit that addresses the resource concern. This score is 

Page 2 of 9 March 2023 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

weighted by ranking pool to address the resource concerns prioritized by that ranking 

pool. 

c. 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. 

d. 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. 

e. 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. 

Easement Programs Division created IRA ACEP ranking pools within the above-described National 

Ranking Template parameters. The IRA ACEP 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 NRCS to focus funding on priority resource concerns and 

initiatives identified at the nationally with input from NRCS stakeholders. Each eligible application 

may be considered for funding in all applicable ranking pools by program. 

NRCS Resource Concerns 

The following table lists the 47 resource concerns NRCS uses during the Conservation Planning process. 

Categories NRCS Resource Concerns 

1. Sheet and rill erosion 

2. Wind erosion 

3. Ephemeral gully erosion 

4. Classic gully erosion 

5. Bank erosion from streams, shorelines, or water conveyance channels 

Soil 6. Subsidence 

7. Compaction 

8. Organic matter depletion 

9. Concentration of salts or other chemicals 

10. Soil organism habitat loss or degradation 

11. Aggregate instability 

12. Ponding and flooding 

13. Seasonal high-water table 

14. Seeps 

15. Drifted snow 

16. Surface water depletion 

Water 17. Groundwater depletion 

18. Naturally available moisture use 

19. Inefficient irrigation water use 

20. Nutrients transported to surface water 

21. Nutrients transported to groundwater 

22. Pesticides transported to surface water 

Page 3 of 9 March 2023 
23. Pesticides transported to groundwater 

24. Pathogens and chemicals from manure, biosolids, or compost applications 

transported to surface water 

25. Pathogens and chemicals from manure, biosolids, or compost applications 

transported to groundwater 

26. Salts transported to surface water 

27. Salts transported to groundwater 

28. Petroleum, heavy metals, and other pollutants transported to surface water 

29. Petroleum, heavy metals, and other pollutants transported to groundwater 

30. Sediment transported to surface water 

31. Elevated water temperature 

Air 

32. Emissions of particulate matter (PM) and PM precursors 

33. Emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) 

34. Emissions of ozone precursors 

35. Objectionable odors 

36. Emissions of airborne reactive nitrogen 

37. Plant productivity and health 

Plants 38. Plant structure and composition 

39. Plant pest pressure 

40. Wildfire hazard from biomass accumulation 

41. Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates 

Animals 

42. Aquatic habitat for fish and other organisms 

43. Feed and forage imbalance 

44. Inadequate livestock shelter 

45. Inadequate livestock water quantity, quality, and distribution 

Energy 46. Energy efficiency of equipment and facilities 

47. Energy efficiency of field operations 

Page 4 of 9 March 2023 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program-Specific Information: Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program – Agricultural Land Easement (ACEP-ALE) 

The following IRA ACEP-ALE national ranking criteria are included in the “Applicability Question” 

section of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-ALE: 

Is the application parcel planning land unit located in the IRA ACEP-ALE Target Area? 

Map of the fiscal year 2023 Inflation Reduction Act Agricultural Conservation Easement Program – 

Agricultural Land Easement target area. The area includes portions of Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota , Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. 

The following IRA ACEP-ALE national ranking criteria are included in the “Category Question” section 

of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-ALE: 

Based on the IRA ACEP-ALE priority layer, describe the threat of conversion where the majority 

(greater than or equal to 50%) of the easement offered acres are located. 

Page 5 of 9 March 2023 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Map of the most productive soils in the Great Plains under the threat of being converted from grasslands 

to cropland, figure from NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife Great Plains Grasslands Biome, A 

Framework for Conservation Action. 

The following IRA ACEP-ALE national ranking criteria are included in the “Program Questions” section 

of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-ALE, with the weighting of each question based on national-level 

priorities: 

1. Percent of prime, unique, and important soils in the parcel to be protected. 

2. Secured landowner water rights for lands that are prime if irrigated. 

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

4. 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. 

Page 6 of 9 March 2023 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. 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. 

6. Percent population growth in the county as documented by the U.S. Census. 

7. Population density (population per square mile) as documented by the most recent U.S. Census. 

8. Existence of a farm or ranch succession plan or similar plan established to address agricultural 

viability for future generations. 

9. Proximity of the parcel to other protected land. 

10. Proximity of the parcel to other agricultural operations and agricultural infrastructure. 

11. Maximizing the protection of contiguous or proximal acres devoted to agricultural use. 

12. Is land currently enrolled in CRP in a contract that is set to expire within one year and is 

grassland that would benefit from protection under a long-term easement or is land under a CRP 

contract that is in transition to a covered farmer or rancher pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 3835(f). 

13. Land is grassland of special environmental significance that would benefit from protection under 

a long-term easement. 

14. 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. 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. 

The following ACEP-ALE State ranking criteria are included in the “Resource Questions” section of 

ranking pools for ACEP-ALE, with the weighting of each question based on State-level priorities: 

1. Percentage of the parcel located in the IRA ACEP-ALE Target Area. 

2. Based on the IRA ACEP-ALE priority layer, what percentage of the parcel planning land units is 

located in Priority 1 (Very High Threat of Conversion – Red) IRA Priority Area? 

3. Based on the IRA ACEP-ALE priority layer, what percentage of the parcel planning land units is 

located in Priority 2 (High Threat of Conversion – Orange) IRA Priority Area? 

4. Based on the IRA ACEP-ALE priority layer, what percentage of the parcel planning land units is 

located in Priority 3 (Moderate Threat of Conversion – Yellow) IRA Priority Area? 

5. Based on the IRA ACEP-ALE priority layer, what percentage of the parcel planning land units is 

located in Priority 4 (Low Threat of Conversion – Green) IRA Priority Area? 

6. Land contains habitat for at-risk species. 

7. Score in the land evaluation and site assessment system as identified in 7 CFR Part 658 

or equivalent measure for grassland enrollments, to serve as a measure of agricultural 

viability (access to markets and infrastructure). 

8. Land contains a site of cultural or historical significance. 

9. The eligible entity’s performance in managing and enforcing easements. 

10. 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. 

11. Does the applicant meet the NRCS definition of a historically underserved participant. 

Page 7 of 9 March 2023 
Page 8 of 9 March 2023 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program-Specific Information: Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program – Wetland Reserve Easement (ACEP-WRE) 

The following IRA ACEP-WRE national ranking criteria are included in the “Applicability Question” 

section of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-WRE: 

Does the proposed easement planning land units overlap with one of the eligible soil categories? 

Map of the Inflation Reduction Act Agricultural Conservation Easement Program – Wetland Reserve 

Easement priority areas. The priority areas were identified using the NRCS Soil Survey Geographic 

Database (SSURGO) which contains information about soils collected by the National Cooperative Soil 

Survey. 

The following IRA ACEP-WRE national ranking criteria are included in the “Category Question” section 

of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-WRE: 

Percentage of the offered easement area (greater than or equal to 25%) intersection of the IRA ACEPWRE priority layer. 

The following IRA ACEP-WRE national ranking criteria are included in the “Program Questions” section 

of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-WRE, with the weighting of each question based on national-level 

priorities: 

1. Location of the offered easement area in a national priority area. 

2. Easement Duration 

3. Comparison of estimated restoration costs to the fair market value of the land. 

4. Contribution by landowner or conservation partner towards cost of easement and/or restoration. 

5. Restoration of land to native vegetation. 

6. Ratio of restorable wetland acreage to adjacent land in the enrollment area. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Current management activities that may create onsite or offsite negative impact that will be 

mitigated by restoration to native habitat. 

8. Configuration of proposed easement to exclude inholdings or rights of way that may affect the 

proposed restoration and stewardship. 

9. Does the applicant meet the NRCS definition of a historically underserved participant. 

The following ACEP-WRE State ranking criteria are included in the “Resource Questions” section of 

ranking pools for ACEP-WRE, with the weighting of each question based on State-level priorities: 

1. Percentage of proposed easement area that intersects Priority Area 1. 

2. Percentage of proposed easement area that intersects Priority Area 2. 

3. Proximity of proposed easement to other lands permanently protected for the purpose of 

wildlife and habitat conservation. 

4. Restoration of adjacent land acreage within the proposed easement area. 

5. Habitat restoration contains elements for the recovery of State or federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. 

6. Hydrological restoration implemented for wetland dependent wildlife species. 

7. Restoration of altered hydrology. 

8. Land use change through restoration. 

9. Reliability of hydrology restoration. 

10. Types of wetlands restored. 

11. Location of proposed easement area within 303d State listed watersheds. 

12. Restoration provides surface water filtering from adjacent lands used for agricultural 

production. 

13. Floodwater attenuation. 

Page 9 of 9 March 2023