Page 1 of 8 November 2023

Ranking Criteria for NRCS Programs – Fiscal Year 2024 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 September 27 to 

November 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 (FY) 2024, 

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 2 of 8 November 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 3 of 8 November 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 FY 2024 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

Soil

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

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

Water

12. Ponding and flooding

13. Seasonal high-water table

14. Seeps

15. Drifted snow

16. Surface water depletion

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 4 of 8 November 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

Plants

37. Plant productivity and health

38. Plant structure and composition

39. Plant pest pressure

40. Wildfire hazard from biomass accumulation

Animals

41. Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates

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 5 of 8 November 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: Did the applicant apply for IRA ACEP-ALE enrollment? 

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

of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-ALE: Which target area applies to the parcel being offered for 

enrollment into IRA ACEP-ALE?

Based on the IRA ACEP-ALE national priorities, the answer choices are (1) grasslands under threat of 

conversion; (2) agricultural lands under threat of conversion; and (3) active agricultural rice cultivation 

on subsiding highly organic soils. 

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. 

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 Conservation Reserve Program (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. Is the applicant a covered producer participating in the CRP Transition Incentives Program 

(CRP-TIP) and NRCS is evaluating the assessment during the two-year period covered by the 

CRP-1R? 

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

a long-term easement.

15. 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. 

16. 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 
Page 6 of 8 November 2023

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

1. Easement offered acres contains habitat for at-risk species.

2. 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).

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

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

5. Closing efficiency over past five years. 

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

7. The producer/landowner has executed and is currently implementing an NRCS contract that 

includes Climate Smart Agricultural and Forestry practices.

8. Proximity to designated local, state, or federal wildlife habitat/conservation area or forest area of 

significance.

Specific Resources Questions for grasslands under threat of conversion applications: 

1. Index score for lands under threat of conversion where the majority of the parcel acreage (51 

percent or more) is located. 

2. Historical management and restoration of the proposed easement. 

3. Threat of grassland conversion to cropland. 

4. Percent of rangeland, pastureland, or land that contains forbs or shrublands to be protected that is 

currently devoted to grazing uses. 

5. Property is a proximal extension of existing protected grasslands or connects existing protected 

grassland areas.

Specific Resource Questions for agricultural lands under threat of conversion applications: 

1. Index score for lands under threat of conversion where the majority of the parcel acreage (51 

percent or more) is located.

2. Property proximity to a micropolitan area or metropolitan area.

3. Property proximity to a major transportation corridor or warehousing complex. 

Specific Resource Questions for active agricultural rice cultivation on subsiding highly organic soils 

applications: 

1. Percentage of the proposed easement having rice cultivation on subsiding highly organic soils 

2. Saturation during the non-growing season 

3. Long-term management plan

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: Did the applicant apply for IRA ACEP-WRE enrollment?

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

of ranking pools for IRA ACEP-WRE: The proposed easement most closely aligns with which of the 

following IRA ACEP-WRE priorities?

Answers:
Page 7 of 8 November 2023

1. Land that either meet one of the primary ACEP-WRE land categories or is eligible adjacent 

land and overlaps with the highly organic soils and high carbon mineral soils identified in FY 

2023 for IRA ACEP-WRE

2. Land that either meets one of the primary ACEP-WRE land eligibility categories or is eligible 

adjacent land and that will be restored and managed as native forest under the Wetland Reserve 

Plan of Operations.

3. Land that either meets one of the primary ACEP-WRE land eligibility categories or is eligible 

adjacent land and contains existing native forest habitat that will be maintained as native forest 

habitat under the Wetland Reserve Plan of Operations.

4. A geographically specific priority, Agricultural Cranberry Bogs, that meet one of the primary 

ACEP-WRE land eligibility categories and is capable of being restored to native wetland 

habitat.

5. A geographically specific priority, drained or degraded montane wet meadows, that meet one 

of the primary ACEP-WRE land eligibility categories and is capable of being restored to native 

wetland habitat.

6. A geographically specific priority, ephemeral wetlands, that meet one of the primary ACEPWRE land eligibility categories and is surrounded by existing native grasslands or by cropland 

that will be restored to native grassland habitat under the Wetland Reserve Plan of Operations.

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. Describe existing forest habitat.

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

mitigated by restoration to native habitat.

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

proposed restoration and stewardship.

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

wildlife and habitat conservation.

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

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

endangered species.

4. Hydrological restoration implemented for wetland dependent wildlife species.

5. Restoration of altered hydrology.

6. Land use change through restoration.

7. Reliability of hydrology restoration.

8. Types of wetlands restored.
Page 8 of 8 November 2023

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

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

production.

11. Floodwater attenuation.

Specific Resource Questions for applications under priority soils high in organic carbon:

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

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

3. Percentage of proposed easement area that intersects with Priority Area 1 and/or Priority Area 

2. 

4. Percentage of the proposed easement area that will be restored to native forest as a planned 

practice under the Wetland Reserve Plan of Operations and/or is currently native forest habitat 

that will be maintained as native forest habitat.

Specific Resource Questions for applications that will have land restored to native forest habitat:

1. Percentage of proposed easement area that will be restored to native forest as a planned 

practice under the Wetland Reserve Plan of Operations.

2. Percentage of proposed easement area that is currently forested habitat and will be maintained 

as forested habitat.

3. Percentage of the proposed easement area that intersects the priority soils.

Specific Resource Questions for application that will maintain existing native forest habitat:

1. Existing forest habitat type.

2. Percentage of the proposed easement area that will be restored to native forest.

3. Percentage of the proposed easement area that is currently native forest habitat and will be 

maintained as forest habitat.

4. Percentage of the proposed easement area that intersects the priority soils.

Specific Resource Questions for applications under geographically specific priority, Agricultural 

Cranberry Bogs

1. Threat of conversion to a non-agricultural use

2. Percentage of the proposed easement that intersects the priority soils by 25% or more.

Specific Resource Questions for applications under geographically specific priority, montane wet 

meadows:

1. Extent of degraded hydrology.

2. Percentage of the proposed easement that intersects the priority soils by 25% or more.

Specific Resource Questions for applications under geographically specific priority, ephemeral wetlands:

1. Threat of conversion to more intensive agricultural or non-agricultural use.

2. Number of wetlands/potholes/playas/vernal pools to be protected and restored within the 

proposed easement area.

3. Percentage of the proposed easement that intersects the priority soils by 25% or more.