2019 SWCS International Annual Conference July 28-31, 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1. Mission Support Services
Operations Associate Chief Area
Version 1.0 Overview
Aaron Lauster,
Conservation Planning Branch
Chief
July 30, 2019
Conservation
Assessment & Ranking
Tool

2. CART Objectives
2
Streamline, Efficiency & Customer Service
• Streamline Reading the Land
• Efficient Conservation Planning and Ranking
• Improve Services and Time to Interact with the Client
Program Neutral Planning informs programs in a consistent,
integrated process.
Provide an Adaptive Learning Framework
CART will be fully integrated into planning and program
policy. No duplication of work

3. CART Enhanced Field Office Workflow
Planner
Creates
Schedule
• Pick PLUs
Planner Pre-
Screens as
determined
by State
Planner Creates
Assessment
• Select RC
• Assess Existing
Condition including
Existing Practices
• Select New Practice
• Planner Override
• Collect Special
Concerns Info
• Complete
Assessment
CD CART
Planner Ranks
Assessment Practices
• Identify applicable
Ranking Pools
• Score Priority
Questions
• Finalize Score
• Estimate Cost by
Ranking Pool
Program
Manager
Selects
Assessment
and associated
Practices by
Ranking
Planner
Completes
Plan
• Digitizes
Practices
• Contract
Wizard
Planner
Finalizes
Contract
Protracts
May Start Application, including eligibility, but must be completed by end of Ranking Process
Client Info and/or Field Visits conducted as appropriate
Program
Manager
Configuration of
Ranking Pools
• Geospatial
• Questions
Assessment
Question
Configuration
• Geospatial
• Questions
Resource
Concern,
Practices, and
Points
CPDES
Configured
Prior to
Workflow
FM
Spending
Plan and
line items

4. Conservation Desktop
4

5. Mission Support Services
Conservation Planning
Principles of Conservation Planning
(1) Consider the needs and capabilities of each acre within the plan
(2) Consider the client’s facilities, machinery, and economic situation
(3) Incorporate the client’s willingness to try new practices
(4) Consider the land’s relationship to the entire farm, ranch, or watershed
(5) Ensure the conservationist’s presence out on the land
Hugh Hammond Bennet
5

6. Slide 6
Conservation Planning Process
Phase I
Collect & Analyze
• Identify Problem
• Determine Objective
• Inventory Resources
• Analyze Resource Data
Phase II
Decision Support
• Formulate Alternatives
• Evaluate Alternatives
• Make Decision
Phase III
Implementation &
Evaluation
• Implementation
Requirements
• Implement the Plan
• Evaluate the Plan
Conservation PlanResource Concerns
Planning Criteria
Existing Condition
CAPS
Designs
Checkout
Contract
Conservation Practices
Economics
Conservation Desktop
Conservation Assessment Ranking Tool
Environmental Assessment
Future

7. Phase I Collect and Analyze
7
• Planners will select resource concerns to be analyzed within
CART
• A questions set, based on the resource concerns selected, will
be created
• Planning criteria, existing condition, and planned practice
information will be collected and analyzed by using a
conservation point system
• Thresholds will be set by geospatial analysis when available
• Existing Condition will be determined by answers to the
questions and identification of existing practices

8. Resource Concerns
8
• CART provides an assessment for all 47 Resource Concerns
• Some Concerns are broken into components to prevent apples
to oranges comparisons
• Concerns are grouped to allow streamlined selection and
assignment to land units
• Concerns will be applied to land units specifically
• Geospatial information can be used to identify areas of
heightened concern

9. Thresholds
CART sets a threshold of conservation points necessary to
achieve the planning criteria for each resource concern
selected.
Static Thresholds: Resource concerns have a set threshold of
50. This concerns primarily do not vary by soils or other site
characteristic.
Variable Thresholds: Resource concerns have a variable
threshold. The level of conservation effort needed to achieve
planning criteria vary by site specific criteria.
9

10. Thresholds and Planning Criteria
Planning Criteria is defined as A quantitative or qualitative
statement of a treatment level required to achieve a minimum level
of treatment for a given resource concern for a particular land Area
and is closely tied to the assessment method used.
• Planning criteria can be both quantitative or qualitative.
• Because of the quantitative nature of the CART system,
sometimes the CART system will be more restrictive than the
planning criteria
• Planners may override the CART
Assessment based on planning criteria
10
Planning
Criteria
CART Threshold

11. Existing Condition Inventory
Questions will be based on the resource concerns selected
existing condition questions will be asked
• Questions will be curated to allow dependencies in a
question tree
• Questions will be multi-choice and allocate conservation
points toward achieving threshold
• Some may be answered by geospatial information
• Questions may garner points for multiple resource
concerns
Existing Practices will be pulled from previous contracts and
additional observed practices can be attributed to a land unit
11

12. Analyze Resource Data
12
CART assists
planners to analyze
resource data
captured in the
inventory and
compare against the
threshold to
determine if
planning criteria is
met. Planner
override will be
allowed.
Threshold
Existing
Practices
Existing
Condition
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

13. Assessment Methodology
13
• CART uses a procedural/deductive assessment methodology,
with variable geospatial thresholds where possible, to
document planning criteria.
• Planners will have the ability to override the CART existing
condition result (meet or not meet) for each resource concern
Resource
Concerns
*
Planning Criteria CART
Geospatial
Threshold
Tools
Observation Procedural/
Deductive
Predictive
22 x 11
25 x 14
6 x 6 IET, WinPST
* Total is greater than 47 because some resource concerns have different methods by land use

14. Assessment vs Predictive Models
Concerns with Models
• Model complexity challenges widespread effective use by non-
research staff
• Models can require excessive data entry
• Model simulations can take significant time to process
• Model may not be tailored to particular business need
• Model error bars may be significant, especially if staff are not expert
users
Training thousands of users in more and more sophisticated and
frequently changing models is a challenge
• Planner override allows CART assessment to be overridden by model
use as appropriate.
• Primarily used on complex sites instead of all sites and to inform
assessment points
• Predictive models may be necessary to design practices and
complete implementation requirements for some practices
14

15. Phase II Decision Support
15
• Planners compare alternative practices and systems to address
resource concerns
• CART will allow both primary and supporting practices
• Practices garner conservation points toward meeting
thresholds for all resource concerns which are relevant
• Planners will have the ability to override the CART planned
result (meet or not meet) for each resource concern

16. Evaluate Alternatives
16
CART assists
planners illustrate
various alternative
practices and their
effect on the
resource concern.
Threshold
Planned
Existing
Condition &
Practices
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

17. Environmental Assessment
17
CART 1.0 will collect
Resource Concern
assessments and special
environmental concerns
(both geospatially and
question based) currently
captured on the CPA-52.
CART 1.0+ will allow
completion of
environmental
assessment electronically
and saved in NPAD

18. Finalize Plan
18
CART will integrate with
Conservation Desktop (CD) to turn
the client’s selected alternative into a
written conservation plan. Planners
will digitize practices within CD.
Implementation requirements,
component plans, and practice
designs will not be part of CART
1.0/CD 2.3

19. Mission Support Services
Operations Associate Chief Area
Resource Assessment for Soil
& Water Conservation and
other Resource Concerns
Chris Gross
Nutrient Management Specialist
July 30, 2019
Conservation
Assessment & Ranking
Tool

20. CART Objectives
20
Streamline, Efficiency & Customer Service
• Streamline Reading the Land
• Efficient Conservation Planning and Ranking
• Improve Services and Time to Interact with the Client
Program Neutral Planning informs programs in a consistent,
integrated process
Provide an Adaptive Learning Framework
CART will be fully integrated into planning and program
policy. No duplication of work

21. Resource Concerns
21
• CART provides an assessment for all 47 Resource Concerns
• Across 7 landuses
• Both diffuse and concentrated losses
• Surface losses and sub-surface leaching losses
• Some concerns are broken into components to prevent apples
to oranges comparisons
• Concerns are grouped to allow streamlined selection and
assignment to land units
• Concerns will be applied to land units specifically
• Geospatial information can be used to identify areas of
heightened concern

22. Mission Support Services
CART: Water Quality Focus (for presentation)
The treatment must fit not only the needs and
adaptabilities of the land but the needs and
adaptabilities of the farmer as well.
– Hugh Hammond Bennett
22

23. Cropland Stewardship Achievement
23

24. CART Thresholds
CART sets a threshold of conservation points necessary to
achieve the planning criteria for each resource concern
selected.
Static Thresholds: Resource concerns have a set threshold of
50. These concerns primarily do not vary by soils or other
site characteristic.
Variable Thresholds: Resource concerns have a variable
threshold. The level of conservation effort needed to achieve
planning criteria vary by site specific criteria.
24

25. Static Threshold Resource Concerns
25
Concentrated Nutrient and Pathogen Effluent from Domestic Animal
Confinement, including Milkhouse Waste and Silage Leachate to Surface Water
Description: Concentrated nutrients and pathogen effluent from domestic animal
confinement (including milkhouse waste and silage leachate) impact surface waters in
sufficient quantities that degrade water quality and may limit its use.
Objective: Reduce concentrated losses of nutrients and pathogen from domestic
animal confinement by requiring appropriate management wherever concentrated
sources of contaminants are identified by the planner.
Analysis within CART:
Each PLU will default to a “not assessed” status for the resource concern: nutrients
and pathogens under the Nutrients transported – Surface Water resource concern.
The planner will identify the applicable resource concern based on site-specific
conditions. Where identified, at least 50 points of mitigation will be required for each
subcomponent resource concern from appropriate conservation practices and
activities.

26. Static Threshold Resource Concerns
QUESTION: Are nutrient and pathogen effluent (both agricultural including milkhouse waste, feedstocks
such as grains, silage, etc. and non-agricultural such as food waste) discharged or stored on the PLU
(Yes/No)?
26
Answer Existing Condition Points
Not applicable 0
Not assessed 1
Nutrient and pathogen effluents (both agricultural including
milkhouse waste and feedstocks such as grains, silage, etc. and
non-agricultural such as food wastes) ARE discharged or stored
on the PLU and adequate control/treatment is NOT in place.
1
Nutrient and pathogen effluents (both agricultural including
milkhouse waste and feedstocks such as grains, silage, etc. and
non-agricultural such as food waste) ARE discharged or stored
on the PLU and adequate control/treatment IS in place.
51
Conservation Practices Conservation Management Points
Waste Treatment (629) 25
Waste Recycling (633) 15
Waste Separation Facility (632) 20
Vegetated Treatment Area (635) 30
Conservation practices are then added to the existing condition to determine the state of the
management system. Example practice points are identified below.
Typical Practices Affecting Nutrient and Pathogen Effluents

27. Variable Threshold Resource Concerns
27
Start with evaluating site vulnerability and setting
the threshold:
• Determine Soil Leaching Potential and Soil
Runoff Potential
• Cross reference climate to set management
threshold needed to achieve target threshold
• Modify based on local conditions (such as
drainage, irrigation, high water table)

28. Variable Threshold
Soil Leaching Potential
28
Soil leaching
potential
Hydrologic
Group A
Hydrologic
Group B
Hydrologic
Group C
Hydrologic
Group D
Low None None None
All
except Histisol or
Apparent HWT
Moderate None
Slope < 12
and K >0.24, or
slope >12, and not
Histisol or Apparent
HWT
All
except Histisol or
Apparent HWT
None
Moderately
high
Slope >12 and
not Histisol or
Apparent HWT
>3 Slope <12 and K
<0.24 and
not Histisol or
Apparent HWT
None None
High
Slope <12 or
Histisol or
Apparent HWT
Slope <3 and
K <0.24 or Histisol
or Apparent HWT
Histisol or
Apparent HWT
Histisol or
Apparent HWT
“Modified” Soil Vulnerability Index (SVI)

29. Variable Threshold
Soil Runoff Potential
29
Soil Runoff
potential
Hydrologic
Group A
Hydrologic
Group B
Hydrologic
Group C
Hydrologic
Group D
Low All Slope<4 Slope<2
Slope <2
and K <0.28 and no Apparent
or Perched HWT
Moderate None
>4 Slope <6 and
K <0.32
>2 Slope <6 and K
<0.28
Slope <2 and
K >0.28
and no Apparent or Perched
HWT
Moderately
high
None
>4 Slope <6 and
K >0.32
>2 Slope <6 and
K >0.28
>2 Slope <4 and no Apparent
or Perched HWT
High None Slope >6 Slope >6
Slope >4 and no Apparent or
Perched HWT,
*Apparent or Perched HWT
“Modified” Soil Vulnerability Index (SVI)

30. Variable Threshold –
Nitrogen Loss to Surface Water
(4 x 4 Matrix)
30
Modified R Factor Class
Runoff Potential <=50 >50-150
>150-
250 >250
High 35 65 85 100
Moderately High 30 35 65 85
Moderate 30 30 35 65
Low 25 30 30 35
*Threshold values are modified for drainage and irrigation

31. Water Quality Indicators & Thresholds
Key Indicator Threshold Target
Total Phosphorus
(Runoff Focused)
P loss less than or equal to 3
lbs/acre
Soluble Phosphorus
(Leaching Focused)
P loss less than or equal to 1
lbs/acre
Nitrogen to Surface
Water
N loss less than or equal to 15
lbs/acre
Nitrogen to Ground
Water
N loss less than or equal to 25
lbs/acre
Sediment Management Sediment loss Less than or equal
to 2 tons/acre
31

32. Results
32
Key Indicator Threshold System
Total
Residue Nutrient
Mgmt
Practices
Total Phosphorus 50 65 8 30 27
Soluble Phosphorus 45 40 0 20 20
Nitrogen to Surface
Water
35 39 8 30 9
Nitrogen to Ground
Water
60 25 0 20 5
Sediment Management 10 45 30 0 15
No Till Corn/Soybeans on a high leaching site in Iowa

33. Mission Support Services
Operations Associate Chief Area
Transition between Program Neutral
Conservation Planning and Application
Ranking for Programs
Aaron Lauster,
Conservation Planning Branch
Chief
July 30, 2019
Conservation
Assessment & Ranking
Tool

34. Mission Support Services
CART Ranking
34

35. One Plan - Multi-Ranking Pool Evaluation
A Plan Assessment is made up of multiple practices which
may be eligible under multiple ranking pools. CART will allow
consideration for funding under all applicable ranking pools
• Participants may be considered for funding in as many
ranking pools as are applicable
• Plans may receive funding from multiple ranking pools
• CART will assure a practice is not funded twice on the
same land unit by separate funding sources
CART will be available for use by all NRCS programs in 2020.
CART could be used for CRP EBI if desired
35

36. Ranking Pool Use
Within CART each FY 2020 program Spending Plan (funding
pools, subaccounts, and/or initiatives) will have a CART
ranking pool.
Ranking pools will evaluate client’s applications for 5 main
areas
• Plan Assessment: Existing Vulnerability
• Plan Assessment: Planned Practice Effects
• Pool Priorities: Resource
• Pool Priorities: Programmatic
• Efficiency
Information captured already in the planning & assessment
process
36

37. Ranking Pool Customization
Each Ranking Pool will be customized by the appropriate
program manager after incorporating locally led input.
Customizable aspects include:
• Geographic Extent of Ranking Pool
• Subdivisions for funding within Ranking Pool
• Weighting between 4 aspects
• Selection of Land Uses
• Selection and Weighting of Resource Concerns
• Selection of Conservation Practices
• Applicability Questions or Geometry
• Pool Resource Priority Questions and Geometry
• Pool Programmatic Priority Questions and Geometry
37

38. Application Score Weighting
38
Pool Weighting
Plan
Assessment
Vulnerability 20%
Planned Practice Effects 30%
Pool Priorities Resource 30%
Programmatic 10%
Efficiency Score 10%
Application Score 100%
• Set by ranking pool with bounds set by program
• Old National, State, and local questions would be
incorporated into Plan Assessment or Pool Priorities

39. Ranking Pool (Applicability)
A ranking pool will start to garner points if:
• PLU(s) are within geographic boundary (Could have a
percentage requirement of PLUs)
• At least one resource concern is checked to assess for a
resource concern identified as positively weighted for the
ranking pool
• Applicable Practices are in the Plan for the ranking pool
• Applicability Questions are passed
39

40. Ranking Prioritization
AERT vs CART
40
Current
Assessment
Ranking Pts
AERT
Priority
CART
Assessment
Ranking Pts
CART
Priority
Flat
+40 Planned Practices
Flat
0 Vulnerability
+40 Planned Practices
Gently Rolling
+40 Planned Practices
Gently Rolling
20 Vulnerability
+40 Planned Practices
Steep Slope
+40 Planned Practices
Steep Slope
50 Vulnerability
+40 Planned Practices
2nd
1st
3rd
1st
1st
1st

41. Ranking Pool (Assessment Points)
Plan Assessment points by ranking pool:
• Plan Assessment points come from evaluating the Program
Neutral Conservation Plan
• Only resource concerns which are identified by the ranking
pool will garner plan assessment points
• Only practices on land uses which are identified by the
ranking pool will garner plan assessment points
41
Threshold
Existing
Condition &
Practices
Planned
Practice
Effects
+-
Vulnerability

42. Pool Resource Priorities
• Resource and Programmatic Priorities will be Ranking Pool
Specific and may be either geospatial or question based.
• Geospatial Based (ex. Priority Watershed)
• Question Based (ex. Do the practices in the application
affect sage grouse?)
• Points awarded can be true/false or graded by priority
• Multiple priorities can be considered for each ranking pool
• Awarded at the application level, not by Planned Land Unit
42

43. Mission Support Services
CART Outcomes
43

44. CART Advantages
• Program Neutral Planning
• Streamlined Assessment
• Assessment and Resource Concern information by Land
Unit
• Environmental Assessment completed as part of planning
• One Plan Goal
• Outcomes Reporting (Not in version 1.0 but before end of
2020)
• Platform for TSP planning and assessment integration (Not
in version 1.0, but starting in 2021)
• Program Prioritization based on Planning and outcomes
• Reduced data duplication
44

45. Training Timeline
August Assessment Feedback
August State Leadership Training (in Person)
Sept National Program Manager Workshops
Sept 30 CART/CD Train the Trainer (in Person)
October Production Tool Roll-out
• Integrated CD/CART Training Team
• Planning on many additional webinars and videos to
support rollout
• Additional CART Assessment Training planned in October
• Handbook for users
45