United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service		 Alaska Go to Accessibility Information
Skip to Page Content
 Plants Mint Valley

 

 

EQIP Trails Ranking Tool

Ranking Tool Summary for Trails (Released 04/29/2009)

Description:

1. This ranking tool applies to FY2009 EQIP applications in the category for the EQIP Trail Priority: This priority recognizes projects intended to remove trail, perform trail hardening or relocation to treat excessive soil erosion, address land instability, improve water quality, reduce wetland impacts, improve or protect plant health and vigor, reduce fragmentation of wildlife habitat including the protection of native fish and wildlife habitat.
2. Each ranked application must include a detailed written description of the proposed project (EQIP Plan Of Operations).
3. At risk species are defined as native species whose population(s) or habitat is in danger of loss by their listing as State or Federal Threatened or Endangered, Candidate, or State Species of Concern, or as focus species in Alaska's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
4. A completed Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guide is required in support of each application where one exists for that land use.
5. For the purposes of EQIP, Noxious and Invasive weeds are those species identified in the FOTG Section IV D. Conservation practices "Pest Management and Invasive Weeds Fact Sheet and List". Invasive animal species are those listed by ADF&G in "A Comprehensive List and Select Species Reports". http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/invasive/documents/invasivespp.report.pdf
6. Be reminded for a project proposal to be considered for EQIP funding, it must contain treatment provisions addressing at least one/ some element (s) of an established National Priority.

Description:

Land Uses:

Crop, Forest, Grazed Forest, Grazed Range, Hay, Native/Naturalized Pasture, Pasture, Wildlife

Efficiency Score:

  Scoring Multiplier: 1.00
  Scoring Ranges and Results Text:
High: 560 - 340 Medium: 315 - 190 Low: 170 - 20

Scoring range represents projects which have a high level of average resource benefit in comparison to average cost of installation.

Scoring range represents projects which have a medium level of average resource benefit in comparison to average cost of installation.

Scoring range represents projects which have a relatively lower level of average resource benefit in comparison to average cost of installation.

National Priorities:

  Scoring Multiplier: 1.00
  Scoring Ranges and Results Text:

High: 93 - 50

 Medium: 49 - 20 Low: 19 - 0

Scoring range represents applications which make significant progress toward addressing resource concerns.

Scoring range represents applications which make moderate progress toward addressing resource concerns.

Scoring range represents applications which make a lower amount of progress toward addressing resource concerns.

Questions:

Question Number Question Points
1 Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable reduction of non-point source pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, excess salinity in impaired watersheds with total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) where available, groundwater contamination or point sources such as contamination from confined animal feeding operations? 20
2 Will the treatment you intend to implement for water conservation or irrigation efficiency using EQIP result in a considerable reduction in water use? 10
3 Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable 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? 20
4 Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land? 20
5 Will the treatment you intend to implement using EQIP result in a considerable increase in the promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation? 40
6 Will the treatment that you intend to implement using EQIP result in considerable benefits to residue management, nutrient management, air quality management, invasive species management, pollinator habitat, and animal carcass management technology or pest management? 40
7 Will the treatment that you intend to implement using EQIP result in energy conservation benefits? 10
 

Total Points

 160

State Issues:

  Scoring Multiplier: 1.00
  Scoring Ranges and Results Text:

High: 255 - 170 Medium: 160 - 105 Low: 100 - 20

Scoring range represents applications which make significant progress toward addressing resource concerns.

 Scoring range represents applications which make moderate progress toward addressing resource concerns.

Scoring range represents applications which make a lower amount of progress toward addressing resource concerns.

Questions:

  Question Points
1 This project contains a primary treatment to address areas of significantly established noxious or invasive species threatening on site, at risk, native wildlife habitat or species. (only answer ONE if applicable, from 1- 3). 50
2 This project contains a primary treatment to address areas with minor presence of noxious or invasive species threatening on site, at risk, native wildlife habitat or species. (only answer ONE if applicable, from 1 - 3). 30
3 This project contains a primary treatment to address areas with minor presence of noxious or invasive species threatening an ecological site which is not an at-risk habitat or setting. (only answer ONE if applicable, from 1 - 3). 20
4 This project contains practices which will actively address two or more AK State EQIP priorities. (Plan will identify the multiple priorities and how the project achieves multiple priority benefits). 25
5 This trail project will treat sites exhibiting significant areas of easily identifiable sheet/ rill and/ or gully erosion, or disturbed surface hydrology. Or, the project treats exposed or significantly disturbed surfaces of permafrost tundra. Existing trails do not require special treatment to rehabilitate any relocated/ abandoned sections. (only answer ONE from 5-7). 20
6 This trail project will treat sites exhibiting significant areas of easily identifiable sheet/ rill and/ or gully erosion, or exposed or significantly disturbed surfaces of permafrost tundra, which are contributing sediment to degrade water quality beyond normal background sediment loads. Existing trails do not require special treatment to rehabilitate any relocated/ abandoned sections. (only answer ONE from 5-7). 35
7 This project would remove existing trail (s), restores native plant conditions or hydrology conditions and reduces habitat fragmentation. (only answer ONE from 5-7). 35
8 This trail project includes trail section to be relocated where active structural and/ or vegetative treatment is required to rehabilitate resource damaged or damage producing sections. Treatments are designed to restore sites to native conditions and prohibit further site degradation (must include use exclusion measures). 30
9 This trail project applies/ includes practices which provide significant benefits to a listed state or federal sensitive, threatened or endangered species (can include species identified in Alaska Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy). 40
10 While treating recognized degrading resources issues, this trail project provides and/ or improves access to important subsistence resource areas and will contain operation and land management provisions (FOTG conservation management practices) as well as structural or vegetative measures (if necessary), to conserve the specified subsistence resources. 40
11 This project will be closed out with all contract items completed and paid in three years or less. 35
 

Maximum Points: 255  Total Points

 360

Local Issues:

Scoring Multiplier: 1.00
Scoring Ranges and Results Text:

High: 175 - 110

 Medium: 105 - 65 Low: 60 - 0

Scoring range represents projects which make significant progress toward addressing concerns of locally identified species and resource concerns.

Scoring range represents projects which make progress toward addressing concerns of locally identified species and resource concerns.

Scoring range represents projects which make a lower amount of toward addressing concerns of locally identified species and resource concerns.

Questions:

Question Number Question Points
1 This project has a benefit to the highest priority locally identified wildlife species. 30
2 This project has a benefit to secondary priority locally identified wildlife species. 15
3 EQIP plan addresses natural resource concerns identified as high priority by the Local Work Group. 30
4 EQIP plan addresses natural resource concerns identified as a secondary priority by the Local Work Group. 15
5 EQIP plan includes practices which are identified as high priority by the Local Work Group. 30
6 EQIP plan includes practices which are identified as a secondary priority by the Local Work Group. 15
7 This project addresses locally identified noxious or invasive species of concern. 20
8 This project addresses one or more locally identified priority subsistence species 20
 

Maximum Points:  175    Total Points

 175

< Back to EQIP>