Interview Ranking Form - Excel

Document Sample
Interview Ranking Form - Excel Powered By Docstoc
					  NRCS-OR                                                                                                                      November 2004

                                                  EQIP RANKING SCORESHEET
Instructions:
  USE THIS ONLY AFTER SCREENING EQIP APPLICATIONS - THIS WORKSHEET ONLY PROVIDES A MEANS TO ASSIGN A
                    NUMERICAL RANK TO A PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR FUNDING PRIORITY.

1. Enter the appropriate land uses or CMUs (use drop down menus or type in a local land use). Up to five land uses or CMUs may be
evaluated. Rank only those CMUs that will be on the contract.


2. Enter the rank of each resource concern (drop down menus). Acceptable values are from 1 to 25; 25 being the most important and 1
being the least. These should be approved and used consistently across the work area.


3. Score each resource concern for each landuse using the scoring described below (level 1 - 3 or N/A). Use your (and your client's) best
personal judgement and knowledge of the area and concerns to reach a decision on scoring.


4. If a resource concern does not apply (does not exist - eg: no stream present on dry cropland or no wind erosion on forest) for a CMU,
enter "N/A" (drop down menus).

5. The Score ("Score" column) is determined by the product of points by resource concern and weight factor. The "Score" column is
summed for each CMU and the resulting number is the Weighted CMU Score (at the bottom of each CMU list). If more than one CMU is
evaluated and an average is desired, click on the "Calculate Average CMU Score" button.

6. The Weighted CMU Score is the score for a particular land use (or CMU). Use this number (or an average for more than one CMU) for a
ranked list of EQIP contracts for funding.


7. When two or more competing contracts have the same Weighted CMU Score, consider using the number of resource concerns as a tie-
breaker (higher number of resource concerns, higher priority).


Scoring:
Level 1 = 100 points: Resource concern is treated to Quality Criteria target (or already at QC).
 (The resource concern exists on the CMU and will be or already is treated to quality criteria targets - maximum increase to Weighted
CMU Score)
Level 2 = 50 points: Resource concern is treated but at less than QC target.
 (The resource concern exists on the CMU and will be treated in some fashion but not to quality criteria targets - marginal increase to
Weighted CMU Score)
Level 3 = 0 points ( -100 * the weight factor entered in the "Score" coulmn): Will not treat resource concern.
 (The resource concern exists on the CMU but will not be treated in any fashion - decreases Weighted CMU Score)
"N/A" = resource concern does not apply to this CMU.
 (The resource concern does not exist on the CMU - "N/A" is not computed in the CMU Score)


Assumptions:
1. Can be completed with a minimum of inventory, interview with client, and field visits.

2. Ranks all 12 statewide resource concerns.

3. Ranked by CMU (or several CMUs by land use).

4. Used to arrive at a score for use in “triage” of requests and for funding.

5. If a resource concern does not apply, there are no points gained or lost.

6. Independent of cost of contract, size of property, or amounts of SWAPA “savings”.

7. Score is based on applicable resource concerns not necessarily all 12. Score is sum of weighted points (points x weight).
8. If quality criteria will be met then maximum points are awarded (100 x weight), regardless if client has much, little or nothing to do to
achieve QC target (does not punish clients with current conditions that meet QC).
9. If quality criteria targets will not be met but will be treated to some degree then the minimum points are awarded (50 x weight).
10. If quality criteria targets will not be addressed at all (0 points) then the Weighted CMU Score is decreased by 100 x weight for that
resource concern.
11. If the resource concern does not exist it gets a “N/A”. The concern is not considered in the final score.
12. Generally, the more resource concerns treated the higher the score. The more heavily weighted resource concerns treated, the higher
the score.
NRCS-OR                                                     EQIP Ranking Scoresheet                                             November 2004

                                    Client                                                        Date
                         Farm / Tract(s)                                                         Office Medford Field Office (Jackson Co)
                                 Sign-Up FY 05                                                      By
                                             Weight   CMU 1           CMU 2              CMU 3                CMU 4             CMU 5
  Resource Concerns                          Factor
                                                              Score           Score              Score                Score             Score
                                             (1-25)

  8. Nutrient & Organic Wastes                 5                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  7. Water Management - Irrigated
  Land
                                              25                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  6. Soil Tilth, Crusting, Infiltration,
  Organic Matter
                                               5                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  3. Concentrated Flow Erosion                18                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  1. Sheet & Rill Erosion                     20                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  11. Plant condition: Health & Vigor         15                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  10. Plant condition: Productivity            0                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  4. Streambank Erosion                        0                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  12. Wildlife Habitat                         0                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  9. Aquatic Habitat Suitability              10                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  5. Irrigation Induced Erosion               14                0               0                  0                    0                   0

  2. Wind Erosion                              0                0               0                  0                    0                   0

                 Number of Resource Concerns            0               0                  0                     0                 0
                         Weighted CMU Score

                    Average of CMU Scores             #DIV/0!
                  Acres benefited by Contract =                 100                   #VALUE!    = Cost Effectiveness Value

eb34f3f0-74bc-4fd3-9462-f13910051e20.xls                                                                                               3/1/2011
                 Attachment __1___ FY05 AFO / CAFO / CNMP Ranking Spreadsheet

Form Instructions: Complete the locational information in this section and then follow the instructions listed
the bottom of the form:

     Oregon Basin:         SOUTHWEST
    Oregon County:         Jackson
    Applicant Name:
    Date & Time of
      Application:


        Check One                                                 Priority Group
                           Highest priority: Developing CNMPs for medium federal CAFOs with an ODA compliance da
                           October 1, 2005.
                           Medium Priority: Developing CNMPs state CAFOs with a compliance date of July 15, 2006.

                           Low Priority: Implementation of CNMP elements Basins established the priorities for addressi
                           these applications.


                                                                                          Category
         Category                              Existing Condition                        Importance
                                                                                           (by %)
1.Waste Storage capacity                                                                        25%
                           >90 days liquid and >180 days solid
                           <180 days solid
                           <90 days liquid
                           <45 days liquid
2. Proximity of AFO to
Surface Water                                                                                   20%
                           >100 feet
                           50 to 100 feet
                           < 50 feet


                           Buffers are currently adequate between application area and
3. Buffers                 surface waters or concentrated flow areas.                           10%
4. Watershed listing       Located in a 303D listed watershed.                                   5%
5. Land Base for waste
application                                                                                     10%
                           unknown.
                           meets the CNMP acreage required for P
                           over twice the acreage needed according to CNMP for P
6. Area used/planned for
application has:                                                                                 5%
                           70% or less poorly drained soils.
                               over 70% poorly drained soils.
7. Past cost/share             Applicant has not received EQIP cost share in the past.              5%
8. Current waste application
system is:                                                                                         10%
                               adequate to follow CNMP.
                               is not adequate to follow CNMP
                               unknown because there is no CNMP.
9. Composting                  Applicant intends to composts.                                       0%
10. Roof Water                 Increases waste storage requirement                                  5%
11. Phosphorus                 Waste is currently being managed based on Phosphorus.                5%

                                     Total of Category Importance (100%):                        100%

                                                     Total Points for Application (weighted score):


INSTRUCTIONS:
Step 1: In the column labeled “Category of Importance”, assign a percentage weight to indicate the relative importance for eac
category to the other categories. Some categories might be zero. The total of all categories should be 100%. This weighting w
be used for all applications submitted to the respective service center.
Step 2: In the column labeled “Existing Condition”, assign points for each "existing condition" within a category. Any assign
points for a specific "condition" should not be greater than the percent of importance, e.g., 50% will be no greater than 50 poin
The higher points will be assigned to those conditions that you want to be a high priority and therefore fund. (HINT: Run som
examples to identify the results of the prioritization process.)

Step 3: At this point protect this sheet under the menu item "Tools". Do not use a password.

Step 4: For a specific application, check its priority group.

Step 5: In the column “Applicant’s Points” assign the appropriate points for the category being ranked. Points should only b
shown for ONE of the "Existing Conditions" within each category.

Step 6: Select applications based first on their High Medium Low Priority and then the highest "Total Points for this Applicat
in each priority. In the case of ties, use the application date and time as the tie-breaker.
nking Spreadsheet

en follow the instructions listed at




CAFOs with an ODA compliance date of


a compliance date of July 15, 2006.

stablished the priorities for addressing



              Potential
                               Applicant's
              Points per
                                 Points
              Condition

                          0
                         10
                         20
                         25


                         10
                         15
                         20



                         10
                          5


                         10
                          5
                          0


                           0
                          5
                          5


                          0
                          5
                         10
                          0
                          5
                          5




hted score):                                0



dicate the relative importance for each
s should be 100%. This weighting will


dition" within a category. Any assigned
 , 50% will be no greater than 50 points.
and therefore fund. (HINT: Run some


ord.



y being ranked. Points should only be


ghest "Total Points for this Application"

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Interview Ranking Form document sample