Detailed Information on the
Farmland Protection Program Assessment

Performing more in-depth and independent evaluations to assess the efficacy of the program.

Establish policy within parameters of new Farm Bill legislation to improve delivery of the program.

Collecting and assessing data to track progress in improving program performance.

Measure: Percent of FRPP acres protected that are classified as prime, unique, or important farmland.

Explanation:This measure reports the effects of strategically enrolling selected parcels to slow or stem the conversion rate of the Nation's best agricultural lands to non-ag uses and maintain agricultural viability, especially in areas where ag lands are under greatest pressure for conversion to urbanland. This measure directly supports the NRCS Strategic Plan Objective 2.1. The performance measure is based on the number of easements recorded, using 2004 as a baseline. The agency is currently performing a quality check on the 2005 actual. Final figures are expected when the FY 2007 budget is released.

Measure: Percent of FRPP farms that remain in active agriculture.

Explanation:A baseline for this performance measure is to be determined after the University of Nebraska survey is completed. The University of Nebraska is conducting a telephone survey of at least 400 FRPP landowners with recorded FRPP easements. The interview survey requests information on the following topics, including, but not limited to: current and future land use of the property, land use surrounding the areas protected by easements, the landowners' reasons for enrolling their land in a conservation easement, the landowners' uses of conservation practices, and the landowners' level of satisfaction with the easement program. At this point in time, a final draft of the telephone survey has been written. The University of Nebraska anticipates having results of this survey available by December 2005.

Measure: Total acres of farm and ranch lands protected; cumulative enrollment.

Explanation:This performance measure is based on acres enrolled in the program. "Enrolled" means officially recorded easement acres. At the end of fiscal year 2004, 870 easements totaling 177,817 acres were recorded. NRCS anticipates that in fiscal year 2005 another 75,952 acres will be enrolled. The cumulative total of acres enrolled by the end of fiscal year 2005 is 253,769 acres.

Measure: Total acres of prime, unique, and important farmland protected, cumulative enrollment.

Explanation:This performance measure is based on acres of prime, unique, and important farmland enrolled in the program. "Enrolled" means officially recorded easement acres. At the end of fiscal year 2004, 870 easements totaling 177,817 acres were recorded, comprising 103,314 acres of prime, unique, and important soils. NRCS anticipates that in fiscal year 2005 another 71,039 acres of prime, unique and important farmland will be enrolled. The cumulative total of prime, unique and important acres enrolled by the end of fiscal year 2005 is 174,353 acres. The agency is currently performing a quality check on the 2005 actual. Final figures are expected when the FY 2007 budget is released.

Measure: Reduction in the average time to close on an FRPP easement.

Explanation:Currently, the average time from cooperative agreement signing to easement closing is approximately 18 months. By 2010, NRCS will reduce this to 16 months. This measure will be calculated from the average duration of time between the cooperative agreement signature date and easement closing date. The agency is currently performing a quality check on the 2005 actual. Final figures are expected when the FY 2007 budget is released.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: As articulated in the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) final rule (7 CFR 1491), the program's purposes are: i) to protect the topsoil from conversion to nonagricultural uses; and (ii) to ensure that the agricultural capacity of the soils remains viable for future generations. The FRPP is a voluntary program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture.

Evidence: Legislation: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171). Regulation: 7 CFR Part 519; NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The problem is the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, such as housing and non-agricultural commercial development. Between 1960 and 1990 metropolitan-area population grew by 50% while the acreage of developed land increased 100 percent. About 45% of new construction in 1994 -1997 occurred in rural areas, with nearly 80% being land bordering urban areas. Overall this translates to over 2.8 million acres being converted per year, with 2 million devoted to housing. According to USDA's National Resources Inventory (NRI), urban and built-up areas increased from 65.3 million acres in 1992 to 79 million acres in 1997, equaling an area approximately the size of Ohio. In most states, prime farmland is being converted at two to four times the rate of other, less productive agricultural land. From a natural resource standpoint, this conversion of farm and forest land produces fragmentation in wildlife habitat; increases air pollution, due to more automobile travel; creates groundwater contamination and shortages; and increases stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces.

Evidence: Resource Inventories, Policy and Economic Reports. Natural Resources Inventory (USDA, 1997). "Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land." (USDA, Economic Research Service, 2001). "Maintaining Farm and Forest Lands in Rapidly Growing Areas." (USDA, Policy Advisory Committee, 2001). Funding Waiting List. NRCS estimated an FPP funding waiting list in FY 2001 of approximately $91 million, or over 500 percent more than was available from program dollars.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The evidence provided seems to indicate that FRPP is duplicative of other federal/state/local governmental and private efforts. Though these other programs do not emphasize protecting prime and unique soil types as FRPP does, ultimately these programs protect agricultural lands from conversion. As such, the PART guidance requires that a higher standard for a "yes" could be met only if fixed costs are low, competition is good, or multiple service delivery mechanisms are appropriate, which does not seem to be indicated by the evidence provided.

Evidence: Other Conservation Programs: Other USDA conservation programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve Program, and Forest Legacy Program purchase conservation easements or enter into rental contracts to protect resources and prevent conversion of land. In addition, there are numerous state and local government programs, as well as nongovernmental organizations (both private and non-profit) that operate similar programs. The Land Trust Alliance estimated in 1998 that there were over 1,200 land trusts in the U.S. and U.S. territories protecting land from development by purchasing developmentrights. Other Tools: In addition to purchasing development rights, there are numerous other tools used by federal, state, and local governments to protect agricultural lands from development, such as agricultural protection zoning, preferential and differential taxation for farmland, and right to farm ordinances.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: "The FRPP delivery system is designed to accept applications from willing entities who have selected parcels that meet FRPP needs. After NRCS reviews and selects the parcels for funding, it is the responsibility of the cooperating entity to conduct appraisals, title work, and easement drafting, with NRCS and OGC oversight. Stewardship and monitoring is primarily the responsibility of the cooperating entity, although NRCS also conducts oversight on easement stewardship. NRCS continues to improve the program. Since 2002, NRCS has revised its program manual twice, published a final rule, and revised several forms to improve program effectiveness and efficiency. NRCS has conducted oversight of the program, through internal Oversight and Evaluation audits that resulted in program updates that will be released in June 2005. "

Evidence: O&E Reports: Implementation Barriers for EQIP, WRP, WHIP, and FPP Conservation Programs, October 2002; Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, November 2003; an "Easement Portfolio" review is being conducted in FY 2005.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The FRPP: (1) utilizes ranking criteria to evaluate applications that incorporate both national and local conservation priorities, (2) provides flexibility at the state level to evaluate and award contracts, and (3) reduces federal oversight costs through cooperative agreements with applicants to monitor and enforce the conservation easements.

Evidence: NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program. NRCS Documents: FPP Financial Management Report (September 2002). FPP Easement Acquired Report (July 2002).

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: NRCS has established three long-term measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. These measures report the effects of strategically enrolling selected parcels to slow or stem the conversion rate of the nation's best agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses and maintain agricultural viability, especially in areas where agricultural lands are under greatest pressure for conversion to urban land. These measures have been used to set realistic but ambitious targets for FRPP performance and were developed based on ERS studies, the statutory language, and other academic studies on farmland conversion. FRPP's three long-term measures directly support Strategic Plan Goal 2 Objective 2.1 -- Protect farmland from conversion to non-agricultural uses.

Evidence: "Farmland Protection: The Role of Public Preferences for Rural Amenities, Economic Research Service Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land, Economic Research Service State Ranking Criteria: WI, CO New Hampshire State Quality Assurance Program Plan 2001 Annual National Resources Inventory University of Nebraska Survey NRCS Strategic Plan-2003 Update "

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Long-term and annual performance goals that NRCS created are sufficiently ambitious given current and foreseeable contracts, and they directly support NRCS's long-term Strategic Plan.

Evidence: See performance measure component of this database.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: "NRCS's annual performance measures are designed to monitor the program's progress towards achieving its long-term goals. NRCS has several annual measures which target the NRCS Strategic Plan Goal 2 Objective 2.1 - Protect farmland from conversion to non-agricultural uses. These annual measures include the total acres of farmland and ranch lands protected (cumulative); and the total acres of prime, unique, and important farmland protected (cumulative). NRCS has developed the following annual efficiency measure: The annual efficiency measure, timeframe, and target is: By 2010, reduce the average time to close on an FRPP easements by 2 months."

Evidence: See performance measure component of this database.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Long-term and annual performance goals that NRCS created are sufficiently ambitious given current and foreseeable contracts, and they directly support NRCS's long-term Strategic Plan.

Evidence: See performance measure component of this database.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: FRPP grants are awarded according to ranking criteria that evaluate a number of elements, including the amount of non-federal dollars that are leveraged, the per-acre cost of projects, and the applicants commitment and capacity for maintaining the conservation easements over the long term. Once FRPP funding is awarded to an applicant, NRCS signs a cooperative agreement with the entity. The cooperative agreement: specifies the parcels to be protected, sets a deadline for RFPP funding liquidation, stipulates the conservation easement requirements, and outlines the reponsibilities of both parties (applicant and NRCS) for maintaining the conservation easement. These reponsibilities include reporting on the status of the easement acquisition and monitoring the parcel of land on an annual basis to ensure the requirements of the easement are being met. Failure to monitor or report to NRCS results in a violation of the cooperative agreement. NRCS oversees contract management to ensure that annual and long-term acreage goals are met for the State.

Evidence: NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program. NRCS documentation: Template FPP Cooperative Agreement. The New Hampshire and Ohio FY 2002 State FPP Plans.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: "USDA's Inspector General conducted an external review in 2001 that examined NRCS's implementation of FRPP at the state level. NRCS also conducted an independent Oversight & Evaluation (O&E) review of FRPP in 2003 (FRPP implementation-19 states reviewed). Recommendations from the 2003 O&E Report were incorporated into a manual revision in June, 2004. An O&E ""Easement Portfolio"" review is currently being conducted in FY 2005. Recommendations from the internal and external audits have been incorporated in several manual editions, 6/2002, 7/2003, 6/2004, and the upcoming 7/2005 edition. In addition, state quality assurance reviews are completed annually in each state. In 10/2004, NRCS also held a focus group meeting with state agency representatives to discuss how the program can be better streamlined. Recommendations from this meeting are being incorporated into the CPM, Part 519, which will be released in 7/2005."

Evidence: "USDA OIG Report: ""NRCS's Farmland Protection Program,"" #10601-5-Te, August 5, 2002. NRCS response to OIG report: letter dated July 1, 2002. Management Action Plan (MAP) developed and approved early FY 2004 New Hampshire State Quality Program Assurance Plan 2005 OIG Audit, Report No. 10601-5-Te-NRCS Response to this review Recommendations from State Agency Representative Meeting "

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: FRPP's Budget request for FY 2006 is explicitly tied to performance measures (see NRCS's FY 2006 Explanatory Notes documents as evidence). The FY 2007 Budget request will be directly tied to achieving FRPP's long-term performance goals. Further, NRCS utilizes accomplishments and goals data to make allocation decisions to States. States that leverage more dollars and have a greater staff capacity and expenditures to manage and monitor easements receive more funding. Additionally, each state bases its FRPP annual performance goals on its FRPP allocation in the State Performance Plan.

Evidence: "FY 2006 Explanatory Notes New Hampshire State Quality Program Assurance Plan 2005 "

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: "NRCS has adopted long-term and annual performance goals for FRPP. Importantly, NRCS has conducted internal reviews of FRPP in 2003 and 2004, in part due to the findings of the 2002 OIG audit report. Recommendations from the 2003 Oversight & Evaluation Report were incorporated into a manual revision in June, 2004. Additional program improvements were identified from one additional O&E Review in FY 2002. An ""Easement Portfolio"" review is being conducted in FY 2005. NRCS has also circulated and received evaluations from state and local purchase-of-development-right managers on how to more efficiently manage the program. Recommendations from the PDR manager feedback evaluations were incorporated into FRPP's manual guidance, CPM Part 519, which was issued in June 2002. In October 2004, NRCS also held a focus group meeting with state agency representatives to discuss how the program can be better streamlined. Recommendations from this meeting are being incorporated into the CPM, Part 519, which will be released in June 2005."

Evidence: PDR Surveys: Surveys of purchase of development right (PDR) managers conducted the American Farmland Trust. O&E Reports: Implementation Barriers for EQIP, WRP, WHIP, and FPP Conservation Programs, October 2002; Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, November 2003-Management Action Plan (MAP) developed and approved early FY 2004.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: FRPP managers regularly collect performance information at both the state and national levels. Quarterly, NRCS headquarters requests the following information on each easement acquired using FRPP funds: easement name and location, total acreage, total easement value, FRPP's easement contribution ($), entity's easement contribution ($), prime, unique and important soils protected, and easement status (whether the easement is acquired or pending easement closure). The Foundation Financial Information System is used to monitor financial progress. The National Program Manager receives reports on a regular basis to determine agency progress in obligating and disbursing funds. This info is used to monitor cooperating entities' progress and ascertain whether the entities should receive funding in subsequent years. Development of a web-based data collection system (POINTS) is underway for performance information. NRCS is currently tracking management through a national program database, managed by the Easement Programs Division.

Evidence: "NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program--Appraisal Policy and Monitoring Policy. NRCS Documents: FPP Easement Acquired Report (July 2002). The New Hampshire and Ohio FY 2002 State FPP Plans. IT Proposal: Environmental Easements Software Tool under development."

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The cooperative agreement signed between NRCS and the FRPP partner entity is the primary means for holding project managers accountable. With FRPP cooperating entities, the state NRCS offices track and evaluate their past performance (total project cost, cost per acre, dollar leveraging, and timeliness of funding obligation). State offices award FRPP grants based on entities' past performance. While NRCS specifically identifies state FRPP managers, most managers have other program management responsibilities. Field managers are not specifically identified for FRPP. Managers are held accountable through quarterly performance appraisals. The NRCS national office periodically reviews state program efficiencies and provides training where needed. NRCS conduced the last national FRPP training in February 2004.

Evidence: NRCS Documents: Template FPP Cooperative Agreement. The cooperative agreement dictates roles and responsibilities of NRCS and the FPP partners, including but not limited to: the responsibilities of both entities to ensure a conservation plan is implemented; the pending offers must be acquired using the specified funds; and the conservation easements must be acquired within a specified timeframe, typically not to exceed two years.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: "FRPP funds are Commodity Credit Corporation funds. The absence of language within the legislation for rolling over prior year funds into new fiscal years prevents a delay in obligating funds. Prior to the end of the fiscal year, all funds are obligated to the cooperating entity. If the funds are not obligated, the funds are returned to the Treasury. To ensure that the funds, once obligated, are disbursed to the landowner within a timely manner, the cooperative agreement stipulates that all easements are to be acquired within two years of signing the cooperative agreement. Cooperative agreement extensions have been granted; however, such extensions are limited in scope."

Evidence: NRCS Documents: Financial Management Report for FPP.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: NRCS uses a variety of management tools to try and improve program efficiency. The agency uses FRPP criteria to give higher points to entities and parcels that require less FRPP financial resources. In addition to ranking criteria, NRCS has adopted information technology tools to monitor the program's efficiency. Finally, the program requires state offices to submit annual State FRPP Plans, and allocations of FRPP dollars from the national level are largely determined by the quality of these plans. This state planning process instills competition among the state offices to generate continually improving FRPP plans. NRCS has developed a new efficiency measure that assess the average length of time it takes the agency to close on an FRPP easement. In addition, NRCS is considering competitive sourcing in states to provide stewardship oversight on FRPP easements, ensuring that grantees are conducting annual on-site monitoring activities and submitting reports to NRCS on a timely basis."

Evidence: "NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program--Appraisal Policy and Monitoring Policy. NRCS Documents: FPP Easement Acquired Report (July 2002). The New Hampshire and Ohio FY 2002 State FPP Plans. IT Proposal: Environmental Easements Software Tool under development; See performance measure component of this database."

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: FRPP works in partnership with State and local farmland protection programs. Coordination to ensure that FRPP works effectively with related programs occurs at a variety of stages throughout the funding cycle. These stages include: the application evaluation stage where both the entity and parcels are evaluated; the development of the State FRPP plan where cooperators are asked to provide ranking criteria recommendations; the easement document review stage, where cooperators' easements are evaluated to ensure they meet FRPP objectives; and the monitoring stage, where NRCS oversees monitoring by cooperating entities.

Evidence: NRCS Documents: Template FPP Cooperative Agreement. The cooperative agreement dictates roles and responsibilities of NRCS and the FPP partners, including but not limited to: the responsibilities of both entities to ensure a conservation plan is implemented; the pending offers must be acquired using the specified funds; and the conservation easements must be acquired within a specified timeframe, typically not to exceed two years.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: FRPP uses the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) system to track payments made. FRPP payments are issued through the National Finance Center. The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act established a statutory requirement for agency heads to assess, on an annual basis, whether their financial management systems comply with Federal financial management system requirements; applicable Federal accounting standards; and the Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. "

Evidence: USDA OIG Report: "NRCS's Farmland Protection Program," #10601-5-Te, August 5, 2002. NRCS response to OIG report: letter dated July 1, 2002.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: "NRCS's response to the Office of Inspector NRCS's response to the Office of Inspector General report indicates how NRCS has taken steps to address its management deficiencies in the areas of title assurance, easement appraisals, monitoring, and financial accounting. Prior to the USDA OIG report, NRCS established a full-time program manager to handle program deficiencies. NRCS conducted an Oversight and Evaluation assessment in FY 2003. Results of this Oversight and Evaluation assessment were incorporated into the June 2004 release of CPM, Part 519. NRCS also hired a Chief easement appraiser as result of the internal oversight and evaluation review of 2003. Also, NRCS is conducting a more thorough review of FRPP to improve its compliance with the Improper Payment Information Act. The NRCS national office periodically reviews state program efficiencies and provides training where needed. NRCS conducted the last national FRPP training in February, 2004."

Evidence: USDA OIG Report: "NRCS's Farmland Protection Program," #10601-5-Te, August 5, 2002. NRCS response to OIG report: letter dated July 1, 2002. NRCS O&E Review completed FY 2003; Management Action Plan (MAP) developed and approved early FY 2004.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: NRCS's FRPP ranking criteria are developed in consultation with the State Technical Committees. Many of the FRPP partners, such as state governments and non-governmental organizations, are participants in the NRCS state technical committees where the state conservation priorities and FRPP ranking criteria are developed. In addition, when FRPP funds are available, NRCS publishes a Request for Proposals (RFP) in the Federal Register. This RFP announces the availability of funds and details the procedures and elements needed to submit an FRPP funding request. Entities submit proposals to NRCS state conservationists where proposals are evaluated based on the criteria outlined in the RFP and the additional state ranking criteria that are developed in consultation with the state technical committees.

Evidence: NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program. NRCS Documents: The New Hampshire and Ohio FY 2002 State FPP Plans with example ranking criteria. FPP Request for Proposals (Fed. Register, Vol. 64, No. 104).

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: NRCS oversees the practices of grantees through a variety of ways, including the appraisal review processes and an update on easement status as outlined in the response to Question 3.1. Aside from these measures, NRCS also uses the cooperative agreements to ensure proper oversight of FRPP projects. These FRPP parcels are spot-checked and reports are submitted annually to NRCS. To track conservation plan progress, NRCS reviews these parcels every three years, in addition to random spot-check reviews conducted in accordance with National Food Security Act Manual guidance. In addition to NRCS oversight, the Internal Revenue Service also conducts oversight of nongovernmental organizations, labeled as non-profit organizations, as well as tracking charitable donations. NRCS has also hired a Chief appraiser to be involved in appraisal oversight for FRPP easements.

Evidence: "NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program. CPM, Title 440, Part 509: Quality Assurance. NRCS Documents: FPP Cooperative Agreement Template."

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: FRPP collects grantee performance data, including easement status and monitoring results on an annual basis, as outlined in the cooperative agreement. The process utilized to collect this information is outlined in III.1. However, NRCS aggregates this information to a high level and reports to Congress annually only on the number of acres enrolled into program. Grantee performance information is aggregated at a high level and is not available to the public; the program does not meet the standards for this question.

Evidence: NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program. CPM, Title 440, Part 509: Quality Assurance. NRCS Documents: FPP Cooperative Agreement Template.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: "NRCS has established three long-term measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program which is to "protect topsoil from conversion to non-agricultural uses." Because these are new measures, the program has not yet established an adequate performance trend to determine whether it is fully achieving its targets. NRCS has set a long-term goal of increasing the total acres of farm and ranch lands protected from conversion to non-agricultural land by at least 400%. This translates into a total of 920,000 acres enrolled by 2010. To date, NRCS has enrolled 177,817 acres with an additional 209,621 acres pending enrollment. NRCS also has targeted that 65% of FRPP acres protected will be classified as prime, unique, and important farmland. To date, 103,314 acres of prime and important farmland have been protected. "

Evidence: NRCS Documents: FPP Easements Acquired Report (July 2002). Long-term and annual acreage goals stated in agency's response to the PARTs exercise. See performance measure component of this database.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The FRPP has largely met its annual performance goals. In FY 2003, NRCS's cumulative enrollment was 104,949 acres, of this total 74% of the total acres protected contained prime, unique and important soils. In FY 2004, NRCS's cumulative enrollment was 177,817 acres, of this total, 58% of the acres protected contained prime, unique and important soils. See attached performance measure table for targets and actual figures. In 2002, when FRPP was funded at the full authorized level ($50M), FRPP protected 70,000 acres, versus the 100,000 acres anticipated to be protected. The shortfall was due to the fact that acreage estimates were based on protecting land with state agencies, who NRCS partnered with prior to 2002. Following the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress authorized the inclusion of NGOs, as a result, acreage numbers decreased, because NGOs were less likely to leverage more dollars. NRCS established new annual goals in fiscal year 2004, and NRCS anticipates that the new performance targets are more realistic."

Evidence: NRCS Documents: FPP Easements Acquired Report (July 2002). Long-term and annual acreage goals stated in agency's response to the PARTs exercise. See performance measure component of this database.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: "NRCS acquires program efficiencies by requiring cooperating entities to hold, manage, & enforce easements. This, in addition to relying on entities to "weed out" non-eligible or unsuitable parcels prior to FRPP ranking, ensures that NRCS is reducing the federal administrative workload associated with land acquisition. In addition to external efficiencies, NRCS has also made the program more efficient through internal measures. These measures include requiring the state NRCS offices to submit state FRPP plans and compete for FRPP funds. NRCS has developed a new efficiency measure that assess the average length of time it takes the agency to close on an FRPP easement. NRCS proposes to introduce more program efficiencies by allocating more funds to entities with the staff and financial resources to manage and monitor easements. NRCS anticipates that this will acquire management efficiencies by 25% in FY 2010. These savings will come in the form of reduced monitoring and violation follow-ups."

Evidence: NRCS Policy: Conservation Programs Manual, Title 440, Part 519: Farmland Protection Program. NRCS Documents: FPP Easement Acquired Report (July 2002). The New Hampshire and Ohio FY 2002 State FPP Plans. See performance measure component of this database

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While the program has not demonstrated how its overall performance (i.e., how well it retains land in active agriculture) compares to that of similar programs, the program has provided evidence that it leverages funds. Given that evidence was provided for one program function, some credit is warranted. Unlike other federal easement progams where the agency is the only contributor, FRPP pays no more than 50 percent of the appraised fair market value of the easement. State and local entities are required to match the federal funds. In most situations, state and local entities leverage more funds to compete for limited FRPP funds. Historically, for every $1 of FRPP contribution, an additional $2.75 is contributed by the state or local entity to purchase the easement.

Evidence: Historical state and local government fund matching data.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: "Several recent surveys indicate that FRPP is effective at limiting development of agricultural lands. However, these surveys do not meet the full standards for scope and quality as required by the PART guidance. Therefore, FRPP cannot receive full credit in this question until more in-depth evaluations assess the efficacy of the program. In 2001, the General Accounting Office surveyed State Technical Committees on how USDA could better address environmental concerns. Overall, members viewed FRPP as effective at preventing urban sprawl. Specifically, over 65% of those interviewed found FRPP to be moderately to extremely effective in addressing concerns, such as preventing urban sprawl. In the Northeast, where FRPP activity is the most prevalent, 57% viewed FRPP as "very or extremely effective."" In a separate survey conducted by the American Farmland Trust, state purchase of development rights program managers found FRPP to be effective."

Evidence: GAO Report: State Advisory Committees' Views on How USDA Program Could Better Address Environmental Concerns (February 2002). American Farmland Trust Survey: AFT Survey of Purchase of Development Rights Managers (June 2001). NRCS O&E Review Report FY 2003.