Detailed Information on the
Conservation Reserve Program Assessment

Improving the Farm Service Agency's Technical assistance accountability systems

Performing independent program evaluations to identify recommendations for improving performance and efficency

Collecting performance data and using them to improve the field-level oversight of the Conservation Reserve Program contracts

Measure: Reduced phosphorus applications (measured in thousands of tons).

Explanation:"Measured by the number of tons of phosphorus not applied to crops and thereby could not enter waterways. This is not a separate measure. Instead, it is a continuation of Measure 2."

Measure: Tons of soil conserved (measures in million of tons).

Explanation:Measured by the number of tons of soil conserved by participating in the program. Targets and actuals are in million tons. Data reported are a proxy. It is the best available given current data collection capabilities and limitations, but does not fully represent the measure. FSA is working toward replacing it with more comprehensive data. FSA has developed this new performance measure as part of its draft FY 2005-FY 2010 Strategic Plan. Performance targets prior to FY 2005 are based on the Agency's previous Strategic Plan and are provided as a historical reference.

Measure: Increased acres of riparian and grass buffers (measured in million acres).

Explanation:Buffers improve water quality and fish and wildlife populations by; intercepting sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus in runoff before these pollutant enter lakes, ponds, wetlands and waterways, shading and therefore cooling streams and rivers, and by providing conservation cover. Increased buffer acreage enhances water quality and wildlife populations by intercepting runoff from other land uses. Target ranges are in million acres.

Measure: Tons per year of carbon dioxide sequestered (measured in million metric tons).

Explanation:"Estimated by the Agricultural Research Service. Data reported is a proxy. It is the best available given current data collection capabilities and limitations, but does not fully represent the measure. FSA is working toward replacing it with more comprehensive data."

Measure: Increased migrating duck populations (in millions).

Explanation:Measured in million additional ducks annually. Based on data models and annual surveys prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Data reported is a proxy, which reflects increases in the population of upland birds. Associate studies also indicate a number of grassland bird populations previously in decline have increased due to CRP.

Measure: Acres of restored wetlands (measured in millions of acres).

Explanation:"The more acres restored, the greater the improvement in water quality, wildlife populations, and carbon sequestered. FSA has developed this new performance measure as part of its strategic planning process initiated in October 2003. The final Plan will be issued by September 30, 2005. Performance targets prior to FY 2005 are based on the Agency's previous Strategic Plan and are provided as a historical reference."

Measure: Reduced nitrogen applications (measured in thousands of tons).

Explanation:"Measured by the number of tons of nitrogen not applied to crops and thereby could not enter waterways. Data reported is a proxy. It is the best available given current data collection capabilities and limitations, but does not fully represent the measure. FSA is working toward replacing it with more comprehensive data. FSA has developed this new performance measure as part of its strategic planning process initiated in October 2003. FSA plans to finalize the plan by September 30, 2005. Performance targets prior to FY 2005 are based on the Agency's previous Strategic Plan and are provided as a historical reference. This measure contains additional information on phosphorus, which is being reported as Measure 7 in order to show specific tartgets and actual results."

Measure: Average Farm Service Agency processing time (measured in minutes) of general signup CRP offers.

Explanation:Measured in FSA staff minutes spent of each offer. FY 05 actuals will not be available until January, 2006.

Measure: Acres managed under Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) signup (measured in millions of acres).

Explanation:"Continuous CRP is targeted at conservation practices that provide extraordinary environmental benefits and in areas identified as important. As more acres are targeted and enrolled in Continuous CRP, the higher will be the associated environmental benefits. Target ranges are in million acres. FSA has developed this new performance measure as part of its strategic planning process initiated in October 2003. The final Plan will be issued by September 30, 2005. Performance targets prior to FY 2005 are based on the Agency's previous Strategic Plan and are provided as a historical reference." FY 05 actuals will not be available until January, 2006.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Through CRP, eligible agricultural producers safeguard environmentally sensitive land by taking their land out of production and planting long-term resource-conserving covers (such as grasses and trees). These covers improve the quality of water and air, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat. In return, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides participants with rental, cost-share, and technical assistance. Once enrolled, producers enter into 10- 15-year contracts. CRP addresses natural resource concerns, providing environmental and economic benefits both on and off the farm. Current legislation requires equal consideration for soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife concerns. This is accomplished through use of an environmental benefits index in general sign-ups, and through continuous sign-ups that primarily target improvement of water quality and wildlife.

Evidence: "Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. Conservation Compilation website http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/subj_index.htm. 7 CFR Part 1410. CRP Fact Sheets. 'Food Security Act of 1985, as amended."

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

Explanation: When established in 1985, CRP's primary objective was to retire highly erodible cropland from agricultural production. About 102 million acres of cropland were eroding at unsustainable levels in 1982 and CRP targeted the most severely impacted. Other environmental concerns led to broadening the program's focus beginning in 1990 when the program's objectives were expanded to include improving water quality, increasing wildlife habitat and other goals. According to EPA, runoff from agricultural lands is one of the leading causes of impairment of water bodies. Enrollment of conservation buffers and establishing permanent cover through CRP reduces or eliminates runoff. CRP also addresses the loss of wetlands, grassland, and wildlife habitats that have historically occurred as lands were converted to agricultural uses.

Evidence: Conservation Compilation website http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/subj_index.htm.

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

Explanation: "The CRP achieves its conservation goals by "retiring" cropland from agricultural production into ten- to 15-year rental agreements. Other conservation program, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, are "working lands" programs in that they provide assistance to producers to install conservation measures on agricultural lands that are still in production. There is less overlap between CRP and other "working lands" programs. However, there may be overlap and duplication with other land retirement programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). Like CRP, WRP and WHIP pay producers to take land out of production to restore wetland ecosystems or wildlife habitat. The CRP also restores wetland acres and habitat. On balance, though, the large majority of CRP acres do not overlap or compete with WRP and WHIP acres. Therefore, a "yes" to this question is warranted."

Evidence: 7 CFR Part 1410. Need additional evidence for why this program does not overlap, particularly with WRP and WHIP.

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

Explanation: CRP uses an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) to classify and rank applications during a general CRP signup. FSA designed the EBI to include five environmental factors (wildlife, water quality, erosion, air quality, and enduring benefits) plus a cost factor with the intention of enrolling the most environmentally sensitive land over multiple signup periods. After each signup, FSA determines an EBI score for each offer from producers. Cost effectiveness is achieved by the use of soil-specific productivity-based rental rates, which minimize payment of excess rental payments. FSA has also identified the time required to process contracts as an efficiency measure, and is committed to developing a system that will reduce field office workload. In addition, certain conservation practices that yield highly desirable environmental benefits are eligible to be enrolled at any time through the continuous CRP program, such as riparian buffers, wetland restoration, and certain types of wildlife habitat.

Evidence: CRP Fact Sheets. Need to provide further evidence.

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

Explanation: FSA uses the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) to rank contract offers from producers according to estimated environmental and cost performance. The EBI helps to ensure that CRP's resources are targeted towards land that will cost-effectively provide benefits. In addition, FSA designates conservation priority areas at two levels. At the national level, FSA designates national priority areas, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes watersheds. At the state level, FSA can further target more localized natural resource concerns through state priority areas. FSA also targets CRP by automatically enrolling acres through a subset of high-priority conservation practices (such as wetland restoration) through a continuous signup process. Finally, FSA negotiates Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) agreements with state governments, and these agreements both target state and local priorities, as well as leverage state conservation resources to provide more benefits.

Evidence: "Handbook 2-CRP Part 6 and Part 7. Handbook 2-CRP Exhibit 19. 7 CFR 1410.50. 7 CFR 1410.31. FSA Cost-Benefit Assessment for CRP, May 2004. EBI and Continuous Sign-up Initiative Fact Sheets. "

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: The CRP long-term measures focus on reducing erosion rates, reducing ground and surface water contamination, benefiting wildlife populations, and increasing carbon dioxide sequestered. These outcomes measures track FSA's progress towards achieving one of its strategic goals of conserving Natural Resources and Enhancing the Environment.

Evidence: "1) FSA's draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 contains its strategic goals, desired end outcomes, and performance measures for assessing the success of CRP. FSA's strategic plan complements and supports the USDA's strategic plan. FSA tracks four long-term measures that directly impact soil, water, wildlife habitat, and air quality. 2) FSA research plan. 3) Improving Stakeholder Satisfaction document. "

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

Explanation: FSA has identified four long-term goals - to improve the quality of soil, water, wildlife habitat, and air. FSA selected measures to quantify CRP's contribution to the agency's four environmental outcome goals. These measures have been used to set realistic but ambitious targets for CRP performance and were developed with the input of FSA's major stakeholders (i.e., producers, state and federal environmental agencies, environmental interest groups, Administration officials, etc.).

Evidence: "FSA's draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. www.fsa.usda.gov/bpms/bpms_about.htm FSA research plan. CEAP research plan: www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ceap/ "

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: "FSA's annual performance measures (continuous CRP, riparian and grass buffers, and wetlands) are designed to monitor the program's progress towards achieving its long-term goals. The Agency has several measures which cover objectives for improving conservation practices, targeting lands to maximize conservation benefits. An efficiency measure, "Decrease offer processing time for general CRP contracts", has been identified, and a similar measure for continuous signup is under development. "

Evidence: "1) FSA's draft Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2005-2010 contains its strategic goals, desired outcomes, and performance measures for assessing the success of the CRP. 2) The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, June 6-9, 2004. USGS and FSA, 2005. 3) CRP Interim and Final Rules. 4) Efficiency measure document. "

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

Explanation: Established baselines and time frames and targets support FSA's annual measures for this program. FSA is currently using the annual measures: "Increase acres managed under Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) sign up", "Increase CRP acres in riparian and grass buffers", and "Increase CRP restored wetlands acres" to set targets and measure annual progress towards these measures. As indicated by this measure, targets have increased over the last couple of years. This is a reflection of past performance, anticipated program demand, limited additional CRP acres, expiring acres, and limited technical assistance providers. FSA re-evaluates the target annually to determine if it should be increased. Baselines and targets are currently being evaluated and will be revised as necessary for the FY 2006 budget.

Evidence: "FSA's draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. Budget Documents (CCC Estimates Book) "

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: "FSA works in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and other conservation partners (such as state and local governments, as well as private organizations) to provide the technical assistance necessary to deliver CRP. However, there are unmet technical assistance (TA) needs, deficiencies exist in TA accountability systems, and slow progress to date with utilizing the private sector through the Department's Technical Service Provider system. In the future, FSA intends to work with NRCS to build new partnerships to provide CRP TA by contracting with TSPs including the private sector, as well as state and local governments. This will increase delivery efficiency and result in cost-savings. Furthermore, FSA is working with NRCS and others to develop common conservation performance measures. For example, FSA is working with NRCS on the Conservation Evaluation and Assessment Project which will provide a set of common measures for conservation practice effectiveness. "

Evidence: "FSA's draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. This contains strategic goals, desired outcomes, and performance measures for assessing the success of CRP. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ceap/index.html The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, June 6-9, 2004. USGS and FSA, 2005. FSA research plan. Efficiency measure document. "

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: "Several studies examine the CRP's conservation effects on water quality, wildlife populations, carbon sequestration, and other critical factors, but unfortunately there is no regular independent program evaluation. USDA's OIG conducted an audit of the Conservation Reserve Program and other Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs to evaluate the actions taken by FSA to assess the program susceptibility to improper payments. The OIG found that FSA made a good effort to adhere to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer guidance and complied to a greater degree than the other five agencies assessed. FSA continues to work with OIG to implement the above recommendations in FY 2005, and integrate them into the FY 2007 budget. "

Evidence: "ERS, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1997, 2003. www.ers.usda.gov/catalog/OneProductAtATime.asp?ARC=c&PDT=2&PID=1299. Young and Osborn, The Conservation Reserve Program: An Economic Assessment, 1990. Ribaudo, Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program, 1989. Feather, Hellerstein, and Hansen, Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Program, 1999. National Habitat Management Institute, A Comprehensive Review of the Farm Bill. Contributions to Wildlife Conservation, 2000. OIG, Audit Number 03601-46-Te, March 21, 2005. USGS 2003 Survey of CRP Participants. "

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: While the implications on program output performance (number of acres of easements purchased) can be determined based on various funding levels, budgeting and performance planning are not integrated. Annual budgeting for the program is not based on a determination of the level of financial resources needed to obtain long-term goals. Program budget requests generally reflect an effort to achieve program output goals but not the long-term goals.

Evidence: "CCC FY 2006 Commodity Estimates Book (pp. B-6 and B-7). FY 2006 President's Budget Explanatory Notes - CRP Performance Budget Exhibit. "

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

Explanation: FSA has made significant improvements in correcting its strategic planning deficiencies. FSA is currently developing a new FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, to emphasize outcome-oriented goals and measures. To provide these measures FSA has undertaken a program to identify and quantify the environmental effects of the Conservation Reserve Program. Specific research projects were funded to enhance the measures available for setting targets and measuring progress towards these targets. Research includes studies to identify environmental functions from restored wetlands, estimate reduced nitrogen and phosphorus leaving fields from enrolling land in CRP, and changes in duck, pheasant, and quail populations from the CRP. FSA has also sought public input on CRP performance through an advanced notice of public rulemaking (ANPR) and hosting a national conference seeking ideas for the future of the CRP. Over 5000 comments were received on the ANPR and over 200 people attended the conference.

Evidence: "FSA's draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan contains its strategic goals, desired outcomes, and performance measures for assessing the success of CRP. FSA research plan. The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, June 6-9, 2004. USGS and FSA, 2005."

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: "FSA collects performance information on all CRP contracts, including the conservation practices installed, acreage enrolled, location of land relative to national and state priority areas, and other characteristics of the land. FSA is working to build on the contract file and collect new Geographical Information System (GIS) data on all CRP contracts which will assist modeling efforts However, though FSA and its conservation partners collect data, in some cases the agency is not using the data to effectively manage the program. For example, CRP contracts require landowners to properly manage the conservation cover on enrolled acres. FSA has information that many acres are not being properly managed according to the contracts, yet the agency has not effectively responded to lack of proper management on these contracts. "

Evidence: "Handbook 2-CRP Part 21. CRP Monthly Summary Reports. CREP Annual Reports. Notice CRP-485 (Monitoring for the Wildlife Habitat for Uplands Birds Initiative). CRP Signup Summary Books. Federal Register comments. USGS Research Plan. USGS 2003 Survey of CRP Participants. "

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: While program managers are held accountable, not all partners are. FSA systems managers are responsible for ensuring that contract data accurately reflect USDA Service Center records. The contract data are continually reviewed by headquarters staff, and discrepancies are reported to management. Action is taken to correct any deficiencies. In addition, FSA identifies CRP accomplishment goals in the Individual Performance Plans for employees who help deliver the program. FSA has developed agreements with other program partners, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Forest Service (FS), to assist in the implementation of CRP. Some of the agreements have not specified timeframes and the quality standards for deliverables. In some instances, this has caused delays in service for CRP offers.

Evidence: "CREP annual reports. NRCS/FS reimbursable agreements with other conservation partners. FSA individual performance plans. "

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

Explanation: As soon as a CRP contract is approved, funds are obligated. Annual rental payments are consistently outlayed the first workday after October 1st each year. Cost-share and other incentive payments are made once requirements are met and certifications completed, including a review of receipts. Requirements are in place to ensure payments are only made to eligible persons and on eligible land. Service center employees conduct on-site spot checks on 10% of CRP contracts for compliance. Producer files are reviewed prior to annual payment issuance to ensure conservation practices are maintained as required. Other procedures in place for comparing actual expenditures against intended use include the County Operations Review (COR) of CRP. COR reports are analyzed to determine weaknesses and corrective actions needed.

Evidence: "FY 2003 and FY 2004 obligations and percent earned. FY 2003 and FY 2004 County Operations Review Annual Reports. OIG, Audit Number 03601-46-Te, March 21, 2005. "

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: FSA continues to develop new technology to implement CRP and increase cost-effectiveness. New IT tools have substantially reduced the cost and time of processing CRP offers by incorporating rule based validations and eliminating manual entries. Offer processing time for general CRP contracts is currently used to evaluate efficiency in program execution, and a similar measure for continuous signup is under development. FSA plans on achieving additional efficiencies by evaluating and monitoring partnership time required in the delivery of technical assistance. Other internal control mechanisms such as the County Office Work Measurement (COWM) system provide a variety of management tools for County, State, and National offices to use in CRP performance analysis. The COWM system determines the time required to perform identified elements of work, showing where efficiencies may be gained. Additional procedures include compliance checks and continual review of CRP data.

Evidence: "County Office Work Measurement System. General Signup Offer Processing (GSOP) software. Efficiency measure document. FSA Handbook 2-CRP Part 17. "

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) element of CRP, FSA collaborates with state and tribal governments. These CREP partnerships coordinate and leverage federal funds with state, tribal governments, or other non-federal fund sources, to address specific conservation and environmental objectives. At the end of FY 2004, there were 29 CREP agreements in place, each providing tailored opportunities for meeting specific environmental challenges. FSA regularly consults and collaborates with the NRCS's State Technical Committees??that are comprised of diverse members such as individual landowners, non-governmental organizations, and state government??to provide guidance and recommendations on conservation issues. In June 2004, FSA co-sponsored a national CRP conference where technical experts, stakeholders, researchers, and policy-makers met in a scientific forum to exchange ideas, discuss issues, and help define the future of the program.

Evidence: "CREP agreements The Conservation Reserve The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, June 6-9, 2004. CRP regulations -- 7 CFR 1410.1. "Conservation Practices and Programs for Your Farm" brochure. "

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "A recent USDA OIG audit report completed in March 2005 found that, while FSA had made a good faith effort, the agency needed to make improvements in its improper payments risk assessment process. Because FSA's current process for identifying and measuring the risk of improper payments needs improvement, the risk assessments it performs may not accurately reflect the programs' susceptibility to improper payments. Until FSA addresses the findings from the OIG report and demonstrates compliance with IPIA, the program must receive a "no" for this question. Disbursement data are collected and reported in the financial statements of the Commodity Credit Corporation. These statements are audited every year and for FY 2004, CCC received a clean audit opinion. Auditors have questioned the absence of obligations, but since the obligation occurs simultaneously with disbursement, it is not an issue."

Evidence: To support budget execution, the program division controls funds by monitoring program payments on a daily basis during the payment period, which begins in October each year when funding is authorized. Payments are allowed until 94 % of the authorized funding is paid. Then the program code is removed from the county office payment table and the program division performs a case-by-base authorization process to ensure funding limits are not exceeded.

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

Explanation: FSA addresses management deficiencies in several ways. Periodic national-level training is provided to FSA state offices which clarifies procedures and outlines changes to the program. Further guidance on procedure is issued in notices that are regularly sent to FSA state and field offices. FSA County Operations Review assessments provide another internal control process for analyzing and addressing procedural errors. Within available resources, FSA conducts spot checks on contracts to ensure compliance. Also, in response to the President's Management Agenda, FSA has added interim performance indicators and implemented a research plan to develop additional performance indicators to better report CRP accomplishments. An Interagency Consulting Group reengineered the program in the mid-1990's in order to retool the program benefits. Also, OIG performed several audits which, when FSA addressed the reports' findings, strengthened program performance and reduced errors.

Evidence: "FY 2003 and FY 2004 COR Annual Report. CRP Monthly Summary Reports. CRP Notices. OIG, Audit Number 10099-9-KC, August 2002. OIG, Audit Number 03099-45-KC, October 2001. OIG, Audit Number 50601-7-KC, March 2000. OIG, Audit Number 50601-8-KC, January 2000. FSA Draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. "

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

Explanation: The CRP improves soil quality, water quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat. In 2004 soil erosion reduced was 454 million tons, protecting cropland and enhancing soil productivity. CRP accounts for nearly 40 percent of the annual 1.2 billion tons reduction in soil erosion since 1982. In 2004, CRP reduced nitrogen and phosphorus applications by 683,000 and 113,000 tons, respectively. Reduced soil erosion and fertilizer applications increases water quality. In FY 2004, the CRP sequestered 47.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The CRP benefits wildlife. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the CRP resulted in a 30 percent increase in duck populations between 1992 and 2003. United States Geological Survey documented significant increases in grassland bird populations on CRP lands versus cropland, including six that were considered in serious decline between 1966 and 1990.

Evidence: "National Resource Inventory, USDA, 1999. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/ Fertilizer Use and Price Statistics, ERS, 1999 - 2002: www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgChemicals/ National Habitat Management Institute, A Comprehensive Review of Farm Bill Contributions to Wildlife Conservation, 2000. The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, June 6-9, 2004. USGS and FSA, 2005. Johnson and Igl, Contributions of the Conservation Reserve Program to Populations of Breeding Birds in North Dakota, 1995. Igl and Johnson, Le Conte Sparrows Breeding in Conservation Reserve Program Fields: Precipitation and Patterns of Population Change, 1999. Johnson and Schwartz, The Conservation Reserve Program: Habitat for Grassland Birds, 1993. Ribaudo, Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program, 1989. Feather, Hellerstein, and Hansen, Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Program, 1999."

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

Explanation: FSA has developed new measures and targets. Compared to the measures previously used, the measures are more specific, use new data bases, and incorporate recent research. Several targets highlight CRP's strong performance; acres in the Continuous CRP, buffer acres, and acres of wetland restoration. CRP met its target of 2.4 million acres of buffers and 1.9 million acres of wetlands restored in FY 2003 (Note a new more restrictive measure for buffers and wetlands have been adopted.). The Continuous CRP programs target vulnerable lands for highly effective conservation measures. For FY 2003, FSA set a target of 2.7 million acres for combined enrollment in the CREP, FWP and Continuous CRP. In 2003 there were 2.48 million acres of land enrolled in these programs. These targets were met despite a shortage of technical assistance resources, removal of the wetland restoration practice (CP23) from general signup, and the workload associated with a recent general signup.

Evidence: "FSA CRP contract files FSA CRP offer files FSA monthly CRP reports 2002 - 2005 Efficiency measure document FSA Draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan "

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

Explanation: There are several areas in which efficiencies or increased cost-effectiveness can be demonstrated. General CRP sign-up enrollment is competitive, using an environmental benefits index (EBI)-based process to award higher points for offers that provide greater soil, water air and wildlife quality benefits and offer lower rental payment requests. The competition has reduced annual per-acre rental payments by $6.08 (12%) since 1996. FSA has also made demonstrable improvements in the program's efficiency by automating many of the application processes. Prior to FY 2003, many of the administrative tasks were completed through handwritten worksheets. Beginning in FY 2003, FSA has made a number of e-gov enhancements to reduce staff workload and improve the accuracy of contract information. Therefore, FSA is tracking CRP contract offer processing times as an important efficiency measure. FSA plans on achieving additional efficiencies by evaluating and monitoring partnership time required in the delivery of technical assistance.

Evidence: "FSA CRP contract files FSA CRP offer files FSA monthly CRP reports 2002 - 2005 Efficiency measure document FSA Draft FY 2005-2010 Strategic Plan "

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

Explanation: Soil Productivity: The 454 million tons of reduced soil erosion accounts for nearly 40% of the reduced cropland soil erosion on a national scale since 1982. Water Quality: In 2004, CRP reduced nitrogen and phosphorus applications by 683,000 and 113,000 tons, respectively. Reduced soil erosion and fertilizer applications increases water quality. Wildlife: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated CRP has resulted in a 30 percent increase in duck populations, between 1992 and 2003. Research by United States Geological Survey has documented significant increases grassland bird populations on CRP lands for grassland bird species considered in serious decline between 1966 and 1990. Equivalent data does not exist for other conservation programs. Air Quality: The CRP results in more carbon sequestration than any other federally administered conservation program. In FY 2004, the CRP sequestered 47.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. "

Evidence: "National Resource Inventory, USDA, 1999. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/ Fertilizer Use and Price Statistics, ERS, 1999 - 2002; www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgChemicals/. FSA CRP contract files. National Habitat Management Institute, A Comprehensive Review of Farm Bill Contributions to Wildlife Conservation, 2000. The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, June 6-9, 2004. USGS and FSA, 2005. Johnson and Igl, Contributions of the Conservation Reserve Program to Populations of Breeding Birds in North Dakota, 1995. Igl and Johnson, Le Conte Sparrows Breeding in Conservation Reserve Program Fields: Precipitation and Patterns of Population Change, 1999. Johnson and Schwartz, The Conservation Reserve Program: Habitat for Grassland Birds, 1993. USDA/DOE carbon reporting guidelines. www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/greenhousegasreporting.htm#guidelines."

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

Explanation: A comprehensive economic assessment by ERS in 1990 and FSA in 2003 found CRP benefits exceeded costs. Estimates based on the National Resources Inventory (NRI) indicate CRP reduced soil erosion 454 million tons in 2004. A FAPRI study estimating impacts of CRP enrollment on nitrogen, phosphorus, and erosion leaving field edge and root zone shows significant reductions improving water quality. Wildlife impacts of CRP have been assessed in many studies, both comprehensive in nature, as well as more narrowly defined assessments. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimated that CRP increased duck populations 30 percent. United States Geological Survey (USGS) wildlife biologists have also documented significant increases grassland bird populations on CRP lands versus cropland. CRP is the largest federally administered carbon sequestration program, sequestering 47.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in FY2004.

Evidence: National Resource Inventory, USDA, 1999. www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/ Fertilizer Use and Price Statistics, ERS, 1999 - 2002; www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgChemicals/. FSA CRP contract files. National Habitat Management Institute, A Comprehensive Review of Farm Bill Contributions to Wildlife Conservation, 2000. The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, June 6-9, 2004. USGS and FSA, 2005. Johnson and Igl, Contributions of the Conservation Reserve Program to Populations of Breeding Birds in North Dakota, 1995. Igl and Johnson, Le Conte Sparrows Breeding in Conservation Reserve Program Fields: Precipitation and Patterns of Population Change, 1999. Johnson and Schwartz, The Conservation Reserve Program: Habitat for Grassland Birds, 1993. USDA/DOE carbon reporting guidelines. www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/greenhousegasreporting.htm#guidelines."