GAO-05-376, Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs That Support Ecological Indicators


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-376 
entitled 'Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs 
That Support Ecological Indicators' which was released on September 21, 
2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2005: 

Environmental Information: 

Status of Federal Data Programs That Support Ecological Indicators: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-376]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-376, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The federal government supports numerous data programs that assemble 
and analyze quantitative measures of the nation’s environmental 
conditions and trends (known as indicators). A substantial number of 
these data programs are housed in several federal agencies, and provide 
various types of data used routinely by decision makers from the 
private sector and all levels of government. As federal agencies take 
actions to improve the coverage and usefulness of these programs, it is 
equally important that the quality and availability of existing data 
generated by these programs do not erode overtime. In this regard, 
periodic uninterrupted monitoring to determine conditions and trends is 
important to accurately describe the extent or seriousness of 
environmental problems, or conversely, improvements in environmental 
conditions. 

GAO reviewed 20 data programs to determine whether federal agencies 
responsible for the programs anticipate that changes during fiscal 
years 2005 and 2006 related to funding, shifting priorities, or other 
factors will affect the ability of the programs to (1) continue to 
generate data comparable with data from past years, and (2) continue 
providing data used in a nationwide ecological indicator study by the 
H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, 
The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems. 

What GAO Found: 

The federal officials responsible for 14 of the 20 data programs that 
GAO reviewed are confident that the 14 programs will continue to 
provide all of the types of data that they provided in 2002 at a 
comparable or higher level of availability and quality. Agency 
officials do not expect 2 of the programs to provide such data and are 
uncertain about the ability of 4 programs to do so. However, several of 
these programs are likely to benefit from enhancements, including new 
satellite observations and improved sampling and methodological 
techniques. 

However, in the near term, regarding the specific data used to support 
58 ecological indicators that were identified as suitable for national 
reporting in the Heinz Center’s 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 
report, agency officials are confident that 15 of the 20 data programs 
that produced these data will provide all of the types of data at a 
comparable or higher level of availability and quality as needed for 
the next edition of the report, which is planned for issuance in 2007. 
Even though agency officials informed us that they anticipate that the 
overall availability and quality of the data supporting the 58 
indicators will be maintained, they also indicated that, in some cases, 
data weaknesses or uncertainties exist that could affect the usefulness 
of the data for the Heinz Center’s 2007 report. For example, the 
information on the nation’s forests will not be as current for some 
states as for others because of funding limitations. Furthermore, 
agency officials responsible for 2 of the 20 data programs stated that 
data will not be of an overall comparable level of quality and 
availability for 2007, and officials responsible for the remaining 3 
data programs were uncertain as to the availability or quality of the 
data for 2007. 

Examples of Ecological Attributes, Their Associated Descriptions, and 
Example Indicators: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of table] 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-376. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at 
(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Scope: 

Design and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Glossary of Conservation Reserve Program Terms: 

Appendix III: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix IV: Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix V: National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix VI: National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix VII: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, U.S. 
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix VIII: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics 
Administration, Department of Commerce: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix IX: National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information 
Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix X: National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of 
Commerce: 

Background: 

NMFS Environmental and Ecological Data Collection Activities Are 
Diverse: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XI: National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XII: Air Quality System, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XIII: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XIV: Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne Disease 
Outbreaks, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XV: Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey, 
Department of the Interior: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XVI: Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center, U.S. 
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XVII: National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network, U.S. 
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XVIII: National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. 
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XIX: National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Department of the Interior: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XX: National Streamflow Information Program and National Water 
Information System, Water Resources Discipline, USGS, Interior: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XXI: Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-view and Related Sensors (MODIS 
and AVHRR), National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

Background: 

Summary: 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

Appendix XXII: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix XXIII: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix XXIV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Data Programs and the Continuity and Availability of Data in 
the Future: 

Table 2: Conservation Reserve Program Enrollment and Outlays: 

Table 3: Conservation Practices by Sign-Up Type Installed on CRP/CREP 
Acreage as of March 2005: 

Table 4: Cost of Selected ERS Data Analysis Activities for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005: 

Table 5: NRI Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for 
Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 6: Forest Service Direct Funding for the NSRE, Fiscal Years 2000- 
2004 and Projected for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006: 

Table 7: NESDIS Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed 
for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 8: Fisheries Statistics and Economics Funding for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 9: FSED Headquarters Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2005, and 
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 10: Office of Protected Resources Funding for Fiscal Years 2000- 
2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 11: Estimated State Marine Fisheries Agency Funding of 
Recreational Fishery Surveys in 2004: 

Table 12: Selected NOS Entities Responsible for Environmental Data and 
Respective Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for 
Fiscal year 2006: 

Table 13: Estimates of Ozone Monitoring Sites and Data Collection Costs 
and Overall AQS Funding for Fiscal Years 2000-2006: 

Table 14: EMAP Enacted Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005: 

Table 15: BRD Funding for Program Components for Fiscal Years 2000-
2005: 

Table 16: EROS Appropriated, Reprogrammed, and Reimbursable Funds for 
Fiscal Years 2000-2005, and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 17: EROS Funding by Operation for Fiscal Years 2000-2005: 

Table 18: EROS Salary Costs and Staffing Levels for Fiscal Years 2000- 
2005: 

Table 19: NASQAN Stations in Operation, Fiscal Years 2000, 2005, and 
2006: 

Table 20: NWI Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed 
for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 21: Projected Costs for Full Implementation of NSIP for Fiscal 
Years 2006-2010 and Operating Costs in Subsequent Years: 

Table 22: Funding for USGS Streamgaging Activities for Fiscal Years 
2000 through 2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 23: USGS Funds for Selected Streamgaging Activities for Fiscal 
Year 2005: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Conservation Reserve Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-
2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 2: Economic Research Service Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 3: Forest Inventory and Analysis Program Budget for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 4: National Agricultural Statistics Service Budget for Fiscal 
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 5: National Resources Inventory Program Budget for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 6: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment Funding for 
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 7: Bureau of Economic Analysis Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 8: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
Service Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 
2006: 

Figure 9: National Marine Fisheries Service Budget for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 10: National Ocean Service Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and 
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 11: Air Quality System Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 12: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Budget for 
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 13: Biological Resources Discipline Program Budget for Fiscal 
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 14: Earth Resources Observation Systems Program Budget for 
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 15: National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network Budget for 
Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 16: National Water Quality Assessment Budget for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 17: National Wetlands Inventory Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-
2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 18: Funding for USGS Streamgaging Activities from Federal and 
Nonfederal Sources for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal 
Year 2006: 

Abbreviations: 

AQS: Air Quality System: 

AREI: Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators: 

AVHRR: Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer: 

BEA: Bureau of Economic Analysis: 

BRD: Biological Resources Discipline: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program: 

DOC: U.S. Department of Commerce: 

DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior: 

EDC: EROS Data Center: 

EDS: Environmental Data Service: 

EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: 

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

EROS: National Center for Earth Resources Observation & Science: 

ERS: Economic Research Service: 

ESI: Environmental Sensitivity Index: 

FIA: Forest Inventory and Analysis Program: 

FSA: Farm Service Agency: 

HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: 

MODIS: Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NASQAN: National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network: 

NASS: National Agricultural Statistics Service: 

NAWQA: National Water-Quality Assessment Program: 

NCA: National Coastal Assessment: 

NCCOS: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science: 

NESDIS: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
Service: 

NLCD: National Land Cover Dataset: 

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NOS: National Ocean Service: 

NRC: National Research Council: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

NRI: National Resources Inventory: 

NSIP: National Streamflow Information Program: 

NSRE: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment: 

NWI: National Wetlands Inventory: 

NWIS: National Water Information System: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool: 

SeaWiFS: Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USFS: U.S. Forest Service: 

USFWS: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: 

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey: 

WBDO: waterborne-disease outbreak: 

WRD: Water Resources Discipline: 

Letter September 2, 2005: 

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Science: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards: 
Committee on Science: 
House of Representatives: 

Comprehensive and reliable information on the nation's environment and 
natural resources is a cornerstone of effective environmental 
management and an integral part of a national strategy to anticipate 
and address problems. Governments, businesses, and the general public 
depend on relevant, accurate, and timely environmental information to 
make informed decisions in evaluating the performance of environmental 
programs, aligning the efficiency of markets with environmental 
protection, assessing the state of the environment and natural 
resources, and identifying emerging issues and options for action. 
Although reliable data and statistical information is rarely the sole 
factor that determines how society should address any particular issue, 
such information is essential to support the assessment of various 
alternatives and to inform policy decisions. 

The federal government supports numerous data programs that assemble 
and analyze quantitative measures on the nation's environmental 
conditions and trends (known as indicators). These data programs are 
housed primarily in agencies within the Departments of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Health and Human Services, and the Interior; the 
Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. Twenty of these data programs, which provide various 
types of data used routinely by decision makers from the private sector 
and all levels of government, provided data used by the H. John Heinz 
III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment to prepare its 
2002 State of the Nation's Ecosystems report. This report portrays on a 
national scale what is known and not known about the state of our 
lands, waters, and other living ecosystems using a comprehensive, 
science-based effort. The report lists 103 indicators relating to six 
major ecosystem types (coasts and oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh 
waters, grasslands and shrublands, and urban and suburban areas). The 
report both provides a blueprint for periodic reporting on the 
condition and use of the nation's ecosystems and identifies major gaps 
in the data available for each of the ecosystems.The Heinz Center is 
currently working with federal agencies and other organizations to 
identify the efforts necessary to fill the data gaps identified in its 
2002 report. 

While closing the data gaps identified in the Heinz Center report is 
essential to fully characterize the state of the ecosystems, it is 
equally important that the quality and availability of the data that 
formed the foundation of the report in 2002 do not erode over time. In 
this regard, periodic uninterrupted monitoring to develop data and 
trends is crucial to decision makers and scientists in accurately 
describing the extent or seriousness of an environmental problem or, 
conversely, the extent to which a condition may be improving. Changes 
in environmental conditions occur, sometimes imperceptibly, as a result 
of a complex web of natural and human factors such as changes in 
economic conditions, weather patterns, pollution, and environmental 
policies. Consequently, establishing cause and effect relationships is 
difficult and relies on periodic monitoring of data over a long period 
of time. For example, the dynamic mechanisms of how freshwater 
ecosystems change in response to contaminants, water withdrawals, 
fishing activity, and the introduction of nonnative species are often 
understood only after gathering comparable data on numerous water 
characteristics, from many locations, and at regular intervals. 

In this context, you asked that we determine whether the data programs 
used to generate or support the ecological indicators included in the 
2002 State of the Nation's Ecosystems report will continue to provide 
comparable data in the future. Specifically, for each of the data 
programs under review, we were asked to determine whether the federal 
agency responsible for the program anticipates that changes during 
fiscal years 2005 and 2006 related to funding, shifting priorities, or 
other factors will affect the ability of the program to continue to 
generate data comparable with data from past years and sufficient to 
compare environmental conditions in 2002 with conditions in 2007, the 
expected date of the Heinz Center's next State of the Nation's 
Ecosystems report. As agreed with your offices, we limited the scope of 
our review to the 20 data programs that provided the information used 
for 58 of the 103 ecological indicators identified in the Heinz Center 
report. The 58 indictors are those that the Heinz Center identified as 
suitable for national reporting in 2002 because they were supported by 
data of sufficiently high quality, with adequate nationwide geographic 
coverage, and from established monitoring activities offering a 
reasonable prospect for future data availability. 

For each of the 20 data programs, we used a data collection instrument 
along with follow-up contact with key officials responsible for the 
program, to obtain the agency's views on funding, program priorities, 
anticipated changes, data quality, and other related issues. We 
analyzed the information obtained and placed the programs in categories 
according to the agencies' responses to our questions. The categories 
reflect whether the information we obtained from the agencies indicates 
that the 20 data programs will continue to provide (1) all of the types 
of data provided in 2002 at a comparable level of availability and 
quality and (2) the specific data on the 58 ecological indicators 
reported in the Heinz Center's 2002 report as having data sufficient 
for national reporting. Appendix I provides a more detailed description 
of our scope and methodology. We performed our work from July 2004 
through August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

In summary, our analysis of the information we obtained indicates that 
agency officials are confident that 14 of the 20 programs will provide 
all of the types of data that they provided in 2002 at a comparable or 
higher level of availability and quality. Several of these programs are 
likely to benefit from enhancements, such as improved sampling and 
methodological techniques. Agency officials do not believe that two 
data programs will provide all of the types of data they produced in 
2002 at a comparable or higher level of availability and quality, and 
are uncertain whether four other programs will do so. 

However, in the near term, regarding the specific data used to support 
the 58 ecological indicators discussed in the Heinz Center's report, 
agency officials are confident that 15 of the 20 programs will provide 
all of the types of data that they provided in 2002 at a comparable or 
higher level of availability and quality. Agency officials responsible 
for two data programs stated that data will not be available at 
comparable levels of quality and availability, and officials 
responsible for the remaining three data programs were uncertain as to 
the availability of data needed for the Heinz Center's 2007 report. In 
some cases and as shown in table 1, even though agency officials 
informed us that they anticipate that the overall availability and 
quality of the data will be maintained, data weaknesses or 
uncertainties exist that could affect the usefulness of the data for 
the Heinz Center's 2007 report. Following are some examples: 

* While the data provided by the Earth Resources Observation and 
Science Data Center for the 2007 Heinz Center report will be more 
recent than that used for the 2002 report, having been acquired before 
a Landsat 7 satellite malfunction that occurred in May 2003, updates of 
these more recent data that were planned by the United States 
Geological Survey and other sponsors of the data sets will likely not 
be possible before the 2009 launch of the Landsat Continuity Mission, 
which will replace the Landsat 7 satellite. 

* The overall availability and quality of the data provided by the 
Forest Inventory and Analysis program will be improved, according to 
Forest Service officials. However, data for six states (covering about 
23 percent of the nation's forests) may not be as accurate as data 
provided in prior years because of a lack of funding to perform field 
validation of data obtained from remote sensors. 

* The Forest Service anticipates that the National Survey on Recreation 
and the Environment will provide comparable data for the next Heinz 
Center report. Nevertheless, potential reductions in funding from other 
federal agencies that support the survey could result in a decline in 
the availability and quality of the data. 

* The 2002 Heinz Center report utilized the Agriculture Department's 
Census of Agriculture that included the latest available data from 
1997. Similarly, the 2007 Heinz Center report will have access to the 
latest available Census of Agriculture that includes data from 2002. 
While Agriculture will have collected census data for 2007 by the time 
the next Heinz Center report is issued, the census data will not have 
been processed and published by that time for use in the Heinz Center's 
report. 

Table 1 shows the data programs we reviewed and the results of our 
analysis of agency responses related to the continuity of program data 
in future years and data availability for the Heinz Center's planned 
2007 State of the Nation's Ecosystems report. See appendixes II through 
XXI for specific information on the future direction of each data 
program we reviewed. 

Table 1: Data Programs and the Continuity and Availability of Data in 
the Future: 

Data program: National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network 
(NASQAN), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior; 
Continuity of program data in future years: No; * Water sampling 
frequency has continued a decline begun in 1980, from monthly to 
bimonthly or quarterly; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: No; * While 
data used by the Heinz Center in its 2002 report came from more than 
400 sampling stations, data for the center's planned 2007 report will 
be from fewer than 30 sampling stations. 

Data program: National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA), USGS, 
Interior; 
Continuity of program data in future years: No; * Study units dropped 
from 51 to 42 over the last decade, and the funding reductions in 
fiscal year 2005 have resulted in a reduction in long-term surface 
water monitoring sites from 145 to 84; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: No; * Some 
data used by the Heinz Center in its 2002 report are no longer 
collected (e.g., contaminants in fish tissues and streambed sediment), 
while others are still collected but at reduced frequency. 

Data program: Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program, U.S. Forest 
Service, USDA; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; 
* According to program officials, by 2007, the FIA program will be able 
to provide some of the most complete data in its history, on a much 
timelier basis. Newly designed information systems that use new 
software will integrate data and map-based information; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
Although data for 6 states, covering about 23 percent of the nation's 
forests, may not be as fresh as the data for the other 44 states due to 
funding constraints, the set of forest data that will be available for 
the planned 2007 Heinz Center report will be superior in coverage, 
detail, and timeliness to the data available in 2002. In 2002, 80 
percent of the data were from "old" periodic inventories and 20 percent 
was from "new" inventories based on an annual data collection using a 
new, technologically superior system that began in 1999. For the 2007 
Heinz Center report, 80 percent of the data will be from the new system 
and 20 percent of the data will be from the older periodic inventory 
approach. 

Continuity of program data in future years: Data program: Yes; * BRD 
data will continue to be collected in similar form in coming years; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Data 
program: Yes; * Officials expect that BRD data the Heinz Center used in 
2002 will continue to be available in satisfactory form for the planned 
2007 report. 

Data program: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), 
U.S. Forest Service, USDA; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Uncertain; * Reductions in 
funding of NSRE by the Forest Service mean that the survey program will 
be more dependent on funding from other sources, including other 
federal agencies with interests in various facets of outdoor recreation 
activities and participation; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Uncertain; 
* With adequate support from collaborating agencies for the 2005-2006 
NSRE, recreation data used by the Heinz Center for its 2002 report will 
be matched in quality and comprehensiveness for the planned 2007 
report. Funding insufficient to match the coverage of the 2000-2001 
NSRE, however, may result in fewer responses and data that are less 
geographically rigorous. 

Data program: Economic Research Service (ERS), USDA; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * ERS develops four 
data sets the Heinz Center used in its 2002 report, all of which are 
integral to its programs; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
Officials expect their data will be available in comparable or better 
form for use in the planned 2007 Heinz Center report, and suggest that 
additional ERS data that will be available could be used to develop new 
ecological indicators. 

Data program: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * NASS data are 
developed in part through a Census of Agriculture that is prepared 
every 5 years and will provide data of the type used in the Heinz 
Center 2002 report. In addition, NASS officials expect that some crop 
data will improve as a result of a NASS initiative to restore the 
collection of certain survey data that were suspended for budgetary 
reasons in fiscal year 2003; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * The 
previous Heinz Center report, published in 2002, utilized the latest 
available Census of Agriculture data from 1997; similarly, the planned 
2007 Heinz Center report will be able to include the latest available 
Census of Agriculture results from 2002, released in the spring of 
2004. The Heinz Center will add data for its ecological indicators as 
they become available from the 2007 Census of Agriculture. 

Data program: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Farm Service Agency, 
USDA; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * The CRP is USDA's 
largest conservation program. The data generated by the program are 
essential to program administration and are expected to be available 
for as long as the program exists; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * CRP 
officials are confident that the data used for the 2002 Heinz Center 
report will continue to be available in comparable form for the 
center's planned 2007 report. 

Data program: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (NOAA), Department of Commerce; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * Officials expect to 
generate data similar in quality and comprehensiveness to those in 
previous years; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Uncertain; 
* Funding cuts or rising costs could result in lower sampling levels 
and delayed processing and reporting for data used in the 2002 Heinz 
Center report. 

Data program: National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA, Commerce; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Uncertain; * According to 
agency officials, minor budget cuts may affect the breadth and 
comprehensiveness of certain data collection and fieldwork activities; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
Officials believe that data collection and analysis will continue for 
all programs, and that data will be available at similar or improved 
quality for the Heinz Center's planned 2007 report. 

Data program: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS), Interior; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * The quality and 
comprehensiveness of wetland status and trends data will be comparable 
or superior to that of past reports. Agency officials also indicated 
that the President has directed that these wetland reports be prepared 
more frequently, beginning in 2006; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 16 
U.S.C. § 3931(a)(4) requires USFWS to produce wetland status and trends 
reports. These data were used in the 2002 Heinz Center report, and the 
data are expected to continue to be available for the next iteration of 
the center's report. These data and reports continue to be the highest 
priority of the NWI program. 

Data program: National Center for Earth Resources Observation and 
Science (EROS), USGS, Interior; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * The quality and 
comprehensiveness of data collection and analysis will be similar or 
superior to that of past years. Changes in analytical approaches may 
expand the utility of datasets such as the National Landcover Dataset. 
Data on vegetation condition from planned satellite missions are also 
expected to be of higher quality; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Uncertain; 
* Data for the 2007 Heinz Center report will be more recent than the 
1992 data used for the center's 2002 report, having been acquired in 
2001, before a May 2003 Landsat satellite malfunction. However, further 
significant updates of these data will likely not be possible before 
the planned 2009 launch of the Landsat continuity mission. 

Data program: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
Service (NESDIS), NOAA, Commerce; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * As reflected in 
NOAA's strategic plan, efforts are under way to build and advance the 
capabilities of an ecological component of the NOAA global 
environmental observing system to monitor, assess, and predict national 
and regional ecosystem health, as well as to gather information 
consistent with established social and economic indicators. Under this 
direction, NESDIS will be supportive of sustaining, and improving, the 
ability of its data programs to provide data and information at a level 
and quality of previous years; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
According to agency officials, NESDIS environmental data are expected 
to be available in an equivalent or improved form for the expected 2007 
Heinz Center report. For example, bathymetric mapping and physical 
oceanographic data products are continually improving the resolution 
and accuracy of coverage as new data sources become available. Looking 
into the next decade, next-generation satellites will reduce 
atmospheric contamination of the data compared to the present, and is 
also expected to significantly improve sea surface temperature data. 

Data program: National Resources Inventory (NRI), Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, USDA; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * According to program 
officials, improved estimates at both national and regional scales are 
expected to be available in coming years; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
Officials expect NRI data to be available in 2007 in a form comparable 
to or better than that used for the 2002 Heinz Center report. 

Data program: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Economics and 
Statistics Administration, Commerce; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * BEA officials will 
devote a proposed fiscal year 2006 budget increase to initiatives to 
improve the accuracy and timeliness of its data by upgrading 
information technology for sampling and data input techniques and 
expanding the budget of the Regional Economics Directorate, the source 
of data on county personal income used by the Heinz Center in its 2002 
report; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
Officials expect their data will be available in comparable or better 
form for use in the 2007 Heinz Center report. 

Data program: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), 
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Uncertain; * Funding cuts 
for extramural ecological research have affected the nature, scope, and 
timing of EMAP research and required EMAP managers to adjust the 
program's research strategy and devise new ways of accomplishing its 
research objectives. The loss of this funding may result in extending 
the completion dates of program components or scaling back the size of 
research efforts and the extent of data produced; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
According to agency officials, ongoing and projected EMAP research, 
data collection, and data analysis efforts will yield data for the 
projected 2007 Heinz Center report similar in quality and 
comprehensiveness to that used by the Heinz Center in its 2002 report. 

Data program: Air Quality System (AQS), Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * According to agency 
officials, planned improvements to AQS will make data reporting more 
timely and will optimize the Photochemical Air Monitoring Stations 
(PAMS) used to measure chemical precursors for ground-level ozone; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency and OAQPS officials predict that AQS 
data of the type used in the 2002 Heinz Center report will be available 
in improved form for the center's 2007 report. 

Data program: Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS), Moderate 
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and Advanced Very High 
Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) measurements, National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * Officials believe 
that there are no changes in program funding or priorities that would 
preclude generating data in coming years that are comparable with data 
produced in the past. Sea- surface temperature data are expected to be 
superior as a result of merging microwave and infrared sensors; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
According to agency officials, data used in the 2002 Heinz Center 
report will be available in improved form for use in the center's 
planned 2007 report. 

Data program: National Streamflow Information Program and National 
Water Information System (NWIS), Water Resources Discipline, USGS, 
Interior; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Uncertain; * According to 
agency officials, the USGS-operated streamflow information program and 
NWIS will continue to collect and analyze streamflow and other key 
water-related data but at slightly reduced levels due to budget 
declines since fiscal year 2001. Heavy reliance on streamgages funded 
by cooperators and partners rather than USGS makes the network 
inherently unstable; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * WRD 
officials said data used to support the 2002 Heinz Center report will 
be available at comparable levels of quality and comprehensiveness for 
the center's planned 2007 report. 

Data program: Surveillance and Reporting of Waterborne Disease 
Outbreaks (WBDO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
Department of Health and Human Services; 
Continuity of program data in future years: Yes; * Officials predict 
that system enhancements should improve collection, analysis, and 
reporting of WBDO information; 
Data availability for the planned 2007 Heinz Center report: Yes; * 
Agency officials expect that data used to support the Heinz Center's 
2002 ecological indicators will be available at similar or superior 
levels of quality and comprehensiveness for use in the center's 
expected 2007 report. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of table]

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and 
the Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. The agencies generally agreed 
with the information in the report, and in some cases provided 
additional information regarding the availability and quality of the 
data that will be available for the planned 2007 Heinz Center's report. 
We incorporated such information and the agencies' technical comments, 
as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 14 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Health and Human Services, and the Interior; the 
Administrators of EPA and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; and other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report or need 
additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or 
[Hyperlink, stephensonj@gao.gov]. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are included in appendix XXIV. 

Signed by: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

The overall objective of this review was to examine the likelihood that 
various data programs relied on to generate ecological indicators 
identified in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems--a report issued in 
2002 by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the 
Environment--will continue to provide comparable data. Specifically, 
for each data program under review you asked us to determine whether 
the federal agency responsible for the program anticipates that changes 
related to funding, shifting priorities, or other factors will affect 
the ability of the program to continue to generate data comparable to 
data from past years. 

Scope: 

We gathered information on 20 federal data programs housed within the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Interior, and Health and 
Human Services as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We limited our scope to 
include only those federal data programs providing information used for 
58 of the 103 ecological indicators in the Heinz Center report. These 
58 indicators were identified in the Heinz Center report as being 
supported by data with sufficiently high quality, with adequate 
geographic coverage on a nationwide scale, and from established 
monitoring programs offering a reasonable prospect for future data 
availability. 

Design and Methodology: 

For each of the 20 data programs we reviewed, we sent a data collection 
instrument that contained basic questions for each agency to answer. 
These questions covered budget issues, data-quality issues, and 
expected changes to the respective programs and data collection 
efforts, among other things. We pretested a basic set of questions with 
officials from two agency data programs, and then revised these 
questions before sending them to officials from the other 18 data 
programs. In addition, we added, on a case-by-case basis, questions 
that were unique for each agency and its respective data programs. The 
agencies had from November 2004 to May 2005 to review and respond to 
the questions. Once we received and reviewed the program responses, we 
made follow-up contacts to clarify remaining issues and to ensure we 
completely understood the agency responses. All of the agencies 
responded to our questions. We did not independently corroborate the 
responses from the agencies with regard to nonbudget questions. We 
determined that agency responses to our questions met our criteria for 
budget-data reliability. These criteria included independent 
verification or audits of financial reports, and data corroborated by 
inspector-general reports or financial statements. Because agency 
expenditures associated with data collection, archiving, and 
dissemination are at times embedded within other agency programs or 
functions and are not explicit line items in budget requests or 
determinations, some of the funding totals we obtained represent the 
agencies' best estimates. We conducted our work from July 2004 through 
August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

We compiled a summary table of agency responses to identify possible 
changes in data availability and continuity when compared with past 
years. We assigned a "yes" to responses if agency officials indicated 
that data were expected to be available at similar or improved levels 
when compared with previous years. We assigned a "no" to responses if 
agency officials indicated that data were decreasing in availability. 
We assigned an "uncertain" if agency officials indicated that some 
aspect of the data being generated from the program was compromised or 
expected to be compromised in other ways. Similarly, with respect to 
data availability between the 2002 and the planned 2007 Heinz Center 
reports, we presented the agencies' assessments with respect to the 
expectation the data will be available at the same quality and 
comprehensiveness for the 2007 update. In all cases, our determinations 
were based on a review of written and oral testimony provided by agency 
officials. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Conservation Reserve Program, Farm Service Agency, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's (USDA) largest and most ambitious conservation effort. 
Administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA), CRP was established 
by the Food Security Act of 1985[Footnote 1] and currently operates in 
all 50 states and Puerto Rico. CRP encourages and assists farm owners 
and operators to conserve and improve soil, water, air, and wildlife 
resources by withdrawing environmentally sensitive cropland and 
pastureland from agricultural production and keeping them under long- 
term vegetative cover. Program participants enroll eligible acreage for 
at least 10 years, and for up to 15 years by arrangement, during which 
they agree to adopt a variety of approved conservation practices (CP), 
specific actions such as installing structures, planting vegetation, or 
implementing management techniques recognized by USDA as protecting, 
conserving, and enhancing natural resources such as soil, water, air, 
plants, and wildlife.[Footnote 2]

In return for implementing these conservation practices, program 
participants receive annual rental payments that average about $48 an 
acre (payments vary with prevailing local rental rates). Participants 
receive cost-share payments for up to half the cost of implementing 
approved conservation practices such as planting grasses and trees, 
installing windbreaks, and preserving wildlife flora. Participants also 
receive technical assistance from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS), which provides technical land-eligibility 
determinations and advice on conservation planning and implementation 
techniques. The U.S. Forest Service provides technical advice on tree 
selection and planting.[Footnote 3]

Farm owners and operators can enroll their land in CRP in two ways, 
through general or continuous sign-up.[Footnote 4] General sign-up 
occurs for a few weeks every year or so. During this period, program 
staff accepts enrollment applications and evaluates them using an 
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) that weighs six factors: (1) 
wildlife habitat benefits; (2) water-quality benefits from reduced 
erosion, runoff, and leaching; (3) on-farm benefits of reduced soil 
erosion; (4) enduring environmental benefits; (5) air-quality benefits 
from reduced wind erosion; and (6) cost. During the most recent general 
sign-up, in 2004, more than 26,000 applications (or "offers") totaling 
1.7 million acres were received. Over 19,700 offers were accepted for 
an enrollment of about 1.2 million acres. About 32 million acres of 
CRP's enrolled acreage have been brought into the program through 
general sign-up. 

Continuous sign-up, in contrast to general sign-up, is available at any 
time of year for owners who agree to adopt certain high-priority 
conservation practices. These practices include installation of filter 
strips, riparian buffers, grass waterways, shelterbelts, field 
windbreaks, living snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation, shallow 
water areas for wildlife, and wetland restoration. Under continuous 
sign-up, there is no weighting of applications, and farmers and farm 
operators do not compete for acceptance into the program. Continuous 
sign-up enrollees may also receive added up-front and annual financial 
incentives for participation. 

Incentive payments to encourage practices supported by continuous sign-
up include $100 to $150 an acre for selected practices and cost-share 
payments up to 50 percent for implementing conservation practices 
(applies to all CRP, general and continuous). Additional practice 
incentive payments of up to 40 percent are allowed for selected 
continuous signup practices. 

As of March 2005, general CRP sign-up had enrolled 31.8 million acres 
and continuous sign-up nearly 3 million acres, for a total of 
approximately 34.8 million acres. The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 extended CRP enrollment authority through 2007 
and increased the program's maximum acreage from 36.4 million to 39.2 
million.[Footnote 5] For fiscal years 1986 through 2005, total CRP 
spending has amounted to $30.5 billion. Rental payments have totaled 
$27.4 billion, cost-share payments $1.9 billion, incentive payments 
$478 million, and technical assistance outlays $682 million. Nine- 
tenths of the technical assistance outlays have gone to the NRCS and 
1/10th to the Forest Service. Table 2 shows CRP's enrollment and outlay 
activity for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 (as of March 2005). 

Table 2: Conservation Reserve Program Enrollment and Outlays: 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Millions of acres: Cumulative enrollment[A]: 31.4; 
Dollars (in millions): Rental payments[B]: 1,333; 
Dollars (in millions): Cost-share payment[C]: 133; 
Dollars (in millions): Incentive payments[D]: 10; 
Dollars (in millions): Technical assistance outlays[E]: 35; 
Dollars (in millions): Total outlays: 1,511. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Millions of acres: Cumulative enrollment[A]: 33.6; 
Dollars (in millions): Rental payments[B]: 1,397; 
Dollars (in millions): Cost-share payment[C]: 150; 
Dollars (in millions): Incentive payments[D]: 78; 
Dollars (in millions): Technical assistance outlays[E]: 32; 
Dollars (in millions): Total outlays: 1,657. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Millions of acres: Cumulative enrollment[A]: 33.9; 
Dollars (in millions): Rental payments[B]: 1,527; 
Dollars (in millions): Cost-share payment[C]: 143; 
Dollars (in millions): Incentive payments[D]: 115; 
Dollars (in millions): Technical assistance outlays[E]: 20; 
Dollars (in millions): Total outlays: 1,805. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Millions of acres: Cumulative enrollment[A]: 34.1; 
Dollars (in millions): Rental payments[B]: 1,580; 
Dollars (in millions): Cost-share payment[C]: 101; 
Dollars (in millions): Incentive payments[D]: 104; 
Dollars (in millions): Technical assistance outlays[E]: 55; 
Dollars (in millions): Total outlays: 1,840. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Millions of acres: Cumulative enrollment[A]: 34.7; 
Dollars (in millions): Rental payments[B]: 1,581; 
Dollars (in millions): Cost-share payment[C]: 120; 
Dollars (in millions): Incentive payments[D]: 85; 
Dollars (in millions): Technical assistance outlays[E]: 60 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Total outlays: 1,846 (estimated)

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Millions of acres: Cumulative enrollment[A]: 35.2 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Rental payments[B]: 1,660 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Cost-share payment[C]: 102 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Incentive payments[D]: 86 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Technical assistance outlays[E]: 90 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Total outlays: 1,938 (estimated)

Total; 
Dollars (in millions): Rental payments[B]: 9,078 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Cost-share payment[C]: 749 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Incentive payments[D]: 478 (estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Technical assistance outlays[E]: 292 
(estimated); 
Dollars (in millions): Total outlays: 10,597 (estimated). 

Source: USDA. 

[A] Acres under contract at end of fiscal year. 

[B] Rental payments in a fiscal year apply to acres under contract in 
the previous fiscal year. Includes miscellaneous adjustments and 
adjustments for haying/grazing usage. 

[C] Cost-share payments are made after cover establishment work is 
done. For contracts beginning in a given year, payments can occur over 
several years. 

[D] Signing and Practice Incentive payments for continuous sign-up 
enrollment. 

[E] Technical assistance outlays are generally paid to NRCS and the 
Forest Service in the year sign-ups occur. 

[End of table]

For both general and continuous sign-up, applicants must appear at one 
of FSA's 2,351 offices (most are colocated with USDA service centers or 
county offices) and formally enter into a CRP contract. The CRP 
contract is between the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and the 
program participant, and payments are disbursed by the CCC.[Footnote 6] 
The contract requires information on the participant (e.g., name, 
address, Social Security number, and phone number) and information on 
the conservation practices agreed to, the acreage enrolled, and the 
acreage committed to each practice. 

Participants agree to apply specific conservation practices on their 
land, to file forms used by the CCC to determine limits on payments, 
and to perform certain management work such as breaking up the soil or 
burning specified cover. For its part, the CCC agrees to calculate and 
make cost-share payments, rental payments, and interest payments for 
cost-share disbursals not made on time. Both parties agree to a 
conservation plan that describes the vegetative or water cover to be 
established, trees to be planted, completion dates, and estimated 
environmental benefits. Agency representatives make occasional spot 
checks of the land entered into CRP but routinely rely on data provided 
by participants. 

As contracts are written at each local USDA office, FSA creates a data 
file that includes all contract-related information, including 
information on the conservation practices agreed to, the acreage 
enrolled, and the rental and cost-share estimates. At the end of each 
workday, computer programs in the service centers record and store 
these new contract details, and once a week contract data are 
transmitted electronically to a USDA national computer processing 
center in Kansas City, Missouri. Held in this central file are all of 
the conservation practice, acreage, and payment details for 690,000 
active CRP contracts. These records are integral to contract oversight 
and management and serve an essentially administrative purpose. At the 
same time, however, they contain valuable information for tracking 
environmental trends. This is especially true because the data are 
updated weekly and summarized monthly down to the state level. 
Conservation practices described in the records include, for example, 
plantings of new native grasses, development of wildlife food plots, 
and plantings of salinity-reducing vegetation (see table below). CRP 
payments to participants are made by the CCC. 

In table 3, conservation practices are reported as of March 2005 for 
general and continuous sign-up. Distinctions are made for acreage 
enrolled by the CRP and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
(CREP)--both administered by the FSA. CREP was initiated after 
enactment of the 1996 Farm Bill as a federal-state conservation 
partnership targeting designated areas--such as the Chesapeake Bay and 
the Pacific Northwest--to address specific state and nationally 
significant agriculture-related environmental problems. Of foremost 
concern to CREP are issues relating to water supplies and areas around 
wells, wildlife species endangered by loss of critical habitat, soil 
erosion, and reduced habitat for fish such as salmon. 

CREP offers additional financial incentives, such as sign-up bonuses 
beyond those available under CRP, to encourage farmers and ranchers to 
enroll in 10-to 15-year contracts to retire land from production. Like 
CRP, CREP is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation, but 
unlike CRP, CREP receives part of the program's costs from the federal 
government and part from state or tribal governments. Enrollment in 
CREP is on a continuous basis, without the competition involved in 
CRP's general sign-up. CREP supports particular conservation 
initiatives such as installing filter strips and forested buffers to 
protect streams, lakes, and rivers from sedimentation and agricultural 
runoff. CREP also encourages landowners to develop and restore wetlands 
by planting appropriate ground cover. This year, federal-state CREP 
agreements are in effect in 25 states. 

Table 3: Conservation Practices by Sign-Up Type Installed on CRP/CREP 
Acreage as of March 2005: 

Acres. 

Conservation practice: CP1 New introduced grasses and legumes; 
General: CRP sign-up: 3,269,470; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 108,669; 
Continuous: Non- CREP sign-up: 72,090; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 3,450,229. 

Conservation practice: CP2 New native grasses; 
General: CRP sign-up: 6,448,277; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 62,391; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 19,393; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 6,530,061. 

Conservation practice: CP3 New softwood trees (not longleaf); 
General: CRP sign-up: 427,355; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 372; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 320; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 428,046. 

Conservation practice: CP3A New longleaf pines; 
General: CRP sign-up: 185,281; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 185,281. 

Conservation practice: CP3A New hardwood trees; 
General: CRP sign-up: 526,583; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 8,270; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 877; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 535,729. 

Conservation practice: CP4 Permanent wildlife habitat; 
General: CRP sign-up: 2,318,006; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 38,506; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 3,066; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 2,359,578. 

Conservation practice: CP5 Field windbreaks; 
General: CRP sign-up: 833; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 2,714; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 70,383; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 73,930. 

Conservation practice: CP6 Diversion; 
General: CRP sign-up: 834; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 834. 

Conservation practice: CP7 Erosion control structures; 
General: CRP sign-up: 653; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 1; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 1; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 655. 

Conservation practice: CP8 Grass waterways; 
General: CRP sign-up: 1,009; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 581; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 107,289; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 108,880. 

Conservation practice: CP9 Shallow water areas for wildlife; 
General: CRP sign-up: 1,943; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 2,284; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 46,046; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 50,274. 

Conservation practice: CP10 Existing grasses and legumes; 
General: CRP sign-up: 15,147,916; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 11,785; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 37,587; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 15,197,289. 

Conservation practice: CP11 Existing trees; 
General: CRP sign-up: 1,093,763; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 357; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 1,094,120. 

Conservation practice: CP12 Wildlife food plots; 
General: CRP sign-up: 75,407; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 1,733; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 77,141. 

Conservation practice: CP13 vegetative filter strips; 
General: CRP sign-up: 29,467; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 29,467. 

Conservation practice: CP15 Contour grass strips; 
General: CRP sign-up: 36; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 115; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 78,062; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 78,213. 

Conservation practice: CP16 Shelterbelts; 
General: CRP sign-up: 364; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 384; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 28,657; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 29,406. 

Conservation practice: CP17 Living snow fences; 
General: CRP sign-up: 2; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 4,128; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 4,130. 

Conservation practice: CP18 Salinity reducing vegetation; 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 294,766; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 294,766. 

Conservation practice: CP19 Alley cropping; 
General: CRP sign-up: 52; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 52. 

Conservation practice: CP20 Alternative perennials; 
General: CRP sign-up: 23; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 23. 

Conservation practice: CP21 Filter strips (grass); 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 127,711; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 841,236; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 968,947. 

Conservation practice: CP22 Riparian buffers; 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 146,817; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 561,557; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 708,374. 

Conservation practice: CP23 Wetland restoration; 
General: CRP sign-up: 1,568,820; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 91,683; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 1,660,502. 

Conservation practice: CP23 Wetland restoration (floodplain); 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 67,118; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 67,118. 

Conservation practice: CP23A Wetland restoration (nonfloodplain); 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 4,512; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 4,512. 

Conservation practice: CP24 Cross wind trap Strips; 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 38; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 645; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 683. 

Conservation practice: CP25 Rare and declining habitat; 
General: CRP sign-up: 655,671; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 38,279; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 693,950. 

Conservation practice: CP26 Sediment retention; 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 6; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 6. 

Conservation practice: CP27 Farmable wetland pilot (wetland); 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 36,641; 
Total: 36,641. 

Conservation practice: CP28 Farmable wetland pilot (upland); 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 89,657; 
Total: 89,657. 

Conservation practice: CP29 Wildlife habitat buffer (marginal pasture); 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 1,889; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 14,464; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 16,353. 

Conservation practice: CP30 Wetland buffer (marginal pasture); 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 219; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 10,906; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 11,125. 

Conservation practice: CP31 Bottomland hardwood; 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 58; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 9,645; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 9,703. 

Conservation practice: CP33 Upland bird habitat buffers; 
General: CRP sign-up: 0; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 26; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 25,623; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 25,649. 

Conservation practice: Unspecified; 
General: CRP sign-up: -21; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 668; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 130; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 0; 
Total: 678. 

Total; 
General: CRP sign-up: 31,751,747; 
Continuous: CREP sign-up: 645,557; 
Continuous: Non-CREP sign-up: 2,298,502; 
Continuous: Farmable wetland: 126,299; 
Total: 34,822,105. 

Source: USDA. 

Note: Data sources used for the 2002 Heinz Center report indicator land 
use (grasslands and shrublands) are shown in bold-faced type. 

[End of table]

Six of the approved CRP conservation practices are by far the most 
widely used. Of the 34,822,105 acres enrolled in the program as of 
March 2005, nearly half are contracts to maintain existing grasses and 
legumes. New plantings of grasses and legumes compose another third of 
the acreage. Other widely used conservation practices include creating 
permanent wildlife habitat, preserving existing trees, creating filter 
strips using grass to secure the soil, and restoring wetlands. 
Together, these six practices account for 28,631,268 (82 percent) of 
the total acres enrolled in CRP. 

As indicated in table 3, CRP data were used to support the ecological 
indicator land use (grasslands and shrublands) in the 2002 Heinz Center 
report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems.[Footnote 7] For its 
calculations, the Heinz Center reported on acreage for 14 of the 35 CRP-
approved conservation practices: introduction of new grasses and 
legumes, new native grasses, permanent wildlife habitat, grass 
waterways, existing grasses and legumes, wildlife food plots, 
vegetative filter strips, contour grass strips, living snow fences, 
salinity reducing vegetation, alternative perennials, filter strips 
(grass), cross wind traps strips, and rare and declining habitat. 

Figure 1: Conservation Reserve Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2000- 
2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained gross 
domestic product (GDP) price index based on information from the U.S. 
Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis and the 
Congressional Budget Office. 

[End of figure] 

Summary: 

According to agency officials, CRP budgets have more than kept pace 
with inflation since fiscal year 2000, an advantage expected to 
continue with the proposed fiscal year 2006 budget. Data collection and 
analysis of the conservation practices and acreages are not likely to 
entail additional expenses. In fiscal year 2005, CRP was funded at 
$1,937,211,000. For fiscal year 2006, the President has requested 
$2,020,503,000 for the program. In view of its recent funding history 
and long-range financial commitments (10-to 15-year contracts), program 
officials indicated that CRP is well-positioned to continue to provide 
data similar in quality and comprehensiveness to that used by the Heinz 
Center in its 2002 report, including data for use in the center's 
projected 2007 report. 

According to agency officials, the data CRP collects to administer its 
contracts are intrinsic to the program and are not affected by policies 
or priorities. For example, unless CRP discontinues support for a 
particular conservation practice, its application (e.g., acreage and 
locale) can be expected to appear in the weekly, monthly, and annual 
tabulations that CRP prepares. 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

USDA officials provided the following information on funding levels and 
program priorities relative to CRP's ability to continue providing 
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years: 

* The CRP data provided to the Heinz Center will continue to be 
available in the future, even if funding for CRP acreage enrollment 
were to be reduced at some point. This data comes from active CRP 
contracts overseen and managed by FSA's National CRP Contract 
Administration system (the National CRP Contract File), which, among 
other things, provides monthly and annual tabulations of acreage by 
conservation practice installed. Budget reductions to the Conservation 
Reserve Program would have no direct effect on this data collection and 
reporting process.[Footnote 8]

* CRP data may potentially contribute additional ecological and 
environmental information in the future to support Heinz Center 
indicators. For example, CRP data could be used in support of the Heinz 
Center ecological indicators riparian condition and carbon storage, 
once these indicators are better defined by the center's staff and 
advisers. Riparian condition describes streamside areas using an index 
that combines key factors such as water flows, streambed physical 
condition, riparian vegetation's composition and structure, and use by 
various species. Carbon storage describes how much carbon--a major 
component of all organisms--is stored in forests. 

Glossary of Conservation Reserve Program Terms: 

Conservation Practices: 

CP1 New permanent introduced grasses and legumes: a vegetative cover of 
introduced grasses and legumes on eligible cropland that will enhance 
environmental benefits. 

CP2 New permanent native grasses: a vegetative cover of native grasses 
on eligible cropland that will enhance environmental benefits. 

CP3 New softwood trees (not longleaf): a stand of trees in a timber 
planting that will provide multipurpose forest benefits. 

CP3A New hardwood trees: a stand of predominantly hardwood trees in a 
timber planting that will provide multipurpose forest benefits, 
includes Longleaf Pine and Atlantic White Cedar trees. 

CP4 Permanent wildlife habitat: a permanent wildlife habitat cover to 
enhance environmental benefits for the wildlife habitat of the 
designated or surrounding areas. 

CP5 Field windbreaks: a windbreak established to reduce cropland 
erosion below soil loss tolerance and to enhance the wildlife habitat 
on the designated area. 

CP6 Diversions: structures designed to divert water away from farmland 
and farm buildings, and from agricultural waste systems, in order to 
reduce runoff damage, control erosion, and protect terrace systems from 
degrading. 

CP7 Erosion control structures: structures such as dikes on river and 
stream banks to prevent loss or damage to land uses and protect 
adjacent facilities. 

CP8 Grass waterways: strips of grass planted where water tends to move 
across a field, planted to prevent gully erosion. 

CP9 Shallow water areas for wildlife: areas of shallow water (average 
depth 6 to 18 inches) near or within crop fields that are protected by 
permanent trees, shrubs, and grasses. 

CP12 Wildlife food plots: plantings of foods for wildlife in plots up 
to 5 acres in size. 

CP15 Contour grass strips: narrow bands of perennial vegetation 
established across the slope of a crop field and alternated down the 
slope with wider strips of crops. Properly designed and maintained, 
they can reduce soil erosion, minimize transport of sediment and other 
waterborne contaminants, and provide wildlife habitat. 

CP16 Shelterbelts: rows of trees, shrubs, or other plants used to 
reduce wind erosion, protect young crops, and control blowing snow. 
They also provide excellent protection from the elements for wildlife, 
livestock, houses, and farm buildings. 

CP17 Living snow fences: similar in design to field windbreaks and 
shelterbelts, living snow fences serve the added function of being used 
to help manage snow deposits to protect buildings, roads, and other 
property. They can be designed and placed to help protect nearby areas 
for livestock, provide wildlife cover, and collect snow to enhance soil 
moisture and nearby water supplies. 

CP18 Salinity seducing vegetation: plantings of trees or shrubs that 
either install salt-tolerant vegetative cover within a saline seep area 
or establish permanent vegetative cover in areas causing saline seeps. 

CP21 Filter strips (grass): strips of grass planted between crops that 
are used to trap sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, and other 
pollutants from surface runoff and subsurface flow before they reach 
streams and creeks. The minimum width is 30 feet, the maximum 120 feet. 

CP22 Riparian buffers: trees, shrubs, and grasses planted along stream 
banks to catch pollutants in both surface runoff and groundwater before 
those pollutants reach the stream. Buffers also trap nutrients and 
sediment. Native trees and grasses are planted for this practice. The 
minimum width is 35 feet, the maximum 180 feet. 

CP23 Wetland restoration: restores wetlands for return to agricultural 
use by increasing sediment trapping, reducing flood flows, constructing 
barriers such as dams or levees, and introducing grasses and legumes to 
stabilize the soil. 

CP24 Cross wind trap strips: one or more strips of permanent, 
vegetative, wind-resistant cover planted perpendicular to the 
prevailing wind to reduce erosion and trap wind-borne sediments and 
contaminants. 

CP29 Wildlife habitat buffer (marginal pastureland): grass, shrub, and 
forb (nongrass herb) cover planted to provide wildlife protection and 
to remove nutrients, sediment, organic matter, pesticides, and other 
pollutants from surface runoff and subsurface flow. 

CP30 Wetland buffer (marginal pastureland): planting of vegetative 
cover adjacent or parallel to a stream (with perennial or seasonal 
flow) to remove nutrients, sediment, organic matter, pesticides, and 
other pollutants before they reach the stream. 

CP31 Bottomland timber establishment on wetlands: establishing stands 
of trees to control erosion, reduce water and air pollution, promote 
carbon sequestration, and extend wildlife habitat. 

CP32 Expired CRP hardwood tree planting on marginal pastureland: land 
established to trees under CP1 that expired on or before September 30, 
2001, and reoffered to grow hardwood trees. 

CP33 Habitual buffers for upland birds: allows for enrollment of field 
borders to provide valuable habitat for quail and other upland birds in 
cropland areas. 

[End of section]

Appendix III: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture: 

Background: 

The Economic Research Service (ERS), an agency of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA), is the department's main source of economic 
information and research on agriculture and related topics. Officially 
established in 1961, ERS has its origins in the 1905 formation of the 
Office of Farm Management, which was set up to examine economic aspects 
of farming within USDA's Bureau of Plant Industry.[Footnote 9] For 
nearly a century, ERS and its predecessor agencies have supported USDA 
programs with economic data, research, and analysis needed for sound 
decision making and policy formulation. ERS continues to inform and 
enhance public and private decision making on economic and policy 
issues related to agriculture and rural development--the central 
traditional concerns of USDA economic research activity. At the same 
time, however, ERS's mission has broadened to reflect the changed 
environment of the nation's food and agricultural system and now 
includes research on such diverse topics as food safety and nutrition, 
natural resources, conservation, rural development, and the 
environment.[Footnote 10]

ERS, along with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and 
the Agricultural Research Service, is located within USDA's Research, 
Education and Economics Mission Area. The Administrator of ERS reports 
directly to the USDA Undersecretary for Research, Education and 
Economics. ERS carries out its work under a single USDA appropriations 
line item--economic analysis and research. Between fiscal years 2000 
and 2005, ERS funding has consistently amounted to less than 0.4 
percent of the total USDA discretionary budget, which was $21.2 billion 
in fiscal year 2005. 

ERS's work is structured among three program divisions and one support 
division: the Food and Rural Economics Division, the Market and Trade 
Economics Division, the Resource Economics Division, and the 
Information Services Division. The ERS program encompasses research, 
analyses of food and commodity markets, policy studies, and development 
of economic and statistical indicators.[Footnote 11] ERS employs 
approximately 450 full-time staff, all in Washington, D.C. For primary 
data, which it does not collect, ERS relies on other agencies, 
particularly within USDA. Developing and analyzing secondary data, on 
the other hand, are an essential part of ERS's short-term and long-term 
research efforts. 

The Resource Economics Division is the ERS division that produces all 
data used to support indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The 
State of the Nation's Ecosystems.[Footnote 12] This division conducts 
research in three primary areas: (1) the interactions among natural 
resources, environmental quality, and agricultural production and 
consumption; (2) the economics of agricultural research and development 
and technological change; and (3) the structure and financial 
performance of the agricultural sector. Specific research topics within 
the division's purview include conservation and environmental programs, 
technology and sustainability, production practices and the 
environment, water use and management, farm finance, and farm-sector 
economic performance. The Resources Economic Division has 100 full-time 
staff, about 75 of whom are economists working in such specialty areas 
as industrial organization, international economics, natural 
resource/environmental economics, production economics/farm management, 
regional economics, and research and development/technological change. 

One key activity carried out by the Resource Economics Division is the 
estimation of agricultural cash receipts, which are calculated from 
sales of more than 25 agricultural commodities.[Footnote 13] Cash 
receipts include data from about 150 crop and livestock communities 
collected by NASS and the Commodity Credit Corporation. ERS analyzes 
and publishes these data annually under the title "Farm Income 
Forecasts." ERS will continue to generate these data in future years. 
Moreover, these data go directly into the Department of Commerce's 
National Income and Product Accounts as the farm-income component and 
into the Bureau of Economic Analysis's regional and county estimates of 
personal income, which are used to distribute Federal Revenue Sharing 
Funds.[Footnote 14]

The Heinz Center also employed data from the Resource Economics 
Division's Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (AREI) 
compilations, specifically for various cropland uses, to support its 
indicator total cropland. Also used by the Heinz Center were the AREI 
land use indicator and NASS's Crop Production Annual Summary.[Footnote 
15] ERS officials said they plan to continue publishing the AREI 
indicators and will update the entire series with new information later 
this year. The Heinz Center used ERS cropland categories when 
developing its indicators for total cropland and ecosystem extent. 

Summary: 

ERS officials indicated that funding for the agency for fiscal year 
2005 and funding proposed in the President's budget for fiscal year 
2006 (as shown in fig. 2) are expected to result in the continuation of 
research activities and data analysis such that ERS data will be of 
similar or superior quality and comprehensiveness compared with that 
used to support ecological indicators in the 2002 Heinz Center 
report.[Footnote 16] Moreover, they anticipate no budget-driven changes 
to the activities supporting these indicators. 

Figure 2: Economic Research Service Budget for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 
and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP 
price index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's 
Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office. 

[End of figure] 

Table 4 reflects funding for staff time devoted to the key ERS data 
analysis activities that were cited as sources of data to support Heinz 
Center indicators in the Center's 2002 report: 

Table 4: Cost of Selected ERS Data Analysis Activities for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005: 

Dollars in thousands. 

Agricultural productivity measures; 
2000: $23; 
2001: $24; 
2002: $25; 
2003: $26; 
2004: $27; 
2005: $28. 

Land use data; 
2000: $17; 
2001: $17; 
2002: $18; 
2003: $19; 
2004: $20; 
2005: $20. 

Cash receipts; 
2000: $164; 
2001: $171; 
2002: $179; 
2003: $186; 
2004: $195; 
2005: $202. 

Totals; 
2000: $204; 
2001: $212; 
2002: $222; 
2003: $231; 
2004: $242; 
2005: $250. 

Source: USDA. 

[End of table]

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

ERS officials provided the following information on funding levels and 
program priorities relative to ERS's ability to continue providing 
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years: 

* Program priorities in the current ERS strategic plan, including 
increasing the "quality and sustainability of the nation's agricultural 
resources" by evaluating conservation policies on working and retired 
farmlands and analyzing the dynamics of land use change, should enhance 
ERS's ability to produce useful data for the planned 2007 edition of 
the Heinz Center report. 

* Overall ERS funding (adjusted for inflation) has increased by less 
than 1 percent from fiscal year 2000 through 2005, while funding for 
ERS data programs increased by 12 percent in the same period. ERS staff 
time devoted to the data activities cited by the Heinz Center as 
sources of support for its indicators increased by 2 percent from 
fiscal year 2000 through 2005. 

* Data programs are essential to the mission of ERS, an applied 
economic research organization. The agency requires data to provide 
decision makers with accurate, timely, and scientifically rigorous 
analysis of issues facing the agricultural sector, rural America, and 
consumers. Thus, the agency has no plans to reduce its data activities, 
including those cited as data sources by the Heinz Center. Should ERS's 
budget be cut in the future, the agency would "make every effort to 
protect the scope, extent, and quality of [its] data programs." Such 
efforts would be undertaken in consultation and collaboration with NASS 
and other USDA agencies that are responsible for collecting the primary 
data that ERS uses. As a last resort, funding reductions could force 
changes in ERS data collection procedures by, for example, 
necessitating smaller sample sizes or less frequent sampling. ERS would 
adopt such changes before actually eliminating any data program. 

* ERS could potentially have provided data to support other indicators 
used in the 2002 Heinz Center report. For example, ERS has a research 
program on rural economics and maintains indicators on urban/rural 
differences, definitions of rurality, rural (nonmetropolitan) 
conditions and trends, etc. These data could be relevant to the issues 
discussed in the Heinz Center's report chapter on farmlands. The data 
are readily available, and ERS plans to continue reporting on a range 
of rural (nonmetropolitan) conditions in the future. 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, U.S. Forest 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

For nearly 80 years, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program 
has provided state and national lawmakers, environmental organizations, 
private industry, research institutions, and the media with information 
regarding resource management and protection, wildlife habitat 
conditions, the sustainability of current ecosystem management 
practices, forest health, and the effects of global change. FIA 
provides periodic data on the area and location of forests; the 
structure and composition of forests in terms of species, sizes, and 
volume; tree growth rates, mortality, and removals; patterns of forest 
ownership; and harvest efficiency and wood product flows. 

Summary: 

According to FIA officials, the funding for fiscal year 2005 will have 
only a minimal effect on the program's ability to generate data of a 
quality and comprehensiveness similar to data generated in previous 
years. Furthermore, the fiscal year 2005 funding and the estimated 
funding for fiscal year 2006 would enable the agency to fulfill its 
overall program objectives and incorporate updated information into its 
annual forest inventory. However, for six states the funding levels 
will provide for only remote sensing and not actual data from on-the- 
ground observations (field data), which are needed to facilitate the 
validation of the remote-sensing estimates. The existing field data for 
the six states are several years old. If that information is not 
updated with new measurements in the next few years, FIA officials 
recognize that for those states, the old data will offer a weaker basis 
for estimating ecological indicators, planning forest management 
activities, and making estimates of the health, productivity, and 
sustainability of the forests. 

Figure 3: Forest Inventory and Analysis Program Budget for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP 
price index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's 
Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office. 

[End of figure] 

Agency officials told us that FIA has no planned program priorities 
that will affect its ability to generate data in the coming years that 
are comparable to data generated in previous years. Furthermore, they 
told us they believe that FIA data will be available in an improved 
form for the expected 2007 update of the Heinz Center's The State of 
the Nation's Ecosystems report. 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

USFS officials provided the following information on funding levels and 
program priorities relative to the FIA program's ability to continue 
providing environmental and ecological data comparable with past years: 

* When the next Heinz Center report is issued in 2007, the FIA program 
will be able to provide some of the most complete data in its history 
on a much timelier basis. Newly designed information systems that use 
new software will allow the integration of data and map-based 
information. To allow for meaningful trend analysis, historical data 
will be loaded into these systems. In the case of the 2002 Heinz Center 
report, the FIA data used were 80 percent "old" data (from older, 
periodic inventory systems that were done cyclically, state by state) 
and 20 percent "new" data. By the time the Heinz Center is ready to 
prepare its next report, these proportions will be reversed: Fresh data 
will be obtained in every state each year, so the Heinz Center data 
could be updated on an annual basis with "new" data.[Footnote 17]

* The fiscal year 2005 funding and the proposed fiscal year 2006 
funding could affect the FIA program's data provided in support of the 
Heinz Center indicators in that the data would be older for six states 
(Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and interior 
Alaska) that include about 23 percent of the nation's forests. FIA 
program officials plan to continue gathering remote-sensing estimates 
for these regions, but without updated field data, the remote-sensing 
estimates are difficult to validate. Such data, some of which were 
collected 10 years ago, are distinctly less valuable for forest 
management planning and for use in supporting ecological indicators. 
For example, as estimates of forest growth get older, it becomes more 
difficult to determine allowable harvest levels and 
sustainability.[Footnote 18]

* Delay in transitioning to an annualized inventory system is expected 
to have minimal effect on the ability of FIA's data users to compare 
data from the new inventory system with data generated under the old 
system (i.e., data used in the 2002 Heinz Center report). According to 
program officials, the main reason for delay in implementing a complete 
annualized inventory cycle is the significantly increased cost that 
this change represents. This is particularly the case for Alaska, which 
contains about 17 percent of the nation's forestland and has vast 
tracts of forestland that are difficult to access for field validation 
activities. A recent inventory of a portion of Alaska indicated that 
2.1 million acres of what were believed to be trees based on remote- 
sensing data were actually acres of tall shrubs (and thus not forest by 
definition). FIA officials intend to utilize sophisticated remote 
sensing technologies to determine the minimum amount of field data 
necessary for validation, thus optimizing the cost of obtaining data of 
good quality. However, as FIA develops remote-sensing technologies, 
more ground data are generally needed in the short term in order to 
develop the models that will in turn reduce the need for extensive 
ground-level data. FIA expects a "big payoff" from the short-term 
additional field validation investments in the long-run. 

* Major challenges to the FIA program in recent years have included the 
following: 

* State contributions, which are used to leverage FIA work, have not 
matched increases in federal funding for the FIA program over the past 
few years.[Footnote 19] Fluctuations in state budgets can undermine FIA 
program goals and associated data collection activities. Historically, 
states provided about 15 to 20 percent of total annual funding for the 
FIA program. But in fiscal year 2004, the percentage fell to an all- 
time low of 12 percent. 

* Assessments made at the department or agency level, which are 
generalized reductions of FIA program funds for such things as GSA 
rent, worker compensation, unemployment compensation, transit 
subsidies, and the National Finance, Visual Communication, and National 
Information Technology Centers, have risen. Such assessments rose from 
just over $1 million for fiscal year 1999 to an estimated $5.7 million 
for 2006. While FIA program funding increased by approximately $5 
million from fiscal year 2004 to 2005, about $900,000 of the increase 
went to assessments. 

* FIA officials are exploring new ways to use and deliver FIA data. 
Spatial analysis and remote-sensing technologies are being coupled with 
field-sampling verification activities and will produce improved 
spatial products, such as maps of known statistical quality that will 
be relied upon more heavily for effective and timely 
inventories.[Footnote 20] In cooperation with the Forest Health 
Monitoring Program, the National Forest System, and the Remote Sensing 
Applications Center, FIA is using these technologies to develop maps 
showing information on forest types, biomass, fuel loading, and fire 
risks. FIA is currently performing accuracy assessments and peer 
reviews of these maps. 

[End of section]

Appendix V: National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture: 

Background: 

The history of collecting data on U.S. agriculture extends back to the 
earliest days of the nation. In 1791, President Washington wrote to 
several farmers requesting information on land values, crops, yields, 
livestock prices, and taxes. It was, in effect, the nation's first 
agricultural survey. The next major step forward in agricultural data 
collection came in 1839, when the Commissioner of Patents prevailed 
upon Congress to designate $1,000 from the Patent Office Fund for 
"collecting and distributing seeds, carrying out agricultural 
investigations, and procuring agricultural statistics." Then, in 1840, 
detailed agricultural information was collected through the first 
Census of Agriculture, which provided a nationwide inventory of 
agricultural production. When the 1840 federal census information 
arrived, the Commissioner of Patents was able to combine it with other 
information to estimate production by states and territories. These 
estimates, made yearly through 1844, established the general pattern of 
annual agricultural reports that continues to this day. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was itself established by 
Congress in 1862, and its first crop report appeared in 1863. The 
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) traces its roots to 
that year, when USDA established a Division of Statistics. The creation 
of USDA's Crop Reporting Board in 1905 (now called the Agricultural 
Statistics Board) was another landmark in the development of a 
nationwide statistical service for agriculture. A USDA reorganization 
in 1961 led to the creation of the Statistical Reporting Service, known 
today as the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), of which 
the Agricultural Statistics Board is a part. The board prepares and 
releases the NASS reports. It consists of a permanent chairperson, 
secretary and other NASS staff members chosen to participate in the 
preparation of a specific report based on their detailed knowledge of a 
particular topic. 

The mission of NASS is to provide timely, accurate, and useful 
statistics in service to U.S. agriculture.[Footnote 21] NASS's 
Agricultural Statistics Program is responsible for collecting, 
processing, analyzing, and disseminating statistical information on 
agricultural production, market structures, economics, and 
environmental impacts. Each year, the Agricultural Statistics Program 
conducts hundreds of surveys and prepares reports covering virtually 
every facet of U.S. agriculture, including production and supplies of 
food and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, and farm labor and 
wages. NASS publications cover agricultural products and topics as 
diverse as production and prices of traditional agricultural crops 
(e.g., corn and wheat), specialty crops (e.g., mushrooms and flowers), 
number of live births of calves, number of hogs slaughtered, and land 
in farm use. In any given year, NASS publishes more than 400 national 
reports for 120 crop and 45 livestock items. NASS's 46 state 
statistical offices (also called field offices) publish data about many 
of the same topics for local audiences.[Footnote 22]

In addition to the many statistical activities directly related to its 
mission, NASS conducts surveys for and lends technical assistance 
expertise to other federal agencies, state governments, and private 
organizations. NASS provides support and assistance in the areas of 
questionnaire and sample design, data collection and editing, analysis 
of survey results, and training. Among its more notable projects, NASS 
conducted a farm injury survey for the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health; carried out a pilot study on Native 
American contributions to agriculture for the Intertribal Agriculture 
Council; and surveyed producers' sources of agricultural information 
for USDA's Office of Communications. Field offices have also become 
increasingly involved in performing special surveys in cooperation with 
land-grant universities and state departments of agriculture. Data have 
been collected on such diverse subjects as specialty fruits and 
vegetables, nursery products, waste management in rural communities, 
and producers' opinions of farm bill proposals. 

NASS's field offices serve all states and Puerto Rico. These offices 
publish more than 8,000 reports a year. Through these field offices, 
NASS conducts its many surveys by relying on data from state 
agriculture departments, land-grant universities, and the agricultural 
industry.[Footnote 23] The field offices are the primary NASS units to 
collect, process, evaluate, and estimate agricultural data. Each field 
office collects and summarizes data, prepares estimates, and submits 
them to the Agricultural Statistics Board in Washington, D.C. 
Production forecasts for some products are considered "speculative" 
because these products are traded on commodity markets.[Footnote 24] 
Thus, field offices send the board data and comments on these products 
via encoded computer transmissions. Preparing official crop estimates 
involves tight security until these data are publicly released 
according to a set schedule each year. 

Since 1997, NASS has had responsibility for developing, administering, 
compiling and reporting data from the quinquennial Census of 
Agriculture. In prior years, the agricultural census was conducted by 
the Commerce Department's Bureau of the Census. The transfer of 
responsibility reduced response burden on the public and made planning, 
collection, and release of agricultural census results more efficient. 
The Census of Agriculture is the most comprehensive source of 
agricultural statistics available and the only one with uniform 
agricultural data for every U.S. county.[Footnote 25] It is the only 
attempt to enumerate every farm and ranch operation in the 
country.[Footnote 26] Data are collected every 5 years on a wide array 
of topics, including corporate structure, chemicals employed in 
agriculture, energy expenditures, farm programs, irrigated land, 
machinery and equipment, land use and ownership, market value of 
products, and production expenses. Using mailings, telephone calls, and 
rare personal visits by enumerators, data are collected and then 
aggregated to protect confidentiality and proprietary information. The 
census is released in print, on CD-ROM, and on the Internet. In print, 
volume 1 of the census contains "U.S. National Level Data" and "U.S. 
State Level Data." Other volumes, 50 in total, present data for 
individual states. The Census of Agriculture was last conducted in 
2002. The next census will provide statistics for calendar year 
2007.[Footnote 27]

Congress has mandated that several federal programs use NASS data in 
their operations and when making payment calculations for program 
beneficiaries. For example, NASS data are used by other USDA programs 
in the calculation of countercyclical payments and crop 
insurance;[Footnote 28] and the Agriculture Secretary is required to 
report, using data from NASS's Census of Agriculture, the rate of 
increase or decrease by which socially disadvantaged groups participate 
in agriculture.[Footnote 29] In addition, NASS conducts annual data 
user meetings to assess the relevance of its work to government, 
business, academic, and private applications. 

In its 2002 report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, the Heinz 
Center used NASS data in support of three ecological indicators. The 
indicator for total cropland was based on the 1997 census, which used 
data from 1945 through 1997.[Footnote 30] The indicator for major crop 
yields was based on NASS historical track records, on United States 
crop production data for May 2001, and annual Agricultural Statistics 
for 2001. Finally, the indicator for production of cattle was based on 
data from NASS surveys of livestock herd size, which are conducted and 
reported in January and July of each year. Data on cattle and calves 
come from state-level reports by NASS, and data on the value of cattle 
are from NASS Agricultural Statistics for 2000. NASS Historical Track 
Records are national-level statistics that include historic estimates 
and final plantings for crops, grain stocks, and livestock. U.S. crop 
production data are tabulated annually for more than 100 
products.[Footnote 31] The Heinz Center used crop production records 
from 1950 through 1998 to prepare its major crop yields, augmented by 
NASS annual statistics for 1999 and 2000. While there are numerous 
legislative mandates for statistical data in the U.S. crop production 
reports, such as for cotton acreage, crop reports throughout the 
growing season, and miscellaneous fruits and vegetables, none 
specifically mention any of the data used in the Heinz Center report. 

Summary: 

NASS officials indicated that actual funding for fiscal year 2005 and 
projected funding for fiscal 2006 will have no adverse effect on the 
ability of NASS programs to generate data comparable in quality and 
comprehensiveness with data from previous years. The officials 
indicated, in particular, that there should be no effect on the ability 
of its programs to generate data used to support indicators in the 2002 
Heinz Center report. In important respects, NASS officials expect their 
data to improve in the future. For example, the agency plans to 
continue efforts begun in 2004 to restore and modernize its survey and 
estimation programs. In fiscal year 2006, NASS expects to achieve 
target precision levels for 83 percent of its data, a 12 percent 
improvement over 2004 levels. The long-term target is 90 percent 
precision. 

The NASS budget contains two line items: agricultural estimates and the 
Census of Agriculture. Total appropriated funds for NASS for fiscal 
years 2000 through 2005 and proposed funding for fiscal year 2006 are 
shown in figure 4. 

Figure 4: National Agricultural Statistics Service Budget for Fiscal 
Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP 
price index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's 
Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office. 

[End of figure] 

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

NASS officials provided the following information on funding levels and 
program priorities relative to NASS's ability to continue providing 
environmental and ecological data comparable with past years: 

* Funding for NASS typically fluctuates over a 5-year cycle, rising 
around the time of activities related to the conduct and analysis of 
the Census of Agriculture and falling thereafter. Because of the 
cyclical pattern of the census, $29,115,000 of the proposed fiscal year 
2006 funding total of $145,159,000 will remain available until 
obligated for the 2007 census's preparation and publication. Funding 
levels will rise in a predictable manner within the funding cycle for 
the 2007 census, peaking in fiscal year 2008 when the census 
tabulations are made.[Footnote 32] Such cyclical fluctuations will have 
no effect on NASS's ability to generate data of similar quality and 
comprehensiveness when compared with data from previous years. 

* NASS's Agricultural Estimates budget more closely parallels inflation 
as it supports routine activities that occur throughout the year. For 
example, appropriations for Agricultural Estimates were $79 million in 
fiscal year 2000, and increased yearly to $82 million (fiscal year 
2001), $84 million (fiscal year 2002), $93 million (fiscal year 2003), 
$103 million (fiscal year 2004), and $106 million (fiscal year 2005). 
The President has proposed a budget of $116,044,000 for Agricultural 
Estimates in fiscal year 2006. Using $7 million from this increase, 
NASS plans to continue efforts begun in 2004 to restore and modernize 
its survey and estimation programs. NASS has set three goals: to (1) 
restore sample sizes that have been reduced in recent years; (2) 
provide staff to manage surveys and better review and summarize data; 
and (3) meet research, training, travel, and other expenses. In fiscal 
year 2006, NASS expects to achieve target precision levels for 83 
percent of its data, a 12 percent improvement over fiscal year 2004 
levels. (The long-term target is 90 percent).[Footnote 33]

* Lacking appropriations to cover the full cost of congressionally 
mandated salary increases, NASS finds its annual operating budget 
constrained, necessitating economies elsewhere, such as less-frequent 
sampling. For example, fewer farms in a state might be sampled in the 
preparation of crop estimates, or production figures might aggregate 
several crop types.[Footnote 34] However, NASS officials cited no 
examples of such economies affecting the data used by the Heinz Center 
to support its indicators. In addition, in an effort to compensate for 
recent unfunded pay increases, the proposed fiscal year 2006 NASS 
budget includes a net increase of $16.7 million, with $1.3 million 
designated for salary costs. 

* Beginning in 2004, NASS instituted an Agricultural Restoration 
Initiative to restore the collection of certain statistical data. For 
example, NASS had dealt with budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2003 by 
dropping "objective yield" cotton surveys, and the initiative restored 
them. Crop production forecasts and estimates employ both subjective 
and objective probability surveys. Subjective evaluations come from a 
sample of farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses. In objective yield 
probability surveys, selected fields are visited during the growing 
season by enumerators, who count the plants and later the actual ears, 
pods, or bolls produced. These are accurate measurements, but are also 
labor intensive and costly, requiring enumerators to walk into fields 
and record growth in randomly sampled plots. Less-intensive surveys 
collect most data by mail or telephone. 

* The results of the 2002 Census of Agriculture were published in 2004. 
The five-year schedule for the census means that data from the 2007 
Census of Agriculture is scheduled to be released in February 2009, too 
late to be used in the next iteration of the Heinz Center report, in 
2007. However, with the continuous upgrading by the Heinz Center of its 
own Web site, the center will add data for its ecological indicators as 
they become available from the 2007 census and from other sources. 

* A Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of NASS was conducted 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the fiscal year 2006 
budget. It found the Census of Agriculture and annual crop-reporting 
programs to be rated "moderately effective" because there were no 
recent external reviews of the program data. Specifically, OMB 
concluded that reviews by USDA data users meeting in 2002 and 2003, and 
a report by USDA's Advisory Committee on Agricultural Statistics, did 
not provide sufficient "independent evaluations of sufficient scope and 
quality conducted on a regular basis" to evaluate its effectiveness and 
relevance. NASS is now working to establish an external, independent 
evaluation system. In most other respects, OMB found NASS's performance 
to be exemplary, granting perfect scores of 100 percent for program 
purpose and for design and management. 

[End of section]

Appendix VI: National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

The National Resources Inventory (NRI), conducted by the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with Iowa State 
University's Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, is a 
statistical survey of land use and natural resource conditions and 
trends on U.S. nonfederal lands.[Footnote 35] It produces a nationally 
consistent database capturing data on land cover and use, soil erosion, 
prime farmland, soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected 
conservation practices, and related resource attributes. Information 
derived from the NRI is used by a wide variety of users, including 
natural resource managers; policymakers; analysts; consultants; the 
media; other Federal agencies; state governments; universities; and 
environmental, commodity, and farm groups. These users employ NRI 
information to formulate effective public policies, fashion 
agricultural and natural resource legislation, develop state and 
national conservation programs, allocate Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) financial and technical assistance to address natural resource 
concerns, and enhance the public's understanding of natural resource 
and environmental issues. 

The NRI was first conducted in 1977, then every 5 years through 1997. 
In 2000, the NRI transitioned to an annual inventory process to provide 
more timely data to support the development and assessment of 
agricultural and conservation policies and programs. Data collected 
from 1982 to 2003 enable trend analysis extending over 21 years. Data 
used for the most current NRI were primarily collected using high- 
resolution aerial photography, field office records, historical records 
and data, and a limited number of on-site visits. 

* The primary sampling units in the NRI are areas of land called 
segments. Segments vary in size, from 40 acres to 640 acres. Data such 
as urban land and water area are collected for an entire segment. 
Detailed data on soil properties and land use are sampled from random 
points within the segment. Generally, there are three sample points per 
segment, but 40-acre segments contain two points. Some data variables, 
such as total land area, federally owned land, and area in large water 
bodies, are collected on a census basis separate from the sample 
survey. A typical national sample contains about 70,000 
segments.[Footnote 36]

* Two possible ways to classify the surface of the Earth in the NRI are 
land cover and land use. Land cover is the kind of vegetation, 
constructed material (such as roads or buildings), or natural material 
(such as sand, water, or ice) that actually covers the Earth's surface. 
Categories for land use include crop production, residential zones, and 
wildlife habitat. In the NRI, all land is placed into mutually 
exclusive and exhaustive categories, called "coveruse" categories. As 
the name suggests, the classification is based on both the land cover 
and the land use. For example, land is classified as urban if it has a 
certain building density, even if the predominant cover is trees. Roads 
in rural areas are classified as roads, while roads within the urban 
area are classified as urban area. Other coveruse categories include 
cultivated cropland, forest, rangeland, and pastureland. 

The NRI program continues to evolve as cost-effective methods are 
developed to collect more timely and relevant data that address 
emerging agricultural and environmental issues. New inventory 
approaches will incorporate new tools, methodologies, and technologies. 
In addition to the transition to an annual NRI report, efforts are 
under way to implement a continuous inventory process, incorporate 
various assessment tools for measuring resource health, and more fully 
use inventory data for modeling and policy analysis. 

Summary: 

NRI and NRCS officials indicated that actual NRI funding for fiscal 
year 2005 and funding proposed in the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2006 (as shown in fig. 5) are expected to assure the 
continuation of data collection and analysis, and will allow for data 
generation of similar quality and comprehensiveness when compared with 
data from previous years. The officials indicated, in particular, that 
data used in the 2002 Heinz Center report, The State of the Nation's 
Ecosystems, are expected to be available with similar or improved 
quality and comprehensiveness when compared with data from prior years. 

Figure 5: National Resources Inventory Program Budget for Fiscal Years 
2000-2005 and Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Funding levels were adjusted for inflation using a chained GDP 
price index based on information from the U.S. Department of Commerce's 
Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Congressional Budget Office. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, agency officials reported that planned program activities 
will improve the ability of NRI to produce data in the coming years 
comparable with data generated in previous years. As used in the 2002 
Heinz Center report, agency officials stated that data are expected to 
be available in a similar form for the Heinz Center's expected 2007 
follow-on indicator report, with new estimates available at both 
national and regional scales.[Footnote 37]

Agency Perspectives on Potential Impacts of Funding Levels and Program 
Changes: 

NRI and NRCS program officials provided the following information on 
funding levels and program priorities relative to NRI's ability to 
continue providing environmental and ecological data comparable with 
past years: 

* Specific funding amounts for the various NRI activities for fiscal 
years 2000 through 2005, as well as proposed funding for fiscal year 
2006, are portrayed in table 5 (aggregate totals are presented in fig. 
5): 

Table 5: NRI Funding Levels for Fiscal Years 2000-2005 and Proposed for 
Fiscal Year 2006: 

Dollars in thousands. 

Activity: Resources inventory support[C]; 
2000: $1,076; 
2001: $1,175; 
2002: $1,176; 
2003: $1,180; 
2004: $1,211; 
2005[A]: $5,622; 
2006[B]: $5,668. 

Activity: Data collection, photo-interpretation and support[D]; 
2000: $8,497; 
2001: $15,573; 
2002: $11,020; 
2003: $14,907; 
2004: $9,844; 
2005[A]: $4,359; 
2006[B]: $3,700. 

Activity: On-site data collection[E]; 
2003: $882; 
2004: $3,389; 
2005[A]: $3,933; 
2006[B]: $4,006. 

Activity: Imagery[F]; 
2000: $3,400; 
2001: $5,789; 
2002: $4,074; 
2003: $5,700; 
2004: $5,636; 
2005[A]: $5,920; 
2006[B]: $6,000. 

Activity: Statistical unit[G]; 
2000: $1,100; 
2001: $1,700; 
2002: $1,500; 
2003: $1,600; 
2004: $2,213; 
2005[A]: $2,000; 
2006[B]: $2,400. 

Activity: Remote-sensing laboratories (established June 2004)[H]; 
2005[A]: $9,600; 
2006[B]: $10,000. 

Activity: NRI-CEAP data collection (initiated 2003)[I]; 
2003: $3,470; 
2004: $4,409; 
2005[A]: $3,522; 
2006[B]: $4,000. 

Total; 
2000: $14,073; 
2001: $24,237; 
2002: $17,770; 
2003: $27,739; 
2004: $26,702; 
2005[A]: $34,956; 
2006[B]: $35,744. 

Source: USDA. 

[A] Current fiscal year 2005 estimate. 

[B] President's fiscal year 2006 budget. 

[C] State-level staff support-represents one-quarter staff year per 
state for fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2004, and a full staff 
year per state for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. 

[D] Derived based on the number of sample points selected for photo- 
interpretation data collection in the survey year and the staff time 
required to complete the inventory cycle. 

[E] Derived based on the number of on-site points for data collection 
and the estimated amount of staff time required for conducting the on- 
site data acquisition. 

[F] Obtained via contract, this number reflects the amount expended for 
acquisition of high-resolution imagery. 

[G] Obtained via contract (cooperative agreement), this number reflects 
the amount allocated in the fiscal year for statistical services from 
Iowa State University. 

[H] Fiscal year funds allocated for contracted data collection staff, 
facilities, and infrastructure. 

[I] Fiscal year funds transferred to National Agricultural Statistical 
Service (NASS), plus NRCS field office support for conducting the NRI 
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (NRI-CEAP). 

[End of table]

* Changes between 2004 and 2005 funding estimates for remote-sensing or 
photo-interpretation activities constitute the difference in overall 
NRI funding for these years. This should not be interpreted as a 
general increasing trend in overall NRI funding levels. At the time, 
photo-interpretation data collection and support activities were 
shifted from 21 nationally distributed Inventory Collection and 
Coordination Sites to newly-formed Remote Sensing Laboratories (RSL) as 
part of NRCS outsourcing initiatives. Fiscal year 2004 funding for this 
shift included only RSL start-up costs, while fiscal year 2005 funding 
included additional costs for interpretation of the imagery obtained in 
2004. 

* Preparation of imagery for photo-interpretation acquired in 2004 is 
in progress--delayed by the transition to the new inventory 
organization and structure, as well as by unanticipated problems in 
securing RSL facilities and staffing. The estimates provided for photo- 
interpretation in 2004 (as shown in table 5) reflect completion of 2003 
Annual NRI photo-interpretation, preparation for conducting 2004 and 
2005 photo-interpretation, and limited state-level photo- 
interpretation activities, such as acquiring information for sample 
points from field office files. 

* The shift to the RSL structure, along with the adoption of improved 
digital technology, and the acquisition of higher-resolution imagery, 
will enhance quality assurance and control procedures for data 
collection and statistical processing. Consolidation of data collection 
and interpretation under full-time, permanently staffed RSLs will 
facilitate stricter adherence to rigorous data collection and quality 
assurance protocols based on scientific principles, will improve data 
confidentiality, and will improve security requirements for 
safeguarding data. Plans are being developed for additional quality 
assurance components for the NRI, including a calibration study and 
more comprehensive data review procedures. 

* The transition to an annual NRI provides continued capacity for long- 
term trend analysis while accelerating the acquisition and delivery of 
new information on natural resource conditions and trends. However, the 
scale of NRI estimates is affected during this transition to full 
implementation of the Annual NRI approach. It will take a number of 
years before the Annual NRI provides reliability levels comparable with 
those of the 1997 NRI. The 2001 Annual NRI provided national scale 
estimates for a limited number of topics. The 2002 Annual NRI provided 
national and regional scale estimates, but again on a limited number of 
topics. Estimates from the 2003 and 2004 Annual NRIs will cover more 
topics and provide estimates at finer scales. Reliability levels for 
results from the 2005 Annual NRI should approach those from the 1997 
NRI, with the exception that many sub-state-level trend estimates will 
still have unacceptable levels of statistical uncertainty. 

* An expansion of the NRI to include a number of issues of national 
significance is expected with respect to assessment of the 
environmental benefits of conservation practices, measurement of soil 
quality, and development of nonfederal grazing land sampling protocols. 

* The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) was formed in 2003 
as a five-year effort to study the collective environmental benefits of 
conservation projects on agricultural lands implemented through 2002 
Farm Bill programs. It is composed of two parts: a nationwide 
assessment of conservation benefits and more in-depth studies of those 
benefits in 20 selected watersheds. Specifically, CEAP will evaluate 
conservation practices and management systems for nutrient, manure, 
pest management, buffer systems, tillage, irrigation, and drainage 
practices, as well as for soil quality enhancement, wildlife 
establishment, and wetland protection and restoration. As NRI is used 
as the sampling basis for estimating environmental benefits of 
conservation practices, the inventory's cropland field sample points 
will be used in conjunction with National Agricultural Statistical 
Service (NASS) farmer surveys to study farm-field-level management and 
data on conservation practices. The CEAP assessments will be reported 
annually starting in 2006. 

* Beginning with the 2003 NRI, new protocols were introduced to improve 
the information available on nonfederal grazing land--rangeland, 
pastureland, and grazed forestland. Data collected during 2003, 2004, 
and 2005 will be used to provide estimates on rangeland conditions by 
employing the updated field-based inventory protocols. Improvements in 
field-based inventory protocols for pastureland and grazed forestland 
are under development and are planned for inclusion in future annual 
NRI data collection efforts. 

* A Soil Conditioning Index (SCI) will be developed for each NRI sample 
site that uses NRI data on soil type, characteristics, and 
interpretations, along with historical information on land use, 
management practices, erosion, and historical climate data. This index 
will quantify cropping sequences, tillage, and other management 
influences on soil organic matter content, which serves as an indicator 
of soil quality. Future NRI reports will present long-term trends in 
soil quality using this index. 

* A February 2004 Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment 
Rating Tool review on the NRI indicated that NRI has a "results not 
demonstrated" rating, stating that "improvements are needed in the 
NRI's long-term performance measures." The NRCS response includes 
expanded language and clarification of plans to provide updated natural 
resources information to the scientific community, decision makers, and 
the public on an annual basis (Annual NRI). The Annual NRI process will 
address more resource concerns, at greater levels of geographic 
reliability, and increasing levels of data accuracy (statistical 
reliability) over time. Ongoing and expanded onsite data collection 
activities for increased data quality (ground truthing), support of new 
measures such as grazing land health, and reporting on conservation 
program environmental effects (e.g., reductions in surface water 
pollution from agricultural runoff) will increase the utility of the 
data set. The next phase in long-term measure development is to 
establish targets and associated performance periods. These measures 
and targets then will be reviewed for approval by agency leadership. 
The present schedule calls for completing this effort by the end of the 
third quarter of 2005. 

[End of section]

Appendix VII: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, U.S. 
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Background: 

The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) is the 
latest in a continuing series of surveys begun in 1960 as the National 
Recreation Survey (NRS).[Footnote 38] The NSRE serves as the only 
consistent source of recreation participation data for the U.S. 
population, providing outdoor recreation trend and demand data on 
regional and national scales. The NSRE serves the data needs of federal 
land management and other agencies (including the U.S. Forest Service, 
Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Environmental 
Protection Agency, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration), as well as state and other governmental agencies, 
educational institutions, and private-sector organizations. It is a 
collaborative, interagency effort that combines data needs across 
programs of different sponsoring agencies that have different 
legislative mandates for evaluating and reporting outdoor recreation 
and related information. 

The current NSRE, NSRE 2005-2006, is the eighth in the continuing 
series of U.S. national recreation surveys.[Footnote 39] Although 
similar to the previous surveys, it explores the outdoor recreational 
needs and environmental interests of the American people in greater 
depth. Reflecting continued growth of interest in outdoor recreation 
and the natural environment, NSRE 2005-2006 is an in-the-home phone 
survey of over 40,000 households across all ethnic groups throughout 
the United States. Survey questions broadly address such areas as 
outdoor recreation participation, demographics, household structure, 
lifestyles, environmental attitudes, natural resource values (e.g., 
concerning wilderness), constraints to participation, and attitudes 
toward management policies. For example, the NSREs seek information on 
participation in such outdoor activities as visiting nature centers, 
bird-watching, hunting, backpacking, camping and rock climbing, as well 
as participation in these various activities by age and ethnic groups. 
The information resulting from the NSREs can be reported both 
nationally and on a regional basis. 

The NSRE is managed by a unit of the Forest Service's Southern Research 
Station in Athens, Georgia. Forest Service direct funding for the data 
collection phases of the NSRE comes from the Forest Service's Research 
and Development (R&D) and State and Private Forestry appropriation 
accounts. The Forest Service share of the total NSRE data design and 
collection costs has typically amounted to just over 40 percent, not 
including in-kind contributions (such as scientist and technician 
salaries, technical services, and administrative support).[Footnote 40] 
These funds are used for cooperative agreements with universities, 
specifically with the University of Tennessee, which collects the data 
by phone interviews, and with the University of Georgia, which 
collaborates in the design and testing of data collection processes and 
in the analysis of collected data. For fiscal years 2000 through 2004, 
direct costs for NSRE-related data collection totaled approximately 
$1,407,000, of which the Forest Service's contribution was 
approximately $570,000.[Footnote 41]

Other federal agencies, under their various authorities and mandates, 
contribute approximately 59 percent of the direct costs for NSRE- 
related data collection. For example, for NSRE 2000-2001 the primary 
"other agency" contributing funding was NOAA.[Footnote 42] For fiscal 
years 2000 through 2004, NOAA funding for data collection totaled 
$514,700, not including the 13.6 percent overhead assessed by the 
Southern Research Station.[Footnote 43] NOAA is expected to be a major 
contributor to NSRE 2005-2006 as well, having already contributed 
$280,000. Other federal agencies that have supported the NSRE (NSRE 
2000-2001) include: the National Park Service ($17,280), Environmental 
Protection Agency ($95,040), Bureau of Land Management ($46,928), and 
Economic Research Service ($17,280). Support from these and other 
agencies for NSRE 2005-2006 is yet to be developed and is currently 
unknown. Different state agencies over different periods have also 
provided funding for the NSRE. For NSRE 2000-2001, this funding 
amounted to about 1 percent of the total.[Footnote 44]

Summary: 

Forest Service officials responsible for managing the NSRE were unable 
to indicate precisely the effect of future funding on the ability of 
the survey program to generate data of similar quality and 
comprehensiveness when compared with data from previous NSREs. This is 
because of uncertainty regarding the level of funding from Forest 
Service R&D as well as uncertainty regarding support that will be 
forthcoming in future years from other federal agency sponsors. The 
officials noted that all aspects of the NSRE are vulnerable to budget 
reductions, both across-the-board and more specifically targeted 
reductions, and that recreation research (and, more broadly, research 
in the social sciences) is among the areas of Forest Service R&D to be 
cut first.[Footnote 45] Reductions in Forest Service funding for 
recreation research have already occurred in fiscal year 2005, and in 
fiscal year 2006 there are proposed cuts to recreation research funding 
that could further erode the Forest Service's ability to contribute 
toward funding of the NSRE.[Footnote 46] The outlook, according to NSRE 
managers in the Forest Service's Southern Research Station, is that the 
NSRE will increasingly depend on external, or "other agency," funding 
sources. 

Table 6: Forest Service Direct Funding for the NSRE, Fiscal Years 2000- 
2004 and Projected for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006A: 

2000: $175,000; 
2001: $75,000; 
2002: $187,274; 
2003: $33,800; 
2004: $90,390; 
2005: $90,000; 
2006[B]: $60,000. 

Source: USDA. 

Notes: Funding for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 are to be determined. 

[A] The unit of th