finalreport - conservation science and practice · finalreport from the blue ribbon panel...

FINAL REPORT

FROM THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL CONDUCTING AN

EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A Soil and Water Conservation Society Project

E CONSERVATION EFFECTSASSESSMENT PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

FROM THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL CONDUCTING AN

EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

CONSERVATION EFFECTSASSESSMENT PROJECT

AAbboouutt SSWWCCSS

The Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS) is a nonprofit scientific and educationalorganization that serves as an advocate for natural resource professionals and for science-based conservation policy. Our mission is to foster the science and art of soil, water, andenvironmental management on working land—the land used to produce food, fiber, andother services that improve the quality of life people experience in rural and urbancommunities. We work to discover, develop, implement, and constantly improve waysto use land that sustains its productive capacity and enhances the environment at thesame time.

SWCS has about 7,000 members around the world. They include researchers, adminis-trators, planners, policymakers, teachers, students, farmers, and ranchers. Nearlyevery academic discipline and many different conservation institutions are representedwithin the membership.

Member benefits include the widely respected Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,representation in policy circles, opportunities for leadership and networking, and dis-counts on books and conference registrations.

SWCS chapters throughout the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean Basin con-duct a variety of activities at local, state, and provincial levels and on university cam-puses. These 75 chapters represent the grassroots element of the organization. Eachchapter elects its own officers, organizes conservation forums, and formulates localrecommendations on conservation and environmental issues.

SSooiill aanndd WWaatteerr CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn SSoocciieettyy

994455 SSoouutthhwweesstt AAnnkkeennyy RRooaadd,, AAnnkkeennyy,, IIoowwaa 5500002233

PP:: ((551155)) 228899--22333311 •• FF:: ((551155))228899--11222277 •• wwwwww..sswwccss..oorrgg

A Soil and Water Conservation Society Project

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY2

CEAP: FINAL REPORT TO USDA 3

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 44

Panel Strongly Endorses Purpose of CEAP

CEAP Must Change Direction to Achieve Purpose

CEAP Must Inform Strategic Resource Management

Blueprint

Build The Science Base

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 88

CEAP Fact Sheet Sidebar

CCHHAANNGGEE DDIIRREECCTTIIOONN .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1100

Solving Problems versus Estimating Effects

Monitoring versus Simulation or Extrapolation

Strategic Resource Management

Opportunities to Facilitate Change in Direction

Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act of 1977 Sidebar

SSTTRRAATTEEGGIICC RREESSOOUURRCCEE MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT BBLLUUEEPPRRIINNTT .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..1166

Components of a Strategic Resource Management System

Components Included in Current CEAP Plans

Components of a Strategic Resource Management System Table

Components Missing from USDA Plans

BBUUIILLDD TTHHEE SSCCIIEENNCCEE BBAASSEE .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..2211

Scientific Priorities

Capacity to Deliver Science

CCAAUUTTIIOONNSS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2244

Transparency

Program Neutral

TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttssTTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) hasasked the Soil and Water Conservation Society(SWCS) to help design and implement the

Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP).One ofSWCS’s roles is to facilitate an external, policy-levelreview of CEAP. The external review has two primarypurposes: (1) to seek, analyze, and synthesize input fromfuture users of information generated by CEAP as ameans of helping USDA understand how best to designCEAP and package its outputs, and (2) to recommendnew approaches or refinements of planned approachesthat will enhance the capacity to produce comprehen-sive national assessments in 2006 and beyond.The proj-ect is intended to help make CEAP more useful,responsive, and credible and help assure that CEAP’sproducts will have wide utility for policymakers, pro-gram managers, and the conservation community.

SWCS has assembled a blue-ribbon panel of academ-ics and leaders of nongovernmental organizations, stateagencies, and tribes.The panel was constructed to repre-sent the communities who will use, interpret, and shapeopinion regarding the meaning and value of outputsfrom CEAP. The panel is conducting its work throughmeetings, teleconferences, and outreach to user groups.The panel is focusing it’s work in three areas: (1) under-standing the expectations and needs of eventual users ofCEAP outputs, (2) scrutinizing detailed plans for CEAPand interacting with those USDA staff members respon-sible for the national assessment and watershed researchprojects, and (3) reviewing preliminary outputs generat-ed by CEAP in 2005. Federal agencies involved in thedesign and implementation of CEAP have assigned a staffliaison(s) to the panel to serve as an information sourceand point of contact.

The blue ribbon panel met for the first time January12-14, 2005, in Washington, D.C. to discuss the detailedCEAP study plans USDA had provided and to interactwith federal staff through intensive briefings and discus-sion sessions. In March 2005, the panel issued a reportof its preliminary findings that summarized the panel’sinitial reactions to USDA’s overall plans for building andimplementing CEAP. In their preliminary findings the

panel strongly and unanimously endorsed the purposeof CEAP, but recommended an immediate change indirection and emphasis for the project to ensureCEAP’s purpose is achieved.

The panel met for the second time in May 2005 inresponse to a request from USDA to help identifyopportunities to use CEAP to inform the 2007 farmbill conservation title debate.This request from USDAwas the panel’s first recommendation made in its pre-liminary findings to change CEAP’s direction was forUSDA to redirect CEAP in the short-term to strategi-cally inform the 2007 farm bill.The panel issued its sec-ond report in September 2005 outlining what theyconsidered the most promising opportunities for CEAPto inform the 2007 farm bill conservation debate.

Copies of both reports can be found on the SWCSwebsite at www.swcs.org.

In this final report, the panel takes up the secondmajor recommendation the panel made in its preliminaryfindings for changing CEAP’s direction: “USDA mustalso change its stated long term goal for CEAP to ensurethe program is built primarily to look to the future—toenable rigorous and science-based evaluation of optionsto improve conservation efforts in the future.”

PPaanneell SSttrroonnggllyy EEnnddoorrsseess PPuurrppoossee ooff CCEEAAPP

CEAP’s stated purpose is to help policymakers and pro-gram managers implement existing, and design new,conservation programs to more effectively and effi-ciently meet the goals of Congress and theAdministration. The panel unanimously endorses thispurpose. A coherent and science-based assessment andevaluation system is urgently needed to ensure conserva-tion programs cost-effectively produce the gains in envi-ronmental quality taxpayers and agricultural producersexpect.The panel commends USDA for taking on thiscritical and difficult task.The panel hopes its work willhelp USDA and its partners succeed in their efforts.Thepanel, however, recommends important changes in direc-tion for CEAP to ensure it achieves its purpose.

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

CCEEAAPP MMuusstt CChhaannggee DDiirreeccttiioonn ttoo AAcchhiieevvee PPuurrppoossee

CEAP must change direction to become the coherent,science-based assessment and evaluation system policy-makers, program managers, and the conservation com-munity urgently needs.The panel found that CEAP wasconceived largely as a way to supply annual, quantita-tive, and generalized estimates of the effects of conser-vation practices needed to support a suite of program-specific performance measures. The panel concludedthis vision of CEAP is too limited and is likely to pro-duce misleading information—even in the long termand after large investments of resources to quantifyannual, program-by-program performance.

Solving Problems versus Estimating Effects

The panel found little value in even the best estimate ofthe environment effects of a conservation programunless that estimate could be (1) compared to estab-lished environmental goals and (2) linked to the ecolog-ical and economic context in which the estimatedeffect occurs.As one panel member put it: “What doesit mean if we are told EQIP (Environmental QualityIncentives Program) reduced nitrate losses from farmfields by 80 million tons? Was that enough, should wehave done more, how much more?”

Monitoring versus Simulation or Extrapolation

Uncertainties and error introduced by broad practicedefinitions, missing quantitative links between variabil-ity in practice application(s) and environmental effects,and the difficulty of simulating real world interactionsamong conservation practices in process models, willseriously impair the scientific credibility of simulated,quantitative estimates of environmental effects beingproduced by conservation programs. Simulations andextrapolations cannot—and must not—substitute foron-the-ground monitoring and inventory systemsdesigned to determine if anticipated conservation andenvironmental benefits are being achieved.

The panel is encouraged by changes USDA hasmade in its short- and long-term plans for CEAP dur-ing the course of the panel’s deliberation. The panelcommends USDA for making such changes and urgesUSDA to take additional steps to ensure the investmentin CEAP produces the credible, science-based assess-ment system so critical to the future of USDA conser-vation programs.

CCEEAAPP MMuusstt IInnffoorrmm SSttrraatteeggiicc RReessoouurrccee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt

CEAP should be built to answer the question “Whatshould we do next year?” rather than “What did we dolast year?”The panel recommends two critical roles forCEAP: (1) CEAP should become an integral part of alarger, collaborative, and ongoing system to inform andadapt strategic resource management, and (2) CEAPshould define and test the science-base for adaptivemanagement of conservation programs.

The panel is also acutely aware that it is recommend-ing a significant change in CEAP and recommending astrategic resource management system be built at a timewhen agency budgets are tight and likely to get tighter.The panel identified six opportunities to facilitate thechange in direction it is recommending, and to reducethe cost and increase the efficiency with which such assystem can be built: (1) USDA must achieve a broaderconsensus on the purpose and future direction forCEAP, (2) CEAP must expand and strengthen collabo-ration, (3) Congress should update and reauthorize theSoil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977(RCA), (4) the strategic resource management systemshould initially focus on a few critical environmentalgoals, (5) the system should look more to regional,rather than national-level assessments, and (6) moreweight should be given to strategic components whenevaluating program performance.

BBlluueepprriinntt

The strategic resource management system envisionedby the panel must be able to accomplish six tasks: (1)construct and update the conservation baseline, (2) setmeaningful goals, (3) evaluate alternative strategies, (4)monitor program implementation, (5) monitor envi-ronmental benefits, and (6) reevaluate strategies.

Components Included in Current CEAP Plans

The panel is encouraged that USDA’s current plans forCEAP could produce several important components ofthis strategic resource management system.The CEAPCropland-CRP national assessment simulation capabil-ities will enable large-scale estimation of the baselineeffects of the conservation effort represented by USDAprograms. It will allow for more rigorous assessmentand reevaluation of strategies for employing staff andprograms to meet goals—at least at large regional andnational scales and in the short-term for cropland only.CEAP watershed studies will help refine and validate

the methods used to simulate effects of conservationpractices and programs.The panel recommends greaterpriority be given in CEAP watershed study plans tobuilding the capacity to conduct regional assessments ofthe environmental benefits of conservation activities.Performance reporting systems, already in place inNRCS and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), will pro-vide the nuts and bolts information about programimplementation needed to document the current levelof conservation effort supported by USDA. Efforts tomore precisely geo-reference program implementationdata are essential and should be the highest priority forenhancing current performance reporting systems.

Components Missing from USDA Plans

The panel is concerned that several critical componentsof a strategic resource management system are notincluded in USDA’s current plans for CEAP.

Monitoring. The most important and troubling miss-ing piece is the absence of plans for on-the-groundmonitoring of change in the environmental indicatorsand outcomes conservation programs and activities areintended to improve. The panel recommends thatCongress mandate that at least one percent of the fund-ing for each authorized program—about $40 million ofthe $4 billion taxpayers are investing in conservation—be set aside to support monitoring and evaluation ofthose programs.

Conservation Needs and Priorities.The panel did not seeany evidence for rigorous and comprehensive identifica-tion and assessment of the extent and magnitude of envi-ronmental and resource management problems that arenot being met through current conservation efforts.Thepanel strongly recommends that clear links be forgedbetween CEAP staff, USDA strategic planners, and staffresponsible for the RCA process. Linked staff should becharged with producing a coordinated plan for data col-lection, resource inventory, and resource assessment activ-ities that will produce credible assessments of unmetneeds and priorities. The Natural Resources Inventory(NRI) system, in particular, should be revisited to deter-mine if and how the system could be revamped to pro-duce statistically valid estimates of the extent and geo-graphic distribution of conservation needs.

The assessment of needs and priorities must bedeveloped in collaboration with other federal and stateconservation agencies, nongovernmental organizations,and the private sector. Meaningful and cost-effectiveassessment can only be completed if they are based ona collaborative effort between federal entities such asUSDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); state conservation,natural resource, and environmental protection agen-cies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, andthe private sector.

Beyond USDA Programs. Many private and publicsector entities contribute to the nation’s conservationeffort on working land.The CEAP national survey oncropland will collect some information on such efforts,but it is not clear to the panel what plans are in place toregularly update and enrich information available aboutnon-USDA driven conservation on working land.Thepanel recommends a collaborative effort among USDAand its partners to design and implement a cost-effec-tive system to collect and consolidate informationabout the level of conservation effort supported byother federal, state, and local units of government, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.

BBuuiilldd TThhee SScciieennccee BBaassee

Building the science-base for strategic resource man-agement on working land must be a primary purposefor CEAP.The panel applauds USDA’s commitment tousing CEAP to help in building this science base.Thepanel is particularly enthusiastic about the unique valueof the watershed study component of CEAP. CEAPshould support a broad, collaborative effort to create aset of “representative” watersheds or other salient geo-graphic units in various agricultural settings on aregional basis.The network of watershed studies shouldbe constructed in a comparative fashion to answer threebroad, inter-related, and critical questions: (1) What arethe most effective interventions—practices, alternativefarming systems, landscape or hydrologic restoration—to achieve specific environmental benefits?, (2) Whereshould such interventions be placed on the landscape tomost effectively achieve specific environmental bene-fits?, and (3) How can we design cost-effective and cost-feasible systems to monitor changes in core environ-mental indicators?

Panel members are acutely aware of the importanceof the technical services infrastructure—research, edu-cation, and technical assistance—as the foundation ofthe nation’s conservation effort on working land. Eventhe best science base will produce few results unlesstechnically proficient people and technical tools areavailable to translate that science into on-the-groundchanges in farm, ranch, and watershed/geographic unitmanagement. Moreover, rapid scientific advances areimproving our ability to understand and manage thespatial and temporal variability in agricultural land-

scapes in ways that could dramatically improve the per-formance of conservation programs. Taking advantageof these opportunities, however, will require betterinformation and people trained to use that informationto more precisely apply conservation treatments at field,farm, ranch, watershed, and other salient geographicscales. An in-depth assessment of the strengths andweaknesses of the current technical services infrastruc-ture should be among the first priorities undertaken bya strategic resource management system.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) askedthe Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS)to help design and implement the Conservation

Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). One of SWCS’s roleswas to facilitate an external, policy-level review of CEAP.The external review had two primary purposes: (1) toseek, analyze, and synthesize input from future users ofinformation generated by CEAP as a means of helpingUSDA understand how best to design CEAP and pack-age its outputs, and (2) to recommend new approaches orrefinements of planned approaches that will enhance thecapacity to produce comprehensive national assessments.The project is intended to help make CEAP more useful,responsive, and credible and help assure that CEAP’sproducts will have wide utility for policymakers, programmanagers, and the conservation community (See “CEAPFact Sheet” sidebar on page 9).

SWCS assembled a blue-ribbon panel of academicsand leaders of nongovernmental organizations, stateagencies, and tribes.The panel was constructed to repre-sent the communities who will use, interpret, and shapeopinion regarding the meaning and value of outputsfrom CEAP. The panel conducted its work throughmeetings, teleconferences, and outreach to user groups.The panel focused its work in three areas: (1) understand-ing the expectations and needs of eventual users ofCEAP outputs, (2) scrutinizing detailed plans for CEAPand interacting with USDA staff members responsible forCEAP national assessment and watershed research proj-ects, and (3) exploring the relationship of CEAP toagency reporting systems and similar assessment effortsundertaken by other federal and state agencies. Federalagencies involved in the design and implementation ofCEAP assigned a staff liaison(s) to the panel to serve as aninformation source and point of contact.

The blue ribbon panel met for the first time January12-14, 2005, in Washington, D.C. to discuss the detailedCEAP study plans USDA had provided and to interactwith federal staff through intensive briefings and discus-sion sessions.The panel focused its deliberations on whatresults CEAP should produce rather than how CEAPshould produce those results.

CEAP has two components: (1) a national-scale

effort—largely based on the NRI sampling frame—toestimate the environmental benefits produced by theconservation practices applied by participants in USDAconservation programs, and (2) a set of watershedresearch projects to test and enhance the methods used inthe national assessment. The Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) and the AgriculturalResearch Service (ARS) are leading a team of federalagencies to design, build, and implement CEAP.

In March 2005, the panel issued a report of its pre-liminary findings that summarized the panel’s initialreactions to USDA’s overall plans for building andimplementing CEAP. In their preliminary findings, thepanel strongly and unanimously endorsed the purposeof CEAP, but recommended an immediate change indirection and emphasis for the project to ensureCEAP’s purpose is achieved.

The panel met for the second time in May 2005 inresponse to a request from USDA to help identifyopportunities to use CEAP as a way to inform the 2007farm bill conservation title debate. This request fromUSDA was the panel’s first recommendation made in itspreliminary findings.The panel issued its second reportin September 2005 outlining what they considered themost promising opportunities for CEAP to inform the2007 farm bill conservation debate.

Copies of both reports can be found on the SWCSwebsite at www.swcs.org.

In this final report, the panel takes up the secondmajor recommendation the panel made in its preliminaryfindings for changing CEAP’s direction: “USDA mustalso change its stated long term goal for CEAP to ensurethe program is built primarily to look to the future—toenable rigorous and science-based evaluation of optionsto improve conservation efforts in the future.”

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONNIINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

CEAP FACT SHEET

Purpose

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)began in 2003 as a multi-agency effort to quantify theenvironmental benefits of conservation practices usedby private landowners participating in selected U.S.Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) conservation pro-grams. Project findings and results will be used toreport progress on the environmental effects of theseprograms, aid discussions on conservation policydevelopment, guide conservation program implemen-tation, and ultimately, help farmers and ranchersmake informed conservation choices.

CEAP will assess the benefits of conservation practicesassociated with the following USDA conservation pro-grams in the 2002 Farm Bill: Environmental QualityIncentive Program (EQIP), Conservation ReserveProgram (CRP), Conservation Security Program (CSP),Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife HabitatIncentives Program (WHIP), Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) Conservation TechnicalAssistance Program, and Grassland Reserve Program(GRP). Conservation practices that will be assessedinclude conservation buffers; erosion control; wet-lands conservation and restoration; establishment ofwildlife habitat; and management of grazing land,tillage, irrigation water, nutrients, and pests.

CEAP will focus on developing approaches,methodologies, and databases to produce scientifical-ly credible estimates of environmental benefits of con-servation. Initially, the project will study water quality,soil quality and water conservation on cropland,including enrolled CRP land. Eventually, CEAP willassess benefits to water quality, soil quality, waterconservation and wildlife habitat on cropland, grazingland, and wetlands. Work is underway to develop suit-able and affordable analytical approaches for theseother land uses and natural resource concerns.

CEAP National Assessment

The National Assessment component of theConservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) willprovide scientifically credible estimates of the environ-mental benefits obtained from USDA conservation pro-grams. The National Assessment component has twogoals: (1) Provide NRCS and the conservation communi-ty with quantitative estimates of the benefits of conser-

vation practices for national and regional reporting and(2) Assess the potential for existing conservation pro-grams and future alternatives to meet the Nation’s envi-ronmental and conservation goals.

Currently, there are four active components with-in the National Assessment:

• Cropland component • Wildlife component • Wetlands component • Grazing lands (pastureland and rangeland)

component

CEAP Watershed Studies

Small watershed case studies are being conductedto complement the national assessment. Thesestudies will provide in-depth assessments of waterquality and other benefits at a finer scale than ispossible for the National Assessment. Presentlythere are three CEAP watershed categories:

• ARS Benchmark Watersheds. These USDAAgricultural Research Service watershed studies willprovide information needed to verify the accuracy ofmodels used in the National Assessment. Twelvewatersheds were selected with a focus on water andsoil quality and water conservation as primaryresource concerns on rain-fed agricultural land.

• Special Emphasis Watersheds. These have beenestablished by NRCS to address specific resourceconcerns, such as manure management from ani-mal feeding operation and water use and conserva-tion on irrigated cropland. Nine special emphasiswatersheds were established in 2004, with workdesignated for completion in 2006 and 2007.

• Competitive Grants Watersheds. These water-sheds established by the Cooperative StateResearch, Education and Extension Service, willfocus on understanding on how best to scheduleand locate conservation efforts within a water-shed in order to achieve locally defined waterquality goals. Four project grants were awardedin 2004. Four additional project grants wereawarded in September 2005.

CEAP home page http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/techni-cal/NRI/ceap.

CEAP’s stated purpose is to help policymakersand program managers implement existing, anddesign new, conservation programs to more

effectively and efficiently meet the goals of Congress andthe Administration.The panel unanimously endorsed thispurpose in its preliminary findings.The panel’s work inthe months since that report was released reaffirmed thepanel’s conviction that a coherent and science-basedassessment and evaluation system is urgently needed toensure conservation programs produce the gains in envi-ronmental quality, taxpayers and agricultural producersexpect as cost-effectively as possible.The panel commendsUSDA for taking on this important task.

The panel’s work since its first meeting also recon-firmed the panel’s conviction that CEAP must changedirection to become the desired, science-based assess-ment and evaluation system. Indeed, the panel’s concernthat USDA must revisit its long-term direction forCEAP has grown more urgent given growing pressureson conservation policy and programs from deficitreduction, international trade agreements, indicators ofenvironmental degradation, and missed opportunities torealize the promise of increased funding and authoritiesprovided in the conservation title of the 2002 farm bill.

SSoollvviinngg PPrroobblleemmss vveerrssuuss EEssttiimmaattiinngg EEffffeeccttss

The long-term goal for CEAP, presented to the panel atits first meeting and embedded in detailed CEAP studyplans, was to produce annual, national-level estimates ofthe environmental effects of individual conservation pro-grams. Such estimates were to be used to populate adiverse set of individual program performance measuresthat were to be the basis for evaluating the effectivenessof programs.The panel, however, questions the wisdomof relying on such performance measures given the seri-ous scientific limitations of performance measures basedon generalized estimates of environmental effects derivedby simulating or extrapolating from data on the kind andextent of practices conservation programs funded.

The panel found little value in even the best estimateof the environment effect of a conservation program

unless that estimate could be compared to establishedenvironmental goals. Knowing what was accomplished,in other words, is not useful unless we also know whatshould or could have been accomplished.As one panelmember put it:“What does it mean if we are told EQIP(Environmental Quality Incentives Program) reducednitrate losses from farm fields by 80 million tons? Wasthat enough, should we have done more, how muchmore?”The panel stressed that simulating or extrapolat-ing the environmental effect of conservation practicesmust not be confused with evaluating the extent towhich conservation programs are solving environmen-tal problems. Quantifying effects and evaluating effec-tiveness are related, but very different.

Generalized performance measures, such as reductionin nitrate losses from farm fields must be linked to thelocations where the reductions occur, the sensitivity ofthe affected resources, and the threshold levels of suchperformance measures that must be achieved to producemeasurable, on-the-ground environmental improve-ment.Where environmental effects are produced can beas or even more important than the magnitude of theeffect. Small reductions in pollutants or increases in crit-ical habitat that occur in highly sensitive areas or thataffect high value resources may produce greater benefitsthan large reductions in pollutants or increases in habitatthat occur in less sensitive areas or affect less valuableresources. Performance measures based on generalizedestimates of environmental effects of conservation pro-grams must be presented in the ecological and environ-mental context in which the estimated effects occur andmust be related to quantitative goals for change in thatperformance measure. Performance measures based onestimates of the environmental effects of conservationprograms that are not linked to the relevant context andgoals may mislead more than inform analyses of programperformance and effectiveness.

CCHHAANNGGEE DDIIRREECCTTIIOONNCCHHAANNGGEE DDIIRREECCTTIIOONN

SSttrraatteeggiicc RReessoouurrccee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt

As stated earlier, the panel found that CEAP was con-ceived largely as a way to supply annual, quantitative,and generalized estimates of the effects of conservationpractices needed to support a suite of program-specificperformance measures.The panel concluded this visionof CEAP is too limited and is likely to produce mis-leading information—even in the long term and afterlarge investments of resources to quantify annual, pro-gram-by-program performance.

CEAP should, be built to answer the question “Whatshould we do next year?” rather than “What did we dolast year?” The planned National Resources Inventory(NRI) simulation capabilities and watershed studies aremuch better suited to, and more properly used to assessand evaluate alternative strategies than to attempt toquantify the effect of past practice implementation.Sensitivity analyses can, and must be used to transparent-ly address the technical uncertainties and errors involvedin such forward looking simulations. Substantial invest-ments in data collection and modeling capabilities areanticipated to build CEAP.Making specific recommenda-tion for how and where to make those investments isbeyond the panel’s scope and expertise. In some cases, thedata collection and modeling capabilities needed to assessfuture options can also be used to estimate past perform-ance.When such “win-win” situations are not apparent,the panel urges USDA to give first priority to investmentsthat will build a system capable of producing rigorousassessments of options for implementing conservationprograms in the future.

The panel recommends the primary purpose of CEAPshould be informing and enabling a strategic approach toprogram evaluation and resource management.The panelrecommends two critical roles for CEAP.

1. CEAP should become an integral part of a larger,collaborative, and ongoing system to inform andadapt strategic resource management.

2. CEAP should define and test the science-base foradaptive management of conservation programs.

The larger strategic assessment system must (1)determine needs based on a core set of indicators ofresource and environmental conditions, (2) set goalsbased on the severity of problems and the magnitude ofopportunities tempered by fiscal or technical con-straints, (3) develop strategies for deploying people andresources to most effectively achieve goals, (4) evaluateprogress, and (5) adjust goals and strategies based onongoing evaluation of the extent to which problems arebeing solved and opportunities exploited. The systemshould enable and inform adaptive management to helppolicymakers and program managers implement exist-

MMoonniittoorriinngg vveerrssuuss SSiimmuullaattiioonn oorr EExxttrraappoollaattiioonn

The panel also concluded that unavoidable technicalproblems—even in the long term and after large invest-ments of resources in data collection and modeling—will seriously impair the scientific credibility of simulat-ed or extrapolated estimates of environmental benefitsproduced by conservation programs. Uncertainties anderror introduced in such estimates by broad practicedefinitions, missing quantitative links between practiceapplication(s) and environmental effects, variability inpractice implementation, and the difficulty of simulat-ing real world interactions among conservation prac-tices in process models, will seriously impair the scien-tific credibility of simulated, quantitative estimates ofenvironmental benefits produced by conservation pro-grams. Even large investments in additional data collec-tion and modeling may produce results that are stillsubject to serious question regarding their scientificcredibility. Using such estimates to evaluate than effec-tiveness of programs and the strategies used to employthose programs, may mislead rather the inform work toenhance the nation’s conservation effort.

The scientific problems and potential for error aremuch larger in efforts to estimate environmental effectsthrough simple extrapolations from information aboutthe practices programs have funded producers to adopt.The panel was briefed about—and troubled by—plansto undertake such extrapolations using generalized setsof conservation practices, generalized geographic units,and standardized estimations of the environmentaleffects of those practice sets. Such extrapolations sufferfrom the same uncertainties and errors outlined in theprevious paragraph that plague simulation efforts. Inaddition, such extrapolations must assume that effectscan be linearly aggregated to larger scales, that is, thatenvironmental benefits increase in direct proportion tothe amount of acres treated and/or number of practicesemployed. Although intuitively attractive, the assump-tion that the effects of practices can be “added up” isrefuted by scientific studies of practice effects at fieldand larger geographic scales. Estimates of environmen-tal effects derived from such extrapolations from prac-tice information must be treated with caution. Thevalue of such estimates for informing efforts to enhancethe efficiency and effectiveness of conservation pro-grams is questionable.

The panel concluded that simulations and extrapola-tions cannot—and must not—substitute for on-the-ground monitoring and inventory systems designed todetermine if anticipated conservation and environmen-tal benefits are being achieved.The absence of plans forsuch monitoring is the most troubling gap in the longterm blueprint for CEAP discussed in the next section.

ing conservation programs and design new conserva-tion programs to more effectively and efficiently meetthe goals of Congress and the Administration.

OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo FFaacciilliittaattee CChhaannggee iinn DDiirreeccttiioonn

The panel understands the change in direction it is rec-ommending entails a significant departure from the pri-orities and values embedded in the original plans forCEAP that were communicated to the panel throughstudy plans and briefings.The panel is also acutely awarethat it is recommending a strategic resource manage-ment system be built at a time when agency budgets aretight and likely to get tighter.

The panel identified six opportunities to facilitatethe change in direction it is recommending and toreduce the cost and increase the efficiency with whichsuch a system can be built:

1. USDA must achieve a broader consensus on thepurpose and future direction for CEAP.

2. CEAP must expand and strengthen collaboration.3. Congress should update and reauthorize the Soil

and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977(RCA).

4. Focus the system on a few critical and explicitlystated national and regional environmental goals.

5. Look more to regional-level versus national-levelassessments.

6. OMB should give more weight to strategic com-ponents when evaluating program performance.

Aggressively pursuing these opportunities, would,the panel believes, increase the likelihood that thestrategic resource management system they recommendcould be built even in the face of tight budgets.

Consensus on CEAP Future Direction

Since the panel began its work, USDA has made impor-tant changes in its plans for CEAP. In particular, thepanel applauds USDA’s commitment to redirectingCEAP resources—in the short-term—to informing thedebate over the conservation provisions of the 2007farm bill. CEAP is a multi-agency effort. Lead agenciesinclude USDA’s Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS),Agricultural Research Service (ARS),Cooperative State Research, Education, and ExtensionService (CSREES), Farm Service Agency (FSA), andNational Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).Collaborating agencies include USDA’s EconomicResearch Service (ERS), Forest Service (FS), Office ofRisk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis (ORACBA),the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS).The panel’s briefings from, and interac-tion with USDA and other federal staff, however, suggeststhat staff—including top agency leadership—have differ-ent visions of the ultimate role CEAP should or couldplay in their agencies assessment, monitoring, evaluation,and resource management systems.The panel believes theopportunity presented by CEAP to enhance the credibil-ity and meaning of conservation information provided topolicymakers, program managers, and the conservationcommunity is large. Disparate visions of the ultimate rolefor CEAP will reduce the likelihood that this opportuni-ty is realized.The panel urges USDA to work in collabo-ration with its partners to produce a common vision forwhere CEAP is headed and the investments needed byUSDA and its partners to make that vision a reality.Thepanel sincerely hopes that its work, and this report, willhelp in that effort.

Collaboration

All of the panel’s recommendations will be easier toimplement if USDA aggressively pursues collaborationwith other agencies and organizations at federal,regional, state, and local levels. In many cases, collabora-tion is the only way the panel’s recommendations canbe implemented.

The panel recommends collaborative efforts be organ-ized around geographically-specified outcomes such assoil quality, water quality, water conservation, wildlifehabitat, air quality, and other environmental outcomes.Diverse teams—inside and outside USDA—should beemployed to build capacity to do strategic resource man-agement regarding each geographically-specified out-come. Collaborative teams involving expert staff frommultiple federal and state resource agencies and non-governmental organizations are the only feasible way toproduce the most important strategic components thepanel thinks are currently missing: (1) strategies for “smartmonitoring,” (2) assessment of unmet needs and opportu-nities, and (3) the evaluation of alternative goals andstrategies. Progress will be much faster and cost less ifdriven by effective and ongoing collaboration. Indeed,given the overlapping and multiple agendas of federal,regional, state, and local units of government and non-governmental organizations involved with managing soil,water, air and wildlife, collaboration is the only hope forstrategic resource management on working land.

Reauthorize RCA

The Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act of 1977(RCA, P.L. 95-192, 16 U.S.C. 2001-2005) calls for theSecretary of Agriculture to (1) conduct ongoingappraisals of the soil, water, and related resources of theUnited States, (2) develop and periodically update aprogram to conserve, protect, and enhance soil, water,and related resources “consistent with the roles and pro-gram responsibilities of other Federal agencies and Stateand local governments,” and (3) provide reports toCongress and the public outlining the results of itsappraisals and the content of it national plan for conser-vation [See sidebar on page 14.].The Act identifies sixtopics on which data should be included in the apprais-al, and ten topics that should be addressed in the pro-gram, but does not limit either to the identified topics.

In short, RCA envisioned an ongoing, collaborativeapproach to resource assessment, program evaluation,and evaluation of alternatives that includes many of thecomponents of the strategic resource management sys-tem the panel is recommending. The RCA Act, forexample requires that the assessment and planningprocess provide: (1) data on the costs and benefits ofalternative soil and water conservation practices, (2) anevaluation of the effectiveness of conservation programsand the progress in meeting conservation objectives,and (3) an evaluation of alternative ways to provideconservation. Current law requires that appraisals becompleted by the end of calendar years 1979, 1986,1995, and 2005, and that the national program be com-pleted by the end of calendar year 1979, and updated bythe end of 1987, 1997, and 2007 to fund these products,and no products after 2007.The law does not authorizea specific appropriation level to fund the effort.

The panel thinks the RCA process could and shouldserve as an umbrella to support the multi-agency collabo-rative effort needed to assemble data from CEAP, agencyGovernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA)strategic planning, agency performance reporting systems,and related assessment efforts being conducted by CEAPlead and collaborating agencies. The RCA umbrellaappears to be a particularly useful way to realize the fullpotential of CEAP in informing the debate over the con-servation provisions of the 2007 farm bill.

More importantly, the panel strongly recommendsthat the RCA be permanently reauthorized in the 2007farm bill, and legislative language be included to: (1)authorize sufficient appropriations to support ongoingassessment, evaluation, and planning activities, (2)update the purposes and focus of appraisals and plan-ning activities to address the environmental agenda nowconfronting owners and managers of the nation’s pri-vately owned land, and (3) strengthen provisions for

collaboration. Such action should provide new author-ity and funding to create the strategic resource manage-ment system the panel recommends and that is criticalto ensuring USDA conservation programs produce theenvironmental benefits taxpayers should expect fromtheir $4 billion investment in conservation.

The panel also recommends building CEAP and the strate-gic resource management system around a handful of criti-cal and explicitly stated national and regional environmen-tal goals.The panel concluded that building CEAP—or alarger strategic resource management system—to addressthe performance of every program producing every envi-ronmental benefit everywhere in the nation is a massive andexpensive task that is fraught with problematic assumptions.The panel strongly recommends focusing CEAP and thestrategic resource management system a around a few envi-ronmental and natural resource objectives that are of criticalregional or national significance and that are expected todrive conservation efforts over the coming decades. Thepanel hopes that such a geographically-focused approach—built around goals and regional assessments—could be builtfaster and at less expense and could produce more credibleand useful results in the short term.

Regionalization

The panel recommends USDA look more to regional-level rather than national-level assessments and report-ing of results to reduce the cost and increase the utilityand credibility of CEAP and related strategic resourcemanagement activities. Panel members are concernedthat the demands of national-level reporting plannedfor CEAP national assessment activities [cropland-CRP,grazing land, wetlands, wildlife] will obscure opportu-nities to produce more focused and comprehensiveregional-level assessments. Moreover, regional-levelassessments would likely provide a more specific con-text for environmental problems, more meaningfulinterpretations of CEAP simulations and assessments,and more effective strategies for employing USDA peo-ple and programs to achieve environmental goals.

Representative regional assessments should be prop-erly designed and executed to produce results that areapplicable at larger, even national scales, while reducingthe overall cost of CEAP and related activities.Regional assessments should, to the maximum extentpossible, be linked to on-the-ground environmentalimprovement and resource conservation projects inwhich USDA conservation programs play an importantrole.The value of investments in on-the-ground moni-toring at the project scale—strongly recommended by

the panel earlier in this report—would be multiplied ifproject-scale monitoring and evaluation was tied direct-ly to regional- and national assessment. Producing anational assessment by aggregating valid regional assess-ments to the national scale is a more credible and mean-ingful approach than generalizing from the national toregional scales. Such a system could also draw on pastanalyses of trends in resource condition and environ-mental quality. As important, such an approach wouldallow integrated assessment of the aggregate contribu-tion of multiple programs to environmental quality.

Emphasize Strategic Components when Evaluating Programs

As noted earlier, the panel was struck by the emphasisplaced on tracking change in generalized estimates of theenvironmental effects of programs as the primary indica-tor of program performance or results.Much less attentionappeared to be paid to the strategic components of pro-gram implementation: the analyses used to set goals, therigor employed to evaluate alternative strategies foremploying programs to achieve those goals, the systemsbuilt to monitor progress on-the-ground, and the com-mitment to reevaluate and modify strategies based on theresults of that monitoring. The unavoidable technical

problems in simulating or extrapolating generalized envi-ronmental effects from information about practicesimplemented should caution against over-reliance onsuch measures in program evaluation. In addition, per-formance measures tend to be atomistic and highly gen-eralized geographically. Changes in what appear to bequantitative performance measures may be telling usmore about the assumptions and methods used to simu-late or extrapolate those changes than about what pro-grams are actually accomplishing on the ground. Thepanel recommends that much more attention be paid toon-the-ground monitoring and the strategic componentsof program management when attempting to assess theperformance of those programs.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) usesthe Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) toevaluate the effectiveness of federal programs. PART isintended to evaluate the performance of programs byasking questions about (1) program purpose and design,(2) strategic planning, (3) program management, and (4)program results and accountability. Answers to thosequestions are evaluated and aggregated into a PART“score” that rates programs as effective, moderatelyeffective, adequate, ineffective, or results not demon-strated. One of the primary drivers of CEAP, the panel

Attainment of policies and purposes

The Secretary shall promote the attainment of the policiesand purposes expressed in this chapter by:

1) appraising on a continuing basis the soil, water, andrelated resources of the Nation;

2) developing and updating periodically a program forfurthering the conservation, protection, andenhancement of the soil, water, and relatedresources of the Nation consistent with the roles andprogram responsibilities of other Federal agenciesand State and local governments; and

3) providing to Congress and the public, throughreports, the information developed pursuant to para-graphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, and by provid-ing Congress with an annual evaluation report asprovided in section 2006 of this title.

Continuing appraisal of soil, water, and related resources

In recognition of the importance of and need for obtainingand maintaining information on the current status of soil,water, and related resources, the Secretary is authorizedand directed to carry out a continuing appraisal of thesoil, water, and related resources of the Nation. Theappraisal shall include, but not be limited to—

1) data on the quality and quantity of soil, water, andrelated resources, including fish and wildlife habitats;

2) data on the capability and limitations of thoseresources for meeting current and projecteddemands on the resource base;

3) data on the changes that have occurred in the statusand condition of those resources resulting from var-ious past uses, including the impact of farming tech-nologies, techniques, and practices;

4) data on current Federal and State laws, policies, pro-grams, rights, regulations, ownerships, and theirtrends and other considerations relating to the use,development, and conservation of soil, water, andrelated resources;

5) data on the costs and benefits of alternative soil andwater conservation practices; and

6) data on alternative irrigation techniques regarding theircosts, benefits, and impact on soil and water conserva-tion, crop production, and environmental factors.

Public participation

The appraisal shall be made in cooperation with conser-vation districts, State soil and water conservation agen-cies, and other appropriate citizen groups, and local andState agencies under such procedures as the Secretarymay prescribe to insure public participation.

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCE CONSERVATION ACT OF 1977: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

Soil and water conservation program

The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to developin cooperation with and participation by the public throughconservation districts, State and national organizations andagencies, and other appropriate means, a national soil andwater conservation program (hereinafter called the “pro-gram”) to be used as a guide in carrying out the activities ofthe Secretary which assist landowners and land users, attheir request, in furthering soil and water conservation onthe private and non-Federal lands of the Nation. The programshall also include but not be limited to:

1) analysis of the Nation’s soil, water, and relatedresource problems;

2) analysis of existing Federal, State, and local govern-ment authorities and adjustments needed;

3) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the soil andwater conservation ongoing programs and the over-all progress being achieved by Federal, State, andlocal programs and the landowners and land usersin meeting the soil and water conservation objec-tives of this chapter;

4) identification and evaluation of alternative methodsfor the conservation, protection, environmentalimprovement, and enhancement of soil and waterresources, in the context of alternative time frames,and a recommendation of the preferred alternativesand the extent to which they are being implemented;

5) investigation and analysis of the practicability, desir-ability, and feasibility of collecting organic waste mate-rials, including manure, crop and food wastes, industri-al organic waste, municipal sewage sludge, loggingand wood-manufacturing residues, and any otherorganic refuse, composting, or similarly treating suchmaterials, transporting and placing such materialsonto the land to improve soil tilth and fertility

6) analysis of the Federal and non-Federal inputs requiredto implement the program;

7) analysis of costs and benefits of alternative soil andwater conservation practices; and

8) investigation and analysis of alternative irrigation tech-niques regarding their costs, benefits, and impact onsoil and water conservation, crop production, andenvironmental factors.

Utilization of available information and data

In the implementation of this chapter, the Secretary shall utilizeinformation and data available from other Federal, State, andlocal governments, and private organizations and coordinatehis actions to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlap ofplanning and program efforts.

Termination of program

The provisions of this chapter shall terminate onDecember 31, 2008.

was told by agency liaisons, is providing informationneeded to get “a good PART score.”

OMB is near the end of the first five-year cycle ofusing PART to evaluate federal programs. The panelunderstands the OMB may revisit and re-evaluate thePART process at the end of that five-year cycle. Thepanel recommends OMB give more weight to, andmore scrutiny of, the strategic components of programimplementation in any plans for a new cycle of PARTevaluations or as they take a second look at programsthat successfully completed the PART evaluation in thefirst cycle.Answers to the first three questions posed byPART should be used to focus more attention on theextent to which program design, implementation, andmanagement enables a rigorous, adaptive managementapproach.The panel outlines the six key components ofa strategic resource management system to enable adap-tive management in a following section of this report.Future iterations of the PART process should evaluatethe extent to which these six components are part ofthe approach used to implement programs.

A great deal of attention and weight is currentlygiven to answers to the fourth question—programresults and accountability. CEAP was clearly intendedto simulate the effect of conservation practice applica-

tion as a way to provide quantitative estimates of pro-gram effects to demonstrate and track program results.The panel’s concerns about the meaning of generalizedindicators of practice/program effects were discussedearlier in this report.The panel recommends that futureiterations of the PART process should focus moreattention on the extent to which such estimates ofeffects can be directly compared to specified goals forthe simulated effects and on the extent to which suchperformance measures are linked to ecological and eco-nomic context in which the estimated effects occur.

The PART process also allows for combined evalua-tions of multiple programs in a single PART analysis.Thepanel recommends OMB explore options to conduct out-come-specific rather than program-specific evaluation ofperformance. For example, rather than evaluate the per-formance of EQIP in producing change in multiple envi-ronmental performance indicators, evaluations wouldassess the cumulative effect of multiple USDA conserva-tion programs on water quality, or habitat, or air quality, orother national or regional goals. Such an approach couldand should reward efforts to integrate implementation ofmultiple programs and strategically focus resources frommultiple programs to more effectively achieve designatedenvironmental goals.

The panel discussed at length the componentsthat must be part of a strategic resource manage-ment system. The panel then evaluated the

extent to which CEAP currently provides those com-ponents or is anticipated to provide those components.The panel also identified missing pieces—componentsof a strategic resource management system that are notpart of CEAP plans and that were not part of briefingsor background material provided to the panel.

CCoommppoonneennttss ooff aa SSttrraatteeggiicc RReessoouurrccee MMaannaaggeemmeennttSSyysstteemm

The strategic resource management system envisionedby the panel must be able to accomplish six tasks:

1. Construct and update the conservation baseline:describe, quantify, and regularly update—at salientspatial scales—the magnitude and extent of envi-ronmental problems as well as opportunities toadvance conservation efforts on the nation’sworking land.

2. Set meaningful goals: evaluate the feasibility anddesirability—at salient spatial scales—of alterna-tive goals for environmental improvement onworking land.

3. Evaluate alternative strategies: rigorously evaluate therelative effectiveness of and benefits produced byalternative strategies for deploying people andprograms to produce the changes in practices andfarming systems where they are most needed toachieve established goals.

4. Monitor program implementation: assemble and assessprogram implementation data to determine ifpeople and resources have been employed as perthe selected strategy.

5. Monitor environmental benefits: assemble and assessprogram implementation and natural resourceinventory and monitoring data to assess whetherprogress is being made toward established goalsand if that progress is sufficient to hit establishedtimelines.

6. Reevaluate strategies: rigorously reevaluate strategiesbased on information generated through moni-toring of program implementation and environ-mental benefits and analysis of the reasons antici-pated benefits were or were not achieved.

CEAP, as currently defined and presented to the panelincludes the following components: (1) CEAP NationalAssessments—Cropland-CRP, Wildlife, Wetlands, andGrazing Land, and (2) Watershed Studies—ARS bench-mark, CSREES, and NRCS watershed studies. Currentplans for CEAP include elements that are well posi-tioned to become part of a strategic resource manage-ment system. Critical components of such a system,however, appear to be missing or were not included inthe scope of the panel’s inquiry.The table on the oppo-site page summarizes how the planned components ofCEAP—as currently envisioned—could contribute to acomprehensive strategic resource management system.

SSTTRRAATTEEGGIICC RREESSOOUURRCCEE MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT BBLLUUEEPPRRIINNTT

Strategic Resource Management CEAP National CEAP Performance System Components Assessments Watershed Reporting

Studies SystemsConstruct and Update Conservation Baseline

Simulated environmental effects at national or regional scale of current X ??conservation effort.

Document current level of conservation effort supported by USDA conservation ?? Xprograms.

Document current level of conservation effort supported by other federal and ??nonfederal activities.

Assess extent and magnitude of unmet environmental problems and opportunities.

Set Meaningful GoalsEvaluate desirability and feasibility of alternative goals.

Evaluate Alternative StrategiesSimulate the effect of alternative strategies. X ??

Compare simulated strategies to monitoring data.

Evaluate the relative effectiveness of and benefits produced by X ??alternative strategies.

Monitor Program ImplementationDetermine if people and resources have been employed consistent Xwith selected strategies.

Monitor Environmental BenefitsMonitor change in environmental outcomes which programs are intended to achieve.

Reevaluate StrategiesSimulate the effect of alternative strategies. X ??

Compare simulated strategies to monitoring data.

Evaluate the relative effectiveness of and benefits produced X ??by alternative strategies.

Key:X Component included in current CEAP plans.?? Priority given to component in current CEAP plans is unclear.

Component missing from CEAP plans.

CCoommppoonneennttss IInncclluuddeedd iinn CCuurrrreenntt CCEEAAPP PPllaannss

The panel is encouraged that USDA’s current plans forCEAP could produce several important components ofa strategic resource management system.

The CEAP Cropland-CRP national assessment sim-ulation capabilities will enable large-scale estimation ofthe baseline effects of the conservation effort represent-ed by USDA programs.That simulation capability willalso allow for more rigorous assessment and reevalua-tion of strategies for employing staff and programs tomeet goals—at least at large regional and national scalesand in the short-term for cropland only. Current CEAPplans call for augmenting these capabilities throughplanned activities in the wetlands and wildlife compo-nents of the national assessment and building the capac-ity to estimate effects of conservation activities on graz-ing land. The CEAP national assessment simulationcapability should be a critical beginning contribution toa strategic resource management system for the nation’sworking land.

CEAP watershed studies will help refine and validatethe methods used to simulate effects of conservationpractices and programs. Building the science base to sup-port such simulations will be an important contributionto the strategic resource management system. CEAPwatershed study plans also, however, indicate that build-ing the capacity to conduct regional assessments of theenvironmental benefits of conservation activities is one ofthe potential outcomes of the watershed study compo-nent. It is unclear to the panel, however, what priority isbeing accorded to building this regional assessmentcapacity and how CEAP scientists will scale-up fromwatershed analyses to the regional level. Regional assess-ments, tied to more specific environmental goals in morespecific geographic settings, will produce more credibleand useful conservation baselines and evaluations of alter-native strategies. Moving to a more regional approach tostrategic resource management is one of the promisingopportunities and starting point the panel has identifiedfor building a strategic resource management systemwithin the constraints of limited budgets and staff. Thepanel recommends USDA and its partners to give greateremphasis on, and priority to, building such outcome andregion-specific assessment capacity in their overall strate-gy for CEAP watershed studies.

Performance reporting systems, already in place inNRCS and FSA, will provide the nuts and bolts infor-mation about program implementation needed to doc-ument the current level of conservation effort support-ed by USDA. Efforts to more precisely geo-referenceprogram implementation data are essential and shouldbe the highest priority for enhancing current perform-ance reporting systems. Agency staff indicated to the

panel that such efforts are already underway.The panelapplauds these efforts and encourages USDA to com-plete this task as soon as possible.

CCoommppoonneennttss MMiissssiinngg ffrroomm UUSSDDAA PPllaannss

The panel is concerned that several critical componentsof a strategic resource management system are notincluded in USDA’s current plans for CEAP. In somecases, the panel has reason to hope that the missingpieces will, or are, being provided by other agencyactivities beyond the scope of CEAP—and beyond thecharge to the panel. In other cases, the panel did not seeany evidence that provision was being, or would be,made to provide critical components of a strategicresource management system.

On-the-Ground Monitoring and Inventory Systems

The most important and troubling missing piece is theabsence of plans for on-the-ground monitoring ofchange in the environmental indicators and outcomesconservation programs and activities are intended toimprove. Plans for tracking the environmental effects ofprograms rely largely, if not entirely, on micro-simula-tions of or extrapolations from practice information.The panel has stressed its concerns about the credibili-ty and utility of such estimates, even if large investmentsare made to improve their accuracy.There is an urgentneed for USDA to revisit and strengthen its plans for on-the-ground monitoring and inventory systems as the pri-mary source of information to evaluate progress towardgoals and the environmental benefits of conservation pro-grams. That monitoring system must be built around acore set of environmental/ecological indicators tied to theprimary environmental outcomes sought from USDAconservation programs. Monitoring, for example, shouldbe employed to determine whether investments in irri-gation efficiency or other water conservation measuresare resulting in improved in-stream flows, recharge ofaquifers, or water supply reservoirs. On CRP acres, thequality and habitat value of cover should be monitoringto determine if wildlife goals are being met. Many moreexamples could be listed. In all cases, monitoring sys-tems must be designed at the right scale and around theright core indicators.The objective of all such monitor-ing efforts must be to determine the extent to whichthe environmental benefits people and programs wereemployed to achieve are in fact being achieved.

Simulations and extrapolations cannot substitute foron-the-ground monitoring and inventory systemsdesigned to determine if anticipated conservation andenvironmental benefits are being achieved. Such moni-toring and inventory systems should be—in fact must

be—accomplished through a collaboration of USDA andits federal, state, and local partners. No individual agencyor entity has the personnel and resources required todesign and implement such monitoring and inventorysystems. Large investments in monitoring systems arecurrently made by multiple federal, state, and local unitsof government and nongovernmental organizations inthe public and private sector. CEAP must harness invest-ments in monitoring already being made by other feder-al, state, and local entities to the maximum extent possi-ble to provide the on-the-ground monitoring informa-tion needed for credible assessment of the environmentalbenefits of conservation programs.

At a minimum, USDA must carefully compare theresults of its own estimates of the effects of its programsto the results of its own and other monitoring programsthat track changes in some or all of the environmentalindicators USDA conservation programs are expectedto improve. USDA must be able to explain discrepan-cies between its estimates of effects and any measuredchanges in environmental outcomes or indicators.Moreover, USDA must be able to clearly and effective-ly communicate the source and meaning of those dis-crepancies to policymakers, program managers, and theconservation community. Unexplained discrepancieswill erode the credibility of both USDA’s estimates ofthe effects of its programs and the decisions made basedon those estimates.

USDA and its partner agencies and organizationshave designed and implemented their current monitor-ing programs to meet specific objectives central to themissions of each particular agency and organization.Unfortunately, the collective information gatheredthrough these programs may not be easily transformedto meet the needs of USDA to document the environ-mental effects of its conservation programs. Even withoutstanding interagency cooperation, current monitor-ing conducted by USDA and its partners may not beenough. It is likely that additional funds and staffresources will be needed to support monitoring andinventory systems. The panel recommends thatCongress mandate that at least one percent of the fund-ing for each authorized program be set aside to supportmonitoring and evaluation of those programs. Thefunds set-aside for monitoring and evaluation should bepooled to allow cross-cutting evaluations of the contri-bution multiple programs are making to a single envi-ronmental outcome.

On-the-ground monitoring need not be over-whelming complex and expensive.The key to “smart”monitoring is carefully selecting indicators that can beused to tell the story of what is happening in the envi-ronment. These indicators can be used to documentboth the state of the environment and the way that it is

responding to the conservation actions that are beingimplemented. For example, one goal of nutrient man-agement is to provide enough nutrients for good plantgrowth, but not so much that the excess leaches intogroundwater or runs off into adjacent streams and lakes.Soil phosphorus concentrations or index values canindicate both the nutritional status of the soil and thepotential for losses that can negatively affect water qual-ity. Likewise, one goal of conservations program toestablish riparian buffers is to improve wildlife habitat,by increasing vegetative cover. Percent cover by woodyvegetation could provide an indicator of the habitatavailable to riparian shrub and forest birds, and theeffectiveness of conservation programs that supportbuffer creation.

There are many examples of partnership approachesfor managing the costs of on-the-ground monitoring.These include (1) water quality monitoring programsimplemented in partnership with watershed organiza-tions and other citizen groups, (2) vegetation and birdhabitat surveys implemented in partnership with theconservation and wildlife organizations such as TheNature Conservancy, and (3) biotic surveys conductedwith a variety of partners such as the Riverwatch net-work. Similarly, soils data collected by extension agentsand other agricultural partners could be compiled andsupplemented with targeted sampling to provide a sta-tistically valid overall picture of nutrient conditions in awatershed. These data could be used both to identifyareas that might receive particular emphasis in newconservation efforts and document trends in nutrientstatus and nutrient losses to the environment over timeas conservation programs are implemented.

The panel strongly recommends using—at a mini-mum—$40 million of the $4 billion taxpayers areinvesting annually in conservation programs to deter-mine if taxpayers are getting the conservation and envi-ronmental benefits they are paying for. In the words ofone panel member “nobody builds a $4 billion buildingwithout an architect.” Moreover, the panel recommendsthe Administration strongly support such a mandatorymonitoring and evaluation fund and ensure such fund-ing, once authorized, is included in the President’sannual budget proposal to Congress.

Unmet Needs and Meaningful Goals

The panel did not see any evidence that provision wasbeing made for rigorous and comprehensive identifica-tion and assessment of the extent and magnitude ofenvironmental and resource management problems thatare not being met through current conservation efforts.Such information is the foundation of a strategicresource management system and the basis for setting

meaningful goals.The panel is aware of tentative plansto use the CEAP cropland-CRP conservation baselineto simulate the extent of such needs by comparing esti-mates of environmental effects under current treatmentto the environmental effects that would be expectedunder a “full treatment scenario.”This is a step forward,but such simulations will not substitute for more com-prehensive and on-the-ground efforts to identify unmetneeds. The ability to set goals and evaluate alternativestrategies will be seriously constrained in the absence ofsolid information about unmet environmental problemsand opportunities.

The panel is aware that strategic planning activitiesmandated under the Government Performance andResults Act (GPRA) and the national conservationplanning process mandated under the ResourceConservation Act (RCA), must include rigorous assess-ment of unmet needs and opportunities and must set orevaluate meaningful goals in order to meet the man-dates of those statutes. The panel made no effort toreview, let alone evaluate these strategic planning activ-ities. Such an effort was well beyond the charge to thepanel.The panel hopes and expects these efforts will, infact, produce the rigorous assessment of unmet needs soessential to a strategic resource management system.

The panel strongly recommends that clear links beforged between CEAP staff, USDA strategic planners,and staff responsible for the RCA process.Without suchlinks, many of the benefits of a strategic resource man-agement system will be lost. Linked staff should becharged with producing a coordinated plan for datacollection, resource inventory, and resource assessmentactivities that will produce credible assessments ofunmet needs.The Natural Resources Inventory (NRI)system, in particular, should be revisited to determine ifand how the system could be revamped to produce sta-tistically valid estimates of the extent and geographicdistribution of conservation needs.

Beyond USDA Conservation Programs

Many private and public sector entities contribute tothe nation’s conservation effort on working land.Meaningful assessment of the effects of those efforts mustbe part of a strategic resource management system.TheCEAP national survey on cropland will collect someinformation on such efforts, but it is not clear to thepanel what plans are in place to regularly update andenrich information available about non-USDA drivenconservation on working land.The panel recommends acollaborative effort among USDA and its partners todesign and implement a cost-effective system to collectand consolidate information about the level of conserva-tion effort supported by other federal, state, and local

units of government, nongovernmental organizations,and the private sector. Such consolidated informationwould provide a much better basis for strategic decisionsabout how USDA people and resources could best bedeployed to meet conservation goals.

Building the science-base for strategic resourcemanagement on working land must be a primarypurpose for CEAP. That purpose is currently

overshadowed by more short-term objectives, but inthe long-term, building the science base should becomeamong the most important contributions of CEAP to astrategic resource management system. Long after theassessment reports generated by CEAP are out of date,the research findings and CEAP’s contribution to scien-tific understanding and technical know-how will con-tinue to contribute to improving the nation’s conserva-tion effort on working land.

The panel applauds USDA’s commitment to build-ing the science base through CEAP. USDA AgriculturalResearch Service estimates that $18 million of theirinternal funds are directed to CEAP each year. USDA’sCooperative State Research, Education, and ExtensionService (CSREES) is providing $2 million and NRCS$1 million annually to support additional watershedstudies. The NRCS investment in national assessmentwork is also contributing to the knowledge base regard-ing the environmental effects of conservation practices.USDA is also working with The Wildlife Society andthe Soil and Water Conservation Society to document,through literature reviews, the state of the scientificknowledge regarding the effect of conservation prac-tices on environmental outcomes. In addition, a work-shop entitled, “Managing Agricultural Landscapes forEnvironmental Quality,” is planned for October 2006 toassemble scientific expertise regarding quantificationand evaluation of environmental effects of conservationefforts at watershed or other salient geographic scales.

Efforts such as these to build the science base arecritical to long-term success of CEAP and to strategicresource management. The scientific momentumCEAP has generated to date must be maintained wellbeyond the 2007 farm bill if the full benefits of invest-ments to date are to be realized.

SScciieennttiiffiicc PPrriioorriittiieess

Scientific efforts currently underway under the aegis ofCEAP appear to focus on two main objectives: (1) val-idating models used in national assessments to simulatethe effect of application of conservation practices onselected environmental outcomes, and (2) refining esti-mates of effects at regional and/or watershed scales.Thepanel believes these are important objectives for CEAPin the short-term.

The panel is particularly enthusiastic about theunique value of the watershed study component ofCEAP. Studies conducted at watershed or other salientgeographic scales, could and should become a richsource of information to improve the effectiveness ofconservation programs. Environmental outcomes—soilquality, water quality, water conservation, air quality, andfish and wildlife habitat—are produced at scales largerthan the individual field, farm, or ranch. Strategic man-agement of conservation programs to secure those ben-efits requires knowledge of where intervention is need-ed in the watershed as much as what treatment is need-ed.Watershed studies are uniquely suited to refine ourability to precisely apply conservation treatments toensure the most cost-effective results at the watershedor other salient geographic scales. The panel stronglyrecommends the watershed studies be conducted in afashion that will allow comparisons between studies inregard to methods, measures, and outcome indicators.

The primary objective of the watershed study com-ponent of CEAP should be to build the capacity toeffectively direct conservation efforts within designatedwatersheds or other salient geographic units to achievedesignated environmental benefits in the most cost-effective and sustainable way. The key scientific issueswatershed/geographic unit studies could be designed toaddress are many, exciting, and detailed below. In short,these multiple issues all lead to answers to three broad,inter-related, and critical questions:

1. What are the most effective interventions—prac-tices, alternative farming systems, landscape orhydrologic restoration—to achieve specific envi-ronmental benefits?

BBUUIILLDD TTHHEE SSCCIIEENNCCEE BBAASSEEBBUUIILLDD TTHHEE SSCCIIEENNCCEE BBAASSEE

2. Where should such interventions be placed on thelandscape to most effectively achieve specificenvironmental benefits?

3. How can we design cost-effective and cost-feasi-ble systems to monitor changes in core environ-mental indicators?

CEAP should support a USDA-wide agenda of sci-entific activities designed to determine, in the words ofone panel member, “What are we doing that works;what are we doing that doesn’t work; and how do wedo things better?” That agenda could and shouldexpand the watershed studies component of CEAPover time to (1) increase the land uses and geographicsettings covered by such studies, and (2) to expand thescope of watershed studies to include effects on aquat-ic and terrestrial wildlife.The panel recommends addi-tional USDA-CSREES funds, particularly funds fromthe National Research Initiative be made available toscientists and institutions to conduct collaborativeresearch associated with CEAP activities and objectives.

The panel urges USDA to take advantage of allopportunities—including additional funding—to createa set of “representative” watersheds or other salient geo-graphic units in various agricultural settings on aregional basis.The network of watershed studies shouldbe constructed through collaboration with multiplepartners in the federal, state, and local governments,research and education institutions, nongovernmentalorganizations, and the private sector and include studiesalready underway by other federal, state, and local gov-ernment agencies and other entities in the private com-mercial and nonprofit sectors. Such a system of water-shed/geographic unit studies should create a solid sci-entific foundation for strategic resource managementand provide a basis for more credible assessments of theeffect of conservation programs at larger regional ornational scales.

The issues such an expanded network of current andnew watershed/geographic unit studies and related sci-entific activities undertaken under CEAP shouldaddress include:

• Variable source area hydrology; identifying criticalsource areas within watersheds for nonpointsource pollutants.

• The contribution of geomorphic instability(stream channel adjustment to changes in hydro-logic regime) to resource degradation and effec-tive approaches to managing those effects.

• Wetland functions and values at ecosystem andwatershed scales, including contributions tohealthy fish and wildlife habitats and populations.

• Quantifying and predicting net quantitative bene-fits of conservation efforts at watershed and othersalient geographic scales.

• Best options for targeting conservation effortswithin watersheds to enhance effectiveness.

• Integration of fish and wildlife habitat conserva-tion as a critical and contributing component ofimproving watershed health and the subsequentwatershed benefits derived from those actions.

• The quantifiable contributions of applied conser-vation efforts to improve the quality and health offisheries habitats and aquatic resources.

• Quantitative benefits of terrestrial wildlife conservation.

• Effective and reliable quantitative measures ofprogress at watershed and other salient geographic scales.

• Strategies for innovative approaches to monitor-ing changes in resource and environmental out-comes that are cost-effective and feasible.

• Information needs to enhance or augment adap-tive management at watershed/geographic unitscales.

• Elucidation of the economic and social factorsthat drive application of conservation at farm,ranch, watershed, and other salient geographicscales.

An active and well-focused research agenda is essen-tial to building a strategic resource management systemand for ensuring the scientific credibility and legitima-cy of CEAP efforts.

CCaappaacciittyy ttoo DDeelliivveerr SScciieennccee

Panel members repeatedly discussed the status of thetechnical services infrastructure—research, education,and technical assistance—during their deliberations.Panel members are acutely aware of the importance ofthis infrastructure as the foundation of the nation’s con-servation effort on working land. Even the best sciencebase will produce few results unless technically profi-cient people and technical tools are available to translatethat science into on-the-ground changes in farm,ranch, and watershed/geographic unit management.The best and most rigorously developed strategy fordeploying staff and programs will only be as good as thecapability to execute that strategy.

Moreover, rapid scientific advances are improving ourability to understand and manage the spatial and tempo-ral variability in agricultural landscapes in ways that coulddramatically improve the performance of conservation

programs.Taking advantage of these opportunities, how-ever, will require better information and people trainedto use that information to more precisely apply conser-vation treatments at field, farm, ranch, watershed, andother salient geographic scales. We will miss a majoropportunity for cost-effective conservation if our techni-cal infrastructure is too weak to take advantages of thenew opportunities science is creating.

An in-depth assessment of the strengths and weak-nesses of the current technical services infrastructureshould be among the first priorities undertaken by astrategic resource management system. Panel membersrealize such an in-depth assessment is largely outside thescope of CEAP and outside the scope of the panel’scharge. But if CEAP simulations consider the implica-tions of program implementation at higher levels ofeffort or through more strategic implementation, theywill be assuming that that the technical services neededto secure those higher levels of performance are avail-able. Clearly, those assumptions warrant additionalscrutiny. Moreover, panel members believe technicalassistance and advice is often a more cost-effectivemeans to enhance environmental benefits from conser-vation on working land than financial assistance, partic-ularly when directed at implementation of manage-ment-intensive, annual conservation systems.The mostimportant task USDA should give to its strategicresource management system is a rigorous assessment ofalternatives for strengthening the technical servicesinfrastructure that drives the nation’s conservationeffort on working land.

In its preliminary findings, the panel identified fourpotential “soft-spots” that, if not addressed, couldderail CEAP and efforts to build a strategic resource

management system.Those soft spots included:

1. Transparency of data, methods, and estimates.2. Scientific and technical limits on ability to

quantify effects.3. Simulation versus monitoring.4. Program neutral versus program specific

assessments.

In this report, the panel has already reconfirmed andreiterated its concerns about the scientific and technicallimits on ability to quantify effects and its concernsabout over-reliance on simulation and under relianceon monitoring.The panel would like to also reaffirm itsconcerns about transparency and program neutrality.

TTrraannssppaarreennccyy

Any effort to simulate or extrapolate the environmentaleffects of conservation programs based on the numberand kind of practices those programs fund, faces impor-tant hurdles. Estimates of environmental effects must relyon our ability to infer and/or simulate multiple stepsbetween practice implementation and ultimate environ-mental effects. Every step involves assumptions and hasthe potential to introduce error in the final estimate.

The panel understands that assumptions and poten-tial error cannot be eliminated from CEAP or agencyperformance reporting systems. Instead, the panelstrongly recommends that USDA ensure that CEAPand performance reporting methods and data be madeas transparent as possible so that users of the informa-tion understand the assumptions and potential sourcesof error that are imbedded in the assessment andaccounting information generated. Source data andmodeling protocols should be shared widely within theconservation and scientific communities to maximizetransparency and, therefore, the credibility of results inthe short term. USDA must identify the most sensitiveassumptions and largest sources of error in its results and

explain the implications of that sensitivity analysis forusers of CEAP and performance reporting system out-puts. In the long term, the panel concluded that one ofthe most valuable outcomes of the overall CEAP effortmay well be identification of gaps in knowledge and datacollection that allow pinpointing “what we know andwhat we don’t know.” Such knowledge can be used toidentify “tractable problems” in our accounting andassessment systems that can be fixed at a reasonable cost.

PPrrooggrraamm NNeeuuttrraall

The unit of analysis originally envisioned for CEAP isthe environmental performance of an individual con-servation program. Indeed, the original detailed studyplans for CEAP indicate USDA intended to reportnational estimates of the environmental effects pro-duced each year by the following programs:

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).• Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).• Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).• Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA).• Conservation Security Program (CSP).• Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).

The panel remains concerned that focusing on indi-vidual programs will produce fragmented assessmentsand impede strategic resource management. As onepanel member put it,“a focus on program may tell us alot about that particular program, but it might not tellus much about how effectively environmental problemsare being solved.” CEAP and the strategic resourcemanagement system, of which it is an integral part,should be built around a handful of goals and be con-ducted at geographic scales appropriate to each goal.The system should stress integrated assessment of theaggregate contribution of multiple programs to envi-ronmental quality.

CCAAUUTTIIOONNSSCCAAUUTTIIOONNSS

This report is part of a larger effort—supported by a cooperative agreement with theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service—to assist with thedesign and implementation of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). TheSoil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS) facilitated an external, policy-level reviewof CEAP. We relied on input and advice from the CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel, whose mem-bers are listed below.

We are indebted to the agency liaisons and presenters who shared their time andexpertise during the panels’ meetings. The findings and conclusions, however, are solelythe responsibility of SWCS.

CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel

SSaannddrraa BBaattiiee:: Professor, Michigan State

University-Department of Agricultural

Economics.

OOttttoo DDooeerriinngg:: Professor, Purdue University-

Department of Agricultural Economics.

RRoonnaalldd HHaammmmeerrsscchhiimmddtt:: Director, Division of

Environment, Kansas Department of Health and

Environment.

KKrryyssttaa HHaarrddeenn:: Chief Executive Officer,

National Association of Conservation Districts.

JJaayy HHaarrddwwiicckk:: Farmer, National Cotton

Council.

FFeerrdd HHooeeffnneerr:: Policy Director, Sustainable

Agriculture Coalition.

CChhaarrlliiee IInnggrraamm:: Director, Legislative and

Regulatory Affairs, National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture.

JJooee MMaarrttiinn:: Director of Congressional Affairs,

American Farm Bureau Federation.

TTaammaarraa MMccCCaannnn TThhiieess:: Director for

Environmental Issues, National Cattlemen’s Beef

Association.

JJeennnniiffeerr MMoocckk:: Agriculture Conservation

Policy Analyst, International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies.

PPeetteerr NNoowwaakk:: Professor, University of

Wisconsin-Madison-Department of Rural

Sociology and Department of Environmental

Studies.

RRoossss RRaacciinnee:: Executive Director, Intertribal

Agricultural Council.

TTiimm SSeeaarrcchhiinnggeerr:: Attorney, Ecosystem

Restoration Program, Environmental Defense.

JJeeffff VVoonnkk:: Director, Iowa Department of

Natural Resources and SWCS Board of

Directors Ex-Officio Liaison.

MMaarryy WWaattzziinn:: Director, Rubenstein Ecosystem

Science Laboratory, University of Vermont-

Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural

Resources.

JJeeffffrreeyy ZZiinnnn:: Specialist in Natural Resources

Policy, Congressional Research Service.

Soil and Water Conservation Society945 SW Ankeny Rd.Ankeny, IA 50023Phone: 515-289-2331 Fax: 515-289-1227 www.swcs.org

finalreport - conservation science and practice · finalreport from the blue ribbon panel...

Documents

finalreport ecotourism.docx

hh finalreport

49923235 rd finalreport

finalreport summerinternship

barnes finalreport

cabello finalreport

finalreport initialtest

finalreport 130821121835-phpapp01

fiore finalreport

finalreport (autosaved)

india psha finalreport

davis finalreport

micro world finalreport

project finalreport

royle finalreport

huse finalreport

finalreport sm

keralagovt finalreport

simkin finalreport

fta agri finalreport