Showing posts with label U.S. Department of Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Department of Agriculture. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

GAO Report Released: Agricultural Research: Two USDA Agencies Can Enhance Safeguards against Project Duplication and Strengthen Collaborative Planning

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Agricultural Research: Two USDA Agencies Can Enhance Safeguards against Project Duplication and Strengthen Collaborative Planning GAO-13-255 (Apr. 12, 2013). The details of the 54-page report, available here, are discussed below:

Why GAO Did This Study


The USDA's principal research agencies, ARS and NIFA, play a key role in supporting agricultural science, and questions have been raised about the extent to which the two agencies may be performing duplicative research and whether the agencies collaborate in planning research. Research duplication is the inadvertent repetition of research that does not confirm or verify conclusions from prior studies. Collaborative planning involves bringing together research agencies and stakeholders to discuss priorities and roles and responsibilities. In this context, GAO was asked to assess how these agencies ensure the efficient use of their resources for research. This report examines (1) the topics ARS and NIFA focus on and the safeguards the agencies use to prevent duplication of research projects, along with any shortcomings in those safeguards, and (2) collaborative planning ARS and NIFA engaged in and how, if at all, such planning could be enhanced. GAO reviewed USDA safeguards against duplication within and between ARS and NIFA; reviewed 20 randomly selected projects; analyzed information on collaborative planning; and interviewed officials from USDA, universities, and industry.

What GAO Recommends


GAO recommends, among other things, that ARS issue guidance that project information be provided to CRIS on a quarterly basis and that ARS and NIFA enhance collaborative planning. USDA generally agreed with GAO's findings, and cited benefits for three of the four recommendations.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

USDA Report Released: Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health

Recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, released an report titled, Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health (2013).  According to the press release for the 72-page report available here, the following is discussed:
[t]he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health. The report states that there are multiple factors playing a role in honey bee colony declines, including parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure.
"There is an important link between the health of American agriculture and the health of our honeybees for our country's long term agricultural productivity," said Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan. "The forces impacting honeybee health are complex and USDA, our research partners, and key stakeholders will be engaged in addressing this challenge."

"The decline in honey bee health is a complex problem caused by a combination of stressors, and at EPA we are committed to continuing our work with USDA, researchers, beekeepers, growers and the public to address this challenge," said Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe. "The report we've released today is the product of unprecedented collaboration, and our work in concert must continue. As the report makes clear, we've made significant progress, but there is still much work to be done to protect the honey bee population."

In October 2012, a National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, led by federal researchers and managers, along with Pennsylvania State University, was convened to synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding the primary factors that scientists believe have the greatest impact on managed bee health.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

GAO Report Released: Inspectors General: USDA Office of Inspector General Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Inspectors General: USDA Office of Inspector General Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality GAO-13-245 (Mar. 22, 2013). The details of the 32-page report, available here, are discussed below:

Why GAO Did This Study

The USDA OIG plays a critical role in addressing issues of economy, efficiency, and potential fraud involving scarce taxpayer dollars allocated to USDA.
GAO was asked to review a number of issues related to the OIG's operations in comparison to other cabinet-level OIGs. The objectives of this report were to provide information on the USDA OIG's (1) budget and staffing levels, (2) reported accomplishments, (3) reported oversight coverage, (4) reported quality of work, and (5) oversight of USDA's reported causes of estimated improper payments. To address these objectives, GAO obtained information over the 3-year period covering fiscal years 2009 through 2011 on the OIG's budget and staff levels and the reported monetary and nonmonetary accomplishments from this work. GAO obtained similar information reported by the OIGs in all cabinet-level departments. In addition, GAO summarized information on the USDA OIG's oversight coverage reported by audits and investigations, and the quality of the OIG's work as reported by peer reviews performed by other OIGs. Also, GAO obtained information on the OIG's audit of USDA's reporting on improper payments.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making specific recommendations in this report. The USDA Inspector General commented that the draft of this report provided an objective and comprehensive review of the OIG.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

CRS Report Released: The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy (Mar. 12, 2013). The 65-page report authored by Renée Johnson, Randy Alison Aussenberg, and Tadlock Cowan discusses the following:

Summary

Sales of locally produced foods comprise a small but growing part of U.S. agricultural sales. USDA estimates that farm-level value of local food sales totaled about $4.8 billion in 2008, or about 1.6% of the U.S. market for agricultural products. An estimated total of 107,000 farms are engaged in local food systems, or about 5% of all U.S. farms.  
There is no established definition of what constitutes a “local food.” Local and regional food systems generally refer to agricultural production and marketing that occurs within a certain geographic proximity (between farmer and consumer) or that involves certain social or supply chain characteristics in producing food (such as small family farms, urban gardens, or farms using sustainable agriculture practices). Some perceive locally sourced foods as fresher and higher in quality compared to some other readily available foods, and also believe that purchasing local foods helps support local farm economies and/or farmers that use certain production practices that are perceived to be more environmentally sustainable.
A wide range of farm businesses may be considered to be engaged in local foods. These include direct-to-consumer marketing, farmers’ markets, farm-to-school programs, community-supported agriculture, community gardens, school gardens, food hubs and market aggregators, and kitchen incubators and mobile slaughter units. Other types of operations include on-farm sales/stores, internet marketing, food cooperatives and buying clubs, pick-your-own or “U-Pick” operations, roadside farm stands, urban farms (and rooftop farms and gardens), community kitchens, smallscale food processing and decentralized root cellars, and some agritourism or other types of onfarm recreational activities.
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) contained a few program provisions that directly support local and regional food systems. However, many existing federal programs benefiting U.S. agricultural producers may also provide support and assistance for local food systems. These include farm support and grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and may be grouped into several broad program categories: marketing and promotion; business assistance; rural and community development; nutrition and education; agricultural research and cooperative extension; and farmland conservation. Examples include USDA’s farmers’ market programs, rural cooperative grants, and selected child nutrition programs, among myriad other grant and loan programs, as well as USDA’s research and cooperative extension service. Farm bill proposals debated in the 112th Congress would have expanded several of these programs.
The 113th Congress will likely consider reauthorization of the 2008 farm bill and may reconsider proposals debated in the 112th Congress to address expiring farm bill provisions, including provisions that either directly or indirectly support local food systems. Although the 2008 farm bill contained few specific programs that directly support local and regional food systems, many community and farm advocacy groups have been arguing that such food systems should play a larger policy role within the next farm bill, and that laws should be modified to reflect broader, more equitable policies across a range of production systems, including local food systems. The 112th Congress introduced legislation, including several comprehensive marker bills, which would have expanded the benefits for local and regional food systems. These issues may continue to be of interest in the 113th Congress.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Spotlight: WebSoilSurvey – Accessible Soils Information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS)

By, Yiyi Wong, J.D. Candidate 2014, Pace Law School


Environmental practitioners involved in land use, remediation, restoration, and real estate transactions who have trouble locating accurate soils data now have a free tool provided by USDA-NRCS to increase their knowledge of a geographic area or aid in case research.

USDA-NRCS was originally established by Congress in 1935 as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).  However, as the SCS became more involved environmental and natural resource conservation, this branch was renamed NRCS.  The purpose of NRCS is to lead conservation for all natural resources, ensure conservation and restoration of private lands, and to work with landowners through conservation planning and assistance designed to benefit the soil, water, air, plants, and animals that result in stewardship of productive and healthy ecosystems.

WebSoilSurvey (WSS) was developed to provide resources to anyone interested in soils information provided by NRCS' Soil Survey Division.  It is operated by NRCS and provides access to the largest natural resource information system worldwide.  This web based application draws from soils data collected and compiled by the Soil Survey Staff for 95% of the U.S.  In the near future, WSS plans to have 100% coverage of the U.S.  This site is updated and maintained online as the single authoritative source of soil survey information.

WSS is an easy to use interactive website which allows a user to access available NRCS soils data for any environmental legal application.  To generate a map for negotiations or court, one only needs to know the geographic area of interest.  WSS may be searched by keywords, geographic coordinates, and agency collaborators and/or federal landowners e.g. the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.  Once the image is created, users are allowed to print or purchase the displayed soils information.  

If a user does not understand any related terms, a fully documented description of soil characteristics and other databases used in the production of the interactive map are available in the left hand column.  Of interest to the user will be the Official Soil Series Description, the Soil Geochemistry Spatial Databases, the Soil Quality and Health website, and the Soil Geography databases.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

CRS Report Released: Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs (Jan. 10, 2013). The 42-page report authored by Lynn J. Cunningham, Beth A. Roberts, Bill Canis, and Brent D. Yacobucci discusses the following:

Summary

A wide array of federal incentives supports the development and deployment of alternatives to conventional fuels and engines in transportation. These incentives include tax deductions and credits for vehicle purchases and the installation of refueling systems, federal grants for conversion of older vehicles to newer technologies, mandates for the use of biofuels, and incentives for manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles. The current array of incentives for alternative fuels and related technologies does not reflect a single, comprehensive strategy, but rather an aggregative approach to a range of discreet public policy issues, including goals of reducing petroleum consumption and import dependence, improving environmental quality, expanding domestic manufacturing, and promoting agriculture and rural development.
Current federal programs are administered by five key agencies: Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The incentives and programs described in this report are organized by the responsible agency.
  • Treasury (through the Internal Revenue Service, IRS) administers tax credits and deductions for alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicle purchases, expansion of alternative fuel refueling infrastructure, and incentives for the production and/or distribution of alternative fuels. Many of these incentives have expired in recent years although some were extended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240).
  • DOE (mainly through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE) administers research and development (R&D) programs for advanced fuels and transportation technology, grant programs to deploy alternative fuels and vehicles, and a loan program to promote domestic manufacturing of high efficiency vehicles.
  • DOT (mainly through the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration, FTA) administers grant programs to deploy “clean fuel” buses and other alternative fuel vehicles. DOT (through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA) also administers federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which include incentives for production of alternative fuel vehicles.
  • EPA (mainly through the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, OTAQ) administers the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates the use of biofuels in transportation. EPA also administers grant programs to replace older diesel engines with newer technology.
  • USDA (mainly through the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, RBS) administers grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs to expand agricultural production of biofuel feedstocks, conduct R&D on biofuels and bioenergy, and establish and expand facilities to produce biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

CRS Report Released: Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs (Feb. 5, 2013). The 30-page report authored by Megan Stubbs discusses the following:

Summary

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently administer over 20 programs and subprograms that are directly or indirectly available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural lands. The number, scope, and overall funding of these programs has grown in recent years. This growth can cause some confusion over which problems and conditions each program addresses, and specific program characteristics and performance. The programs are as follows:

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) Program

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program

Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI)

Conservation Operations (CO); Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

CRP—Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

CRP—Farmable Wetlands Program

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)

Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP—Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP)

EQIP—Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)

Farmland Protection Program (FPP)

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)

Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP)

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program

Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

Watershed Rehabilitation Program

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)

This tabular presentation provides basic information introducing each of the programs. In each case, a brief program description is followed by information on major amendments in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246); national scope and availability; states with the greatest participation; the backlog of applications or other measures of continuing interest; program funding authority; FY2012 funding; FY2013 Administration budget request; FY2013 funding where available; statutory authority; the authorization expiration date; and a link to the program’s website.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Congressional Research Service Report Released: Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, just issued the report Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation (Dec, 11, 2012). The 16-page report authored by Megan Stubbs discusses the following:

Summary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers several permanently authorized programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most of these programs offer financial assistance to producers for a loss in the production of crops or livestock. In addition to the production assistance programs, USDA also has several permanent disaster assistance programs that help producers repair damaged crop and forest land following natural disasters. These programs offer financial and technical assistance to producers to repair, restore, and mitigate damage on private land. These emergency agricultural land assistance programs include the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program. In addition to these programs, USDA also has flexibility in administering other programs that allow for support and repair of damaged cropland in the event of an emergency.
Both ECP and EFRP are administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). ECP assists landowners in restoring agricultural production damaged by natural disaster. Participants are paid a percentage of the cost to restore the land to a productive state. ECP is available only on private land and eligibility is determined locally. EFRP was created to assist private forestland owners to address damage caused by a natural disaster on nonindustrial private forest land. The EWP program and the EWP floodplain easement program are administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The EWP program assists sponsors, landowners, and operators in implementing emergency recovery measures for runoff retardation and erosion prevention to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster. In some cases this can include state and federal land. The EWP floodplain easement program is a mitigation program that pays for permanent easements on private land meant to safeguard lives and property from future floods, drought, and the products of erosion.

 Most of the emergency agricultural land assistance programs are funded through supplemental appropriations, rather than annual appropriations. As a result, funding for emergency agricultural land assistance varies greatly from year to year. Agricultural land assistance programs do not usually receive the level of attention that triggers a supplemental appropriation. Therefore, funding is typically provided for these land assistance programs as part of a larger supplemental appropriation that funds a number of agencies and programs beyond agriculture. This irregular funding method has left some agricultural land assistance programs without funding during times of high request.

Recent restrictions placed on supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance have changed the way the agricultural land assistance programs allocate funding, potentially assisting fewer natural disasters. Language in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) limits emergency supplemental funding for disaster relief. Specifically, funding used for disaster relief must be used for activities carried out pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288) for FY2012 through FY2021. This means funds appropriated through emergency supplementals for disaster relief for these ten years may only apply to activities with a Stafford Act designation. Since funding for agricultural land disaster assistance programs is appropriated almost exclusively through supplementals, this requirement could limit the way agricultural land assistance programs work in the future, potentially assisting
fewer natural disaster events.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

GAO Report Released: USDA and SBA Could Do More to Help Aquaculture and Nursery Producers

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its report, titled USDA and SBA Could Do More to Help Aquaculture and Nursery Producers GAO-12-844 (Sept. 11, 2012). This 44 page report, available here, was conducted by the GAO due to the fact that farmers and other agricultural producers are being exposed to more and more natural disasters every year.  The GAO's final recommendation included "that USDA and SBA [Small Business Administration] target outreach to small aquaculture and nursery producers, for example, by building on existing outreach, and develop a strategy to formally collaborate on disaster assistance for such producers."

Thursday, February 2, 2012

National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule -- USDA

 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule provides fora new planning rule for the National Forest System.  The highlights include:

•Plans must include components that seek to restore and maintain forests and grasslands.

•Plans would include requirements to maintain or restore watersheds, water resources, water quality including clean drinking water, and the ecological integrity of riparian areas.

•Plans would be required to provide habitat for plant and animal diversity and species conservation. These requirements are intended to keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.

•Plans would provide for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish.

•Plans would be required to provide opportunities for sustainable recreation, and to take into account opportunities to connect people with nature.

•Opportunities for public involvement and collaboration would be required throughout all stages of the planning process. The preferred alternative would provide opportunities for Tribal consultation and coordination with state and local governments and other federal agencies, and includes requirements for outreach to traditionally underrepresented communities.

•Plans require the use of the best available scientific information to inform the planning process and documentation of how science was used in the plan.

•The planning framework provides a more efficient and adaptive process for land management planning, allowing the Forest Service to respond to changing conditions.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Conserving Habitat through the Federal Farm Bill - A Guide for Land Trusts and Landowners

This Guide from the Defenders of Wildlife provides the information and
tools on Farm Bill conservation programs. It includes:

♦ A concise introduction to the Farm Bill and its conservation programs, the agencies involved and general eligibility requirements;
♦ Detailed but accessible information on each of the most relevant conservation programs offered through the 2008 Farm Bill;
♦ Time-saving tips for choosing the right program, navigating the application process and increasing the competitiveness of your applications to improve
your chances of securing funding;
♦ Recommendations on how to use the Farm Bill strategically and how to influence its implementation and local priorities;
♦ Case studies to illustrate how land managers have concretely and creatively leveraged Farm Bill dollars to maximize benefits;
♦ Guidance on working with local U.S. Department of Agriculture agency representatives and partnering with conservation organizations, landowners and others.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

A USDA Regional Roadmap to Meeting the Biofuels Goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard by 2022

This USDA Biofuels Strategic Production Report, dated June 23, 2010 is intended to start compiling real world data that would indicate the size and scope of the investments necessary to achieve 36 billion gallons of renewable biofuels by 2022.

What USDA has shown in this report is:
(1) A rapid build-up in production capabilities is needed to meet the RFS2 targets for cellulosic biofuels.
(2) The scope of the monetary investment for biorefineries is substantial.
(3) It is important to consider both sides of the market – the production/supply side and mandate/consumption side – and how they respond to the RFS2 mandate.
(4) There are current infrastructure needs, in the form of blender pumps and rail and trucking infrastructure which are in varying stages of being addressed by the market, though a careful assessment of barriers to their development is needed.
(5) The U.S. farm sector is capable of producing a diverse complement of feedstocks to make the biofuels industry a truly national effort.
(6) In addition, a process for identifying bottlenecks and barriers related to locating biorefineries involving the federal government, Congress, states, the industry and interested stakeholders can help facilitate a biorefinery system that is national in scope.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Energy Use in the US Food System

This Report from the United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, (Economic Research Report Number 94) dated March 2010, finds:

Energy is an important input in growing, processing, packaging, distributing, storing, preparing, serving, and disposing of food. Analysis using the two most recent U.S. benchmark input-output accounts and a national energy data system shows that in the United States, use of energy along the food chain for food purchases by or for U.S. households increased between 1997 and 2002 at more than six times the rate of increase in total domestic energy use. This increase in food-related energy flows is over 80 percent of energy flow increases nationwide over the period. The use of more energy-intensive technologies throughout the U.S. food system accounted for half of this increase, with the remainder attributed to population growth and higher real (inflation-adjusted) per capita food expenditures. A projection of food-related energy use based on 2007 total U.S. energy consumption and food expenditure data and the benchmark 2002 input-output accounts suggests that food-related energy use as a share of the national energy budget grew from 14.4 percent in 2002 to an estimated 15.7 percent in 2007.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic Industry

This report by the United States Department of Agriculture (Economic Information Bulletin No. EIB-55) dated June 2009 finds that consumer demand for organic products has widened over the last decade. While new producers have emerged to help meet demand, market participants report that a supply squeeze is constraining growth for both individual firms and the organic sector overall.

Partly in response to shortages in organic supply, Congress in 2008 included provisions in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (2008 Farm Act) that, for the first time, provide direct financial support to farmers to convert to organic production. This report examines recent economic research on the adoption of organic farming systems, organic production costs and returns, and market conditions to gain a better understanding of the organic supply squeeze and other emerging issues in this rapidly changing industry.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Improved management Controls Can Enhance Effectiveness of Key Conservation Programs

This Government Accoutability Office Report (GAO-09-528T), dated March 25, 2009, finds that the USDA does not have adequate management controls in place to verify that farm program payments, including those for conservation programs, are made only to individuals who do not exceed income eligibility caps. As a result, USDA cannot be assured that millions of dollars in farm payments are proper. GAO found that $49.4 million in farm payments were made to about 2,700 potentially ineligible individuals between fiscal years 2003 and 2006. About 6 percent of this amount was for EQIP payments; 29 percent was for the Conservation Reserve Program, a program that pays farmers to retire environmentally-sensitive cropland.

The need for management controls will remain critical, since recent legislation lowered the income eligibility caps and makes the number of individuals whose income exceeds these caps likely to rise. In March 2009, USDA announced that it has begun working with IRS to ensure that high-income individuals and entities who request farm payments meet income limits as set forth in law, and that once this verification system is fully operational, it should identify inappropriate payments before they are disbursed. As GAO has previously reported, ensuring the integrity and equity of farm programs is a key area needing enhanced congressional oversight. Such oversight can help ensure that conservation programs benefit the agricultural sector as intended and protect rural areas from land degradation, diminished water and air quality, and loss of wildlife habitat.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Environmental Effects of Agricultural Land-Use Change: The Role of Economics and Policy

This Report (Economic Research Report Number 25) from the United States Department of Agriculture examines the relationship between agricultural land-use changes, soil productivity, and indicators of environmental sensitivity. If cropland that shifts in and out of production is less productive and more environmentally sensitive than other cropland, policy-induced changes in land use could have production effects that are smaller—and environmental impacts that are greater—than anticipated. To illustrate this possibility, this report examines environmental outcomes stemming from landuse conversion caused by two agricultural programs that others have identified as potentially having important influences on land use and environmental quality: Federal crop insurance subsidies and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Nation’s largest cropland retirement program. The report finds that lands moving between cultivated cropland and less intensive agricultural uses are, on average, less productive and more vulnerable to erosion than other cultivated lands, both nationally and locally. These lands are also associated with greater potential nutrient runoff and leaching compared with cultivated cropland nationally. Crop insurance subsidies and CRP have estimated effects on erosion and other environmental factors that are disproportionate to the acreage and production effects, but specific environmental impacts vary with the features of each program.