![](media/image1.jpeg){width="0.6201388888888889in"
height="0.42291666666666666in"}

**United States**

**Department of**

**Agriculture**

**Farm Service Agency**

DAFP/CEPD

6501 Beacon Drive

Kansas City, MO 64133-4676

**Date:** September 4, 2008

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="0.6194444444444445in"
height="0.6194444444444445in"}

**Privacy Impact Assessment**

**(PIA)**

**The Conservation System**

**(CS)**

-   Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

    -   Conservation On-line System (COLS)

        -   CRP Re-enrollment and Extensions (REX)

        -   General Signup Offer Process (GSOP)

        -   Continuous Sign-up Offer Process (CSOP)

        -   State Areas for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE)

        -   Signup Configuration

    -   Soils Database Management System (SDMS)

    -   CRP Contracts

    -   Conservation Legacy Upload

    -   Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (EFCRP)

-   Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)

-   Conservation Reporting & Evaluation System (CRES)

-   Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)

-   CORVID (COTS)

Revision: Final V.2

Document Information

  ----------------- -----------------------------------------------------
  Owner Details     

  Name              Charles Michael Boyles - Manager, Price Support &
                    Commodity Applications Office (PSCAO)

  Contact Number    \(816\) 926-1905

  E-mail Address    <mike.boyles@kcc.usda.gov>
  ----------------- -----------------------------------------------------

+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| D       |            |                |                             |
| ocument |            |                |                             |
| R       |            |                |                             |
| evision |            |                |                             |
| and     |            |                |                             |
| History |            |                |                             |
+=========+============+================+=============================+
| R       | Date       | Author         | Comments                    |
| evision |            |                |                             |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| Draft   | June 26,   | > R. Houston,  | > Initial document          |
| V.1     | 2008       | > EDS          |                             |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| Draft   | July 1,    | Gloria Scoby   | > Updated 2.7, 3.1, 3.1.1   |
| V.2     | 2008       | PSCAO,CSSG     | > (1, 3,), 3.1.2 (5, 6),    |
|         |            |                | > 3.1.4 (1, 2), 3.1.5 (4),  |
|         |            |                | > 3.1.6 (4, 6), 3.1.7 (1.1, |
|         |            |                | > 1.3), 4.                  |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| Draft   | July 17,   | > R. Houston,  | Removed edit comments,      |
| V.3     | 2008       | > EDS          | updated data use            |
|         |            |                | information after           |
|         |            |                | clarification with author.  |
|         |            |                | Updated contact info.       |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| Draft   | August 4,  | > R.           | Per Gloria Scoby, I made    |
| V.4     | 2008       | > Grant-Smith, | changes to sections 2.2.1.5 |
|         |            | > ECS          | and 2.2.2.                  |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| Draft   | August 6,  | > R.           | > Made changes throughout   |
| Final   | 2008       | > Grant-Smith, | > document based on         |
|         |            | > ECS          | > recommendation from       |
|         |            |                | > Gloria Scoby.             |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| > Final | 08/29/2008 | > R.           | > Per Sue Bussells'         |
| > V.1   |            | > Grant-Smith, | > recommendation, made      |
|         |            | > ECS          | > changes to section 2.5.   |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+
| Final   | 9/4/2008   | > R.           | > Per S. Nuessle's          |
| V.2     |            | > Grant-Smith, | > recommendation, made      |
|         |            | > ECS          | > changes to the signature  |
|         |            |                | > page swapping Karen       |
|         |            |                | > Malkin, CPO, with Brian   |
|         |            |                | > Davies, ISSPM.            |
+---------+------------+----------------+-----------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Distribution List                                     
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Name              Title             Agency/Office     Contact
                                                        Information

                                                        
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

[1 Purpose of Document 1](#purpose-of-document)

[2 Applicability 2](#applicability)

[2.1 Applicability of System 2](#applicability-of-system)

[2.2 System Overview 2](#system-overview)

[2.2.1 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
2](#conservation-reserve-program-crp)

[2.2.1.1 Conservation On-Line System (COLS)
3](#conservation-on-line-system-cols)

[2.2.1.1.1 CRP Re-enrollment Extensions (REX)
3](#crp-re-enrollment-extensions-rex)

[2.2.1.1.2 General Sign-up Offer Process (GSOP)
3](#general-sign-up-offer-process-gsop)

[2.2.1.1.3 Continuous Sign-up Offer Process (CSOP)
4](#continuous-sign-up-offer-process-csop)

[2.2.1.1.4 State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE)
4](#state-acres-for-wildlife-enhancement-safe)

[2.2.1.1.5 Sign-up Configuration 5](#sign-up-configuration)

[2.2.1.2 Soils Database Management System (SDMS)
5](#soils-database-management-system-sdms)

[2.2.1.3 CRP Contracts 6](#crp-contracts)

[2.2.1.4 Conservation Legacy Upload 6](#conservation-legacy-upload)

[2.2.1.5 Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (EFCRP)
6](#emergency-forestry-conservation-reserve-program-efcrp)

[2.2.2 Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)
7](#emergency-conservation-program-ecp)

[2.2.3 Conservation Reporting & Evaluation System (CRES)
8](#conservation-reporting-evaluation-system-cres)

[2.2.4 Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)
8](#grassland-reserve-program-grp)

[2.2.5 CORVID 8](#corvid)

[2.3 System Categorization 9](#system-categorization)

[2.4 Responsible Organization 9](#responsible-organization)

[2.5 Information Contacts 10](#information-contacts)

[2.6 Assignment of Security Responsibility
10](#assignment-of-security-responsibility)

[3 USDA Privacy Impact Assessment 12](#usda-privacy-impact-assessment)

[3.1 Does the System Contain Information About Individuals in an
Identifiable Form?
12](#does-the-system-contain-information-about-individuals-in-an-identifiable-form)

[3.1.1 Data Collection 14](#data-collection)

[3.1.2 Data Use 15](#data-use)

[3.1.3 Data Retention 16](#data-retention)

[3.1.4 Data Sharing 17](#data-sharing)

[3.1.5 Data Access 18](#data-access)

[3.1.6 Customer Protection 18](#customer-protection)

[3.1.7 System of Record 19](#system-of-record)

[3.1.8 Technology 20](#technology)

[4 Privacy Impact Assessment Authorization Memorandum
21](#privacy-impact-assessment-authorization-memorandum)

# Purpose of Document

USDA DM 3515-002 states: "Agencies are responsible for initiating the
PIA in the early stages of the development of a system and to ensure
that the PIA is completed as part of the required System Life Cycle
(SLC) reviews. Systems include data from applications housed on
mainframes, personal computers, and applications developed for the Web
and agency databases. Privacy must be considered when requirements are
being analyzed and decisions are being made about data usage and system
design. This applies to all of the development methodologies and system
life cycles used in USDA.

Both the system owners and system developers must work together to
complete the PIA. System owners must address what data are used, how the
data are used, and who will use the data. System owners also need to
address the privacy implications that result from the use of new
technologies (e.g., caller identification). The system developers must
address whether the implementation of the owner's requirements presents
any threats to privacy."

The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) document contains information on how
The Conservation System (CS) affects the privacy of its users and the
information stored within. This assessment is in accordance with NIST SP
800-37 *Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of
Federal Information Systems.*

# Applicability

## Applicability of System

The information in this document is applicable to The Conservation
System (CS).

## System Overview

The Conservation System major application consists of five minor
applications that support the USDA Farm Service Agency mission. The
minor applications consist of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), Conservation Reporting &
Evaluating System (CRES), Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and CORVID, a
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) program. Additionally, there are five
(5) components and five (5) sub-component applications within the CRP
application; these are listed below. The applications are used by USDA
employees to deliver services to farmers involving environmental
quality, conservation of natural resources, emergency conservation, and
land use and rural development.

The system contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII) about
farmers that is available to approximately 3200 USDA employees
throughout the United States and US territories. No access to the system
is available to the general public. Users are generally categorized by
their location, having access to resources that is restricted by either
the county, state, or national role that they occupy. While most users
are employees of FSA, one application grants limited access to employees
of NCRS to update soils information.

### Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) {#conservation-reserve-program-crp .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

The USDA Conservation Reserve Program is a voluntary business program
for agricultural landowners providing incentives and assistance to
farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices
that have a beneficial impact on resources on and off the farm. Through
voluntary partnership between individuals, environmental groups, state
governments, and the Federal Government, farmers and ranchers receive
annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term,
resource conserving covers on eligible farmland. CRP is administered by
the Farm Service Agency, with NRCS providing technical land eligibility
determinations, conservation planning and practice implementation

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) makes annual rental payments
based on the agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides
cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of the participant\'s costs
in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in
CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. It is the Federal Government's largest
environmental improvement program and is responsible for the management
and safeguarding of more than 33 million acres of American topsoil from
erosion, for increasing wildlife habitat, and for protecting ground and
surface water.

The minor application by the same name, the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), supports the electronic data processing needs of the business
program described above as the CRP application allows users to record,
process, and maintain offers for producer acreage.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) application consists of five
components that interrelate:

-   Conservation On-Line System (COLS)

-   Soils Database Management System (SDMS)

-   CRP Contracts

-   Conservation Legacy Upload

-   Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (EFCRP)

#### Conservation On-Line System (COLS)

The Conservation On-Line System (COLS) is a component that gets its name
from the applications that are made available to users through web
services in the on-line FSA intranet. The COLS contains five web-based
sub-components that have similar roots and functionality.

The COLS sub-components are accessed by county, state and national users
that are assigned access roles relative to their location. Users enter
and access the personal data of farmers through a business process that
involves direct personal contact with the farmers, an enrollment
process, and the issuing of payment contracts for conservation services.
Approximately 3200 county, state, and national users have access to
COLS.

##### CRP Re-enrollment Extensions (REX)

CRP Re-enrollment is a sub-component that allows farmers and ranchers to
re-enroll their land in the Conservation Reserve Program general sign-up
process when their contracts expire. REX contracts are offered either as
an extension or re-enrollment for CRP contracts that will expire during
the period of September 30, 2007 through September 30, 2010. REX
contracts in county offices that have reached a 25% cropland
participation limit for the county receive 1, 2 or 3 year extensions
instead of 4 or 5 year extensions and instead of 10-15 years of
re-enrollment. REX is used for general signup for numbers 12, 13, 15,
16, 18 and 20.

The process begins as notifications are printed and sent to producers.
Producers respond and provide offer information to county employees who
enter the offer information into the system. Producers re-enroll at the
current rate for 10 or 15 years or extend their current contracts 1 to 5
years. The type of data is signup specific and includes producer's
personally identifiable information, and information about acres, crop
history, practices, soils and participant submission. Some of this
information is obtained from web services such as Crop, Crop List,
Compliance, Farm Records and SCIMS.

REX processing includes the data entry into the COLS REX application,
the update of the Conservation database and the transmission of the data
to the S/36 (or manually entered into the S/36 CRP system), and the
creation of the contract on the S/36. Contract maintenance is done on
the S/36 and annual payments are made on the S/36. The roles of users
are county, state and national employees. The number of users is
approximately 3200.

##### General Sign-up Offer Process (GSOP)

General Signup occurs when farmers and ranchers compete nationally
during designated sign-up periods. Participants bid to retire land from
production for 10-15 years. Contracts are awarded by the FSA based on
the assessment of the land's environmental value using an Environmental
Benefits Index (EBI). If the land is accepted, the landowner may enroll
the land, receive annual rental payments for it, and maintain the land
under an approved conservation plan. General Signup CRP acreage often
enrolls whole fields and farms.

The General Signup Offer Process (GSOP) is a sub-component that allows
county offices to enter and maintain CRP offer data for all General
Signups, allows State offices to view all CRP offers for their state,
allows National level personnel to view all CRP offers for all states
and to do analysis of those offers, and allows National employees to
enter and maintain the national program settings for CRP general offers.

The flow of the process includes county employees who enter a producer's
bid information into GSOP where the bids are ranked according to program
criteria. A letter of acceptance is sent to the producer that has an
acceptable bid. The producer accepts the offer and signs the appropriate
forms which are then entered into GSOP by county employees. The
submitted offer is transmitted to the S/36 where it becomes a contract
for 10 to 15 years and receives annual payments.

The type of data is signup specific and includes producer's personally
identifiable information, and information about acres, crop history,
practices, soils and participant submission. Some of this information is
obtained from web services such as Crop, Crop List, Compliance, Farm
Records and SCIMS.

GSOP processing includes the initial data entry into the application,
the update of the Conservation database and the transmission of the data
to the S/36 (or manually entered into the S/36 CRP system), and the
creation of the contract on the S/36. Contract maintenance is done on
the S/36 and annual payments are made on the S/36. The roles of users
are county, state and national FSA employees. The number of users is
approximately 3200.

##### Continuous Sign-up Offer Process (CSOP)

Environmentally desirable land devoted to certain conservation practices
may be enrolled in CRP at any time under continuous sign-up. Offers are
automatically accepted provided the land and producer meet certain
eligibility requirements. Continuous sign-up offers are not subject to
the competitive bidding process that is used in the General Signup Offer
Process. Business processes that use the continuous sign-up process
include the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP and the
Farmable Wetland Program (FWP).

The Continuous Sign-up Offer Process (CSOP) web sub-component allows
county offices to enter and maintain CRP offer data, State offices to
view all CRP offers for their state, National level personnel to view
all CRP offers for all states and to do analysis of those offers, and
National employees to enter and maintain the national program settings
for CRP general offers.

The flow of the process includes county employees who enter a producer's
offer information into CSOP. The producer accepts the offer and signs
the appropriate forms and the county employee then enters the acceptance
into CSOP. The submitted offer is transmitted to the S/36 where it
becomes a contract for 10 to 15 years and receives annual payments.

The type of data is signup specific and includes producer's personally
identifiable information, and information about acres, crop history,
practices, soils and participant submission. Some of this information is
obtained from web services such as Crop, Crop List, Compliance, Farm
Records and SCIMS.

CSOP processing includes the data entry into the CSOP application, the
update of the Conservation database and the transmission of the data to
the S/36 (or manually entered into the S/36 CRP system) and the creation
of the contract on the S/36. Contract maintenance is done on the S/36
and annual payments are made on the S/36. The roles of users are county,
state and national FSA employees. The number of users is approximately
3200.

##### State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE)

The State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement or SAFE projects help state and
regional agencies, non-profit organizations and others address local
wildlife objectives through habitat restoration. FSA approves SAFE
proposals to address state and regional high priority wildlife
objectives. Conservation practices currently offered under CRP are
fine-tuned through SAFE to improve, connect or create higher-quality
habitat to promote healthier ecosystems in areas identified as essential
to effective management of high priority species. SAFE, like other
continuous CRP practices, targets CRP acres to the most environmentally
sensitive land and establishes the highest value conservation practices
on generally smaller acreages.

The flow of the process for the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement
(SAFE) sub-component includes county employees who begin the process as
they enter offer information into SAFE. The producer accepts and signs
the appropriate forms and the county employee enters the acceptance into
SAFE where the submitted offer becomes a contract for 10 to 15 years.
Contract maintenance and payments are accomplished through the web while
payment information is transmitted to the S/36 for payment limitation
purposes.

The type of data is signup specific and includes producer's personally
identifiable information, and information about acres, crop history,
practices, soils and participant submission. Some of this information is
obtained from web services such as Crop, Crop List, Compliance, Farm
Records and SCIMS. Data can be loaded from GIS XML scenarios but this
data may not be modified later. Conservation Eligibility Area
information is also included.

COLS SAFE processing includes the data entry into the SAFE application,
the update of the Conservation database, and the creation of the
contract. The roles of users are county, state and national FSA
employees. The number of users is approximately 3200.

##### Sign-up Configuration

Authorized National employees configure each new signup with specific
signup information. This includes information such as the signup number,
practices, the number of years of payments, the maximum payment rates,
etc.

The flow of the process includes a National employee entering the signup
specific information into the Signup Configuration sub-component where
the information is saved to the Conservation database.

The type of data is signup specific and includes Signup Number, State
and Counties, program year(s), maximum payment rate, maintenance rate,
HUC codes, EBI information, and N factors.

Signup Configuration processing includes the data entry into the Signup
Configuration application and the update of the Conservation database.
The roles of users are national FSA employees. The number of users is
approximately 6 who are the employees of the Conservation and
Environmental Programs Division's Conservation Assistance Branch.

#### Soils Database Management System (SDMS)

The Soils Database Management System (SDMS) is an intranet Web based
component of CRP that is hosted on the FSA Web Farm. This application is
accessed by FSA and NRCS personnel to add, edit, void and view a
National Soils database. Access to the system is needed 7 days a week
and 24 hours a day. Soil information recorded in this application is
used by other CRP applications to determine eligibility and to calculate
payments.

The flow of process begins with authorized FSA and NRCS employees who
update or add soils information to the database. County employees then
use Conservation applications that use the soils data from the Soils
Database. County employees also download soils information in a text
file, modify the text file, and email the text file to National users
who verify the information and request Kansas City developers to update
the Soils Database.

The type of data is limited to soils information. SDMS processing
includes the update of the Soils Database. The roles of users are FSA
county, state and national employees and NRCS employees. The number of
users is approximately 3400.

#### CRP Contracts

CRP Contracts is the CRP component on the S/36 that allows county
employees to do contract maintenance and make payments to CRP contracts.
The offers on the COLS system for REX, GSOP, and CSOP are transmitted to
the S/36 where they become contracts.

The process flow includes county employees who maintain the CRP
contracts, and create contracts from offers transmitted to the S/36.
County employees also make payments for CRP contracts and print reports
concerning CRP contracts. Contracts can be added, deleted, revised,
corrected, extended, and cancelled.

The type of data includes Conservation data. The type of data is signup
specific and includes producer's personally identifiable information,
and information about acres, crop history, practices, farm, and soils.

Processing provided includes the manual data entry into the CRP Contract
S/36 application, the modification and update of contract data, the
payment of contracts and the printing of reports with conservation
information. The roles of users are county employees and the number of
users is approximately 3200.

#### Conservation Legacy Upload

The Conservation Legacy Upload application is a CRP component that
includes transmitting S/36 transaction data through the MQ Series
messaging and queuing software to the Data Transfer Service (DTS), and
then to the Conservation database. If the transaction data is less than
4 megabytes, the DTS process is bypassed. Some of the data is
transmitted immediately and some is transmitted at the end of the day.

The process flow includes transactions such as adds, deletes, and
changes being made on the CRP Contracts application. These transactions
are recorded in a transaction file that is transmitted through the MQ
Series process to the DTS and then to the Conservation database. In some
cases the DTS process is bypassed.

The type of data includes conservation data for the contracts and
payments. Processing provided includes the manual data entry into the
CRP Contracts application, the modification and update of contract data,
the payment of contracts, and the printing of reports with Conservation
information, which results in a transmission being made to the MQ Series
process then to the DTS and then to the Conservation Database. The roles
of users are county employees. The number of users is approximately
3200.

#### Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program (EFCRP)

USDA Farm Service Agency\'s (FSA) Emergency Forestry Conservation
Reserve Program (EFCRP) helps eligible landowners and operators restore
and enhance forestland damaged by 2005 hurricanes Dennis, Katrina,
Ophelia, Rita and Wilma. Trees planted through EFCRP help reduce flood
effects, protect water sources, decrease soil erosion and improve
wildlife habitat. Owners of land must have experienced at least a 35
percent loss of merchantable timber in one of 261 counties receiving
primary presidential or secretarial disaster designations caused by the
hurricanes.

The EFCRP is a CRP component hosted on the internal web that allows the
applicable county offices to enter and maintain EFCRP offer data, allows
state offices to view all EFCRP offers for their state, allows national
level personnel to view all EFCRP offers for all states and to do
analysis of those offers, and allows national employees to enter and
maintain the national program settings for EFCRP general offers.

The flow of the process begins as county employees enter producer's bid
information into EFCRP. The bids are ranked and letters of acceptance
are sent to producers. The producer accepts and signs the appropriate
forms and the county employee enters the acceptance into the EFCRP. The
offers become contracts for 10 to 15 years and producers receive lump
sum or annual payments.

The type of data is signup specific and includes producer's personally
identifiable information, and information about acres, crop history,
practices, forestry data, and participant submission. Some of this
information is obtained from web services such as Crop, Crop List,
Compliance, Farm Records and SCIMS.

EFCRP processing includes the data entry into the EFCRP application, the
update of the Conservation database, contract creation and maintenance,
and contract payments by lump sum or annual payments.

The roles of users are county, state and national employees and the
number of users is approximately 3200.

### Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) {#emergency-conservation-program-ecp .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) provides emergency funding and
technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland
damaged by natural disasters and for carrying out emergency water
conservation measures in periods of severe drought.

This minor application was originally a part of the Conservation
Reporting & Evaluating System and has since been removed and is being
rewritten to be accessed through the internal web.

Through the modernization of this system, cost share and payments for
ECP that are currently tracked in CRES on the System 36 will be
supported almost entirely on a web-based platform. Major functions of
the system will control process flow, maintain records, and control and
disburse funds. The process flow of the program may be summarized
briefly as offer making, offer evaluation, offer selection, contract
approval, contract payments, and contract maintenance.

The system will store sufficient records for program management and
evaluation by local, State, and National Office FSA. Because the program
will be strictly limited by available funds, the system will control
funds with both an internal ledger system to manage anticipated and
actual obligations and will communicate with the FMD National Payment
System to record obligations and make payments.

The type of data includes the type of disaster, disaster description,
eligible practices, eligible states and counties, date of disaster,
estimated acres affected by the disaster, estimated number of farms
affected, type of livestock affected, number of livestock affected,
types of crops affected, crop production loss, estimate of funds needed,
other programs requested for disaster, affects to wetlands, floodplain
and/or historic sites, maximum cost share percentages, and producer
personal identifiable information.

Processing provided will include offer making, offer evaluation, offer
selection, contract approval, contract payments, and contract
maintenance. The roles of users are county, state and national FSA
employees. The number of users will be approximately 3200.

### Conservation Reporting & Evaluation System (CRES) {#conservation-reporting-evaluation-system-cres .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

Conservation Reporting and Evaluating System Program (CRES) offers
financial and technical help to assist eligible participants install or
implement structural and management practices on eligible agricultural
land. CRES is a minor application of the Conservation System.

The process flow begins as a county office employee creates an
application for the producer in the CRES system. The producer accepts
and signs the AD-245 form, Request for Cost-Shares. The County Office
Committee (COC) reviews the request and determines the cost-share amount
they are willing to approve. The AD-862 (CRES contract) is referred to
the applicable technical service provider for approval. An approval
letter is then sent to the producer. The county office employee enters
the needs determinations data from the approved CRES contract into the
system along with the approval data. Performance is recorded and
payments are generated to the producer.

The type of data is contract specific and includes basic information for
producer, program data, practice data, component data, and performance
data.

Processing provided includes application creation, application
evaluation, application approval, and payments. The roles of the users
are county, state and national and the number of users is approximately
3200.

### Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) {#grassland-reserve-program-grp .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) is a voluntary program offering
landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance grasslands
on their property. GRP offers financial and technical help to assist
eligible participants install or implement structural and management
practices on eligible agricultural land. GRP is considered a minor
application.

The process flow begins with a county office employee who creates a
CCC-920, Grassland Reserve Program Contract. If an easement is involved,
the County Office Committee approves the easement through the AD-1153
and the contract through the CCC-920. The producer and a CCC
representative must sign the CCC-920 form. County office employees
create 1245s (Practice Approval and Payment Application) for all
technical practices on the approved AD-1153s for easements or approved
CCC-920s. Performance is recorded on the 1245s and payments are
generated to the producer.

The type of data is contract specific and includes basic information for
producer, multi-participant data, tract information, technical practice
data, and multi-farm data.

Application processing includes contract or easement creation, contract
or easement evaluation, contract or easement approval, practice
approval, performance recording and payment generation. The roles of the
users are county, state and national. The number of users is
approximately 3200.

### CORVID {#corvid .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

CORVID is a knowledge automation expert system development tool
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product purchased from Exsys, Inc. It is
a general purpose tool used to build many types of systems for helping
employees and customers solve problems, supporting and expanding the
expertise of business advisors, or providing problem-solving answers
throughout an enterprise. It also provides run-time environment to
execute the business rules and present the appropriate interface to the
user for interaction. CORVID is considered a minor application.

CORVID provides environmental resource specific information for
web-based training modules like AGLEARN, and an expert system advisor
via the Intranet. CORVID provides 'real-time' access to expert knowledge
and recommendations which allow users to more accurately complete the
necessary components required for an environmental review. This enables
a faster, better targeted and more accurate environmental
review process.  It also allows FSA users to focus more time on the
implementation of programs and less time determining the proper type and
scope of environmental review for program actions.

The flow of the CORVID process includes county employees accessing the
CORVID (COTS) application and selecting Conservation Programs for either
ECP or CRP. Questions are answered yes or no concerning the types of ECP
or CRP projects, the location of the project, whether project will
affect historic properties on tribal lands, entering producer's name,
phone number, email address, date and a statement about what is proposed
and why. The above information is then printed and given to the
producer.

> The type of data is ECP or CRP proposed projects and the producers
> name, phone number and email address. CORVID processing includes the
> data entry into the CORVID COTS package and a report of that data. No
> data is saved. The roles of users are county employees and the number
> of users is approximately 3200.

## System Categorization

By following the guidance set forth in NIST SP 800-60 and FIPS PUB 199
taking into account the information types and other factors for this
system, the Security Categorization for this system has been determined
to be **Moderate**. Therefore, Risk Assessments and Security Testing and
Evaluation (ST&E) will be performed following the Moderate baseline set
forth in NIST SP 800-53 Annex 2.

## Responsible Organization

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Farm Service Agency (FSA)

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, D.C. 20250

This system is maintained by:

Farm Service Agency

FSA/DAM/ITSD/ADC/PSCAO

6501 Beacon Drive

Kansas City, MO 64133

This system's hardware is located at:

-   Mainframe

> IBM Z/800
>
> OCIO/NITC
>
> 8930 Ward Parkway
>
> Kansas City, MO 64110

-   RS/6000 Intel-based servers

> OCIO/ITS/IOD/HOB
>
> 8930 Ward Parkway
>
> Kansas City, MO 64110

-   Intel-based web servers

> OCIO/ITS/IOD/HOB
>
> 8930 Ward Parkway
>
> Kansas City, MO 64110

-   IBM AS/400 County Office platform and workstations - nationwide

## Information Contacts

+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| Name     | Title      | Address          | Phone  | E-mail Address |
|          |            |                  | Number |                |
+==========+============+==================+========+================+
| > **Cert | FSA Chief  | U.S. Department  | \      | <sue.bussells  |
| ifying** | I          | of Agriculture   | (202\) | @wdc.usda.gov> |
| > **Of   | nformation |                  | 72     |                |
| ficer**: | Officer    | Farm Service     | 0-5320 |                |
| >        | (Acting)   | Agency           |        |                |
| > Sue    |            |                  |        |                |
| >        | Director,  | 1400             |        |                |
| Bussells | I          | Independence     |        |                |
|          | nformation | Avenue SW        |        |                |
|          | Technology |                  |        |                |
|          | Services   | Washington D.C.  |        |                |
|          | Division   | 20250            |        |                |
|          | (ITSD)     |                  |        |                |
|          | (Acting)   |                  |        |                |
|          |            |                  |        |                |
|          | FS         |                  |        |                |
|          | A/DAM/ITSD |                  |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| > **     | Director,  | U.S. Department  | 202-72 | <rob           |
| Business | Co         | of Agriculture   | 0-6221 | ert.stephenson |
| > Owner  | nservation |                  |        | @wdc.usda.gov> |
| >        | and        | Farm Service     |        |                |
| (DAA):** | Env        | Agency           |        |                |
| > Robert | ironmental |                  |        |                |
| > St     | Programs   | 1400             |        |                |
| ephenson | Division   | Independence     |        |                |
|          |            | Avenue SW        |        |                |
|          | USDA       |                  |        |                |
|          | /FSA/DAFP/ | Washington D.C.  |        |                |
|          | CEPD       | 20250            |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| > **Inf  | Manager,   | U.S. Department  | 816-92 | <mike.boyles   |
| ormation | Price      | of Agriculture   | 6-1905 | @kcc.usda.gov> |
| >        | Support &  |                  |        |                |
| Owner:** | Commodity  | Farm Service     |        |                |
| >        | Ap         | Agency           |        |                |
|  Charles | plications |                  |        |                |
| > "      | Office     | 6501 Beacon      |        |                |
| Michael" | (PSCAO)    | Drive            |        |                |
| > Boyles |            |                  |        |                |
|          | FSA/DAM    | Kansas City, MO  |        |                |
|          | /ITSD/ADC/ | 64133            |        |                |
|          | PSCAO      |                  |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| > **Inf  | Branch     | U.S. Department  | 816-92 | <eric.wil      |
| ormation | Chief,     | of Agriculture   | 6-2664 | l@kc.usda.gov> |
| > System | Co         |                  |        |                |
| >        | nservation | Farm Service     |        |                |
| Owner:** | Special    | Agency           |        |                |
| > Eric   | Systems    |                  |        |                |
| > Will   | Group      | 6501 Beacon      |        |                |
|          | (CSSG)     | Drive            |        |                |
|          |            |                  |        |                |
|          | FSA/DAM    | Kansas City, MO  |        |                |
|          | /ITSD/ADC/ | 64133            |        |                |
|          | PSCAO/CSSG |                  |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| > **User | DAF        | U.S. Department  | 202-72 | <ma            |
| > R      | P/CEPD/CAB | of Agriculture   | 0-3265 | rtin.lowenfish |
| epresent |            |                  |        | @wdc.usda.gov> |
| ative:** |            | Farm Service     |        |                |
| > Martin |            | Agency           |        |                |
| > L      |            |                  |        |                |
| owenfish |            | 1400             |        |                |
|          |            | Independence     |        |                |
|          |            | Avenue SW        |        |                |
|          |            |                  |        |                |
|          |            | Washington D.C.  |        |                |
|          |            | 20250            |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+

## Assignment of Security Responsibility

+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| Name     | Title      | Address          | Phone  | E-mail Address |
|          |            |                  | Number |                |
+==========+============+==================+========+================+
| > *      | Chief      | U.S. Department  | 202-69 | <karen.malkin  |
| *Privacy | Privacy    | of Agriculture   | 0-2203 | @wdc.usda.gov> |
| > Act    | Act        |                  |        |                |
| > Of     | Officer    | Farm Service     |        |                |
| ficer**: |            | Agency           |        |                |
| > Karen  | U          |                  |        |                |
| >        | SDA/FSA/OA | 1400             |        |                |
|  Malkin, |            | Independence     |        |                |
| > ESQ    |            | Avenue SW        |        |                |
|          |            |                  |        |                |
|          |            | Washington, D.C. |        |                |
|          |            | 20250            |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| > *      | Associate  | U.S. Department  | 202-69 | tom.hofelle    |
| *Freedom | Adm        | of Agriculture   | 0-0153 | r@wdc.usda.gov |
| > of     | inistrator |                  |        |                |
| > Inf    | for        | Farm Service     |        |                |
| ormation | Operations | Agency           |        |                |
| > Act    | and        |                  |        |                |
| > (FOIA) | Management | 1400             |        |                |
| > Coordi |            | Independence     |        |                |
| nator:** | U          | Avenue SW        |        |                |
| > Thomas | SDA/FSA/OA |                  |        |                |
| > B.     |            | Washington, D.C. |        |                |
| > H      |            | 20250            |        |                |
| ofeller, |            |                  |        |                |
| > Acting |            |                  |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| > **Inf  | I          | U.S. Department  | 202-72 | <brian.davies  |
| ormation | nformation | of Agriculture   | 0-2419 | @wdc.usda.gov> |
| > System | Security   |                  |        |                |
| >        | Office     | Farm Service     |        |                |
| Security | (ISO)      | Agency           |        |                |
| >        |            |                  |        |                |
|  Program | USDA/FSA   | 1400             |        |                |
| >        | /DAM/ITSD/ | Independence     |        |                |
|  Manager | OTC/ISO    | Avenue SW        |        |                |
| > (I     |            |                  |        |                |
| SSPM):** |            | Washington, D.C. |        |                |
| > Brian  |            | 20250            |        |                |
| > Davies |            |                  |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| > **     | I          | U.S. Department  | 816-92 | <mindy.gehrt   |
| Disaster | nformation | of Agriculture   | 6-3522 | @kcc.usda.gov> |
| >        | Security   |                  |        |                |
| Recovery | Office     | Farm Service     |        |                |
| > Coordi | (ISO)      | Agency           |        |                |
| nator:** |            |                  |        |                |
| > Mindy  | USDA/FSA   | 6501 Beacon      |        |                |
| > Gehrt  | /DAM/ITSD/ | Drive            |        |                |
|          | OTC/ISO    |                  |        |                |
|          |            | Kansas City, MO  |        |                |
|          |            | 64133            |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+
| >        | I          | U.S. Department  | 816-92 | <g             |
|  **Certi | nformation | of Agriculture   | 6-3018 | eorgia.nuessle |
| fication | Security   |                  |        | @kcc.usda.gov> |
| > &      | Office     | Farm Service     |        |                |
| > Accre  | (ISO)      | Agency           |        |                |
| ditation |            |                  |        |                |
| > Coordi | USDA/FSA   | 6501 Beacon      |        |                |
| nator:** | /DAM/ITSD/ | Drive            |        |                |
| >        |            |                  |        |                |
|  Georgia | OTC/ISO    | Kansas City, MO  |        |                |
| > \"     |            | 64133            |        |                |
| Shelly\" |            |                  |        |                |
| >        |            |                  |        |                |
|  Nuessle |            |                  |        |                |
+----------+------------+------------------+--------+----------------+

# USDA Privacy Impact Assessment

## Does the System Contain Information About Individuals in an Identifiable Form?

+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| **QUESTION 1**                               | Yes  |        | No   |
|                                              |      |        |      |
| Does the system contain any of the following |      |        |      |
| type of data as it relates to individuals:   |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
|                                              | Citi | Emp    |      |
|                                              | zens | loyees |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Name                                       |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Social Security Number                     |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Telephone Number                           |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Email address                              |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Street address                             |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Financial data                             |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Health data                                |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| > Biometric data                             |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| **QUESTION 2**                               |      |        |      |
|                                              |      |        |      |
| Can individuals be uniquely identified using |      |        |      |
| personal information such as a combination   |      |        |      |
| of gender, race, birth date, geographic      |      |        |      |
| indicator, biometric data, etc.?             |      |        |      |
|                                              |      |        |      |
| NOTE: 87% of the US population can be        |      |        |      |
| uniquely identified with a combination of    |      |        |      |
| gender, birth date and five digit zip        |      |        |      |
| code[^1]                                     |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| Are social security numbers embedded in any  |      |        |      |
| field?                                       |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| Is any portion of a social security numbers  |      |        |      |
| used?                                        |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+
| Are social security numbers extracted from   |      |        |      |
| any other source (e.g. system, paper, etc.)? |      |        |      |
+----------------------------------------------+------+--------+------+

**If all of the answers in Questions 1 and 2 are NO,**

You do not need to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment for this system
and the answer to OMB A-11, Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition and
Management of Capital Assets,

Part 7, Section E, Question 8c is:

**3. No, because the system does not contain, process, or transmit
personal identifying information.**

If any answer in Questions 1 and 2 is YES, provide complete answers to
all questions below.

### Data Collection

1.  Generally describe the data to be used in the system.

-   **Customer**: Structure of business ventures and conservation
    program information is collected.

-   **Other**: Location of land is the data collected.

2.  Is the use of the data both relevant and necessary to the purpose
    for which the system is being designed? In other words, the data is
    absolutely needed and has significant and demonstrable bearing on
    the system's purpose as required by statute or by Executive order of
    the President.

> Yes
>
> No

3.  Sources of the data in the system.

    1.  What data is being collected from the customer?

> Conservation program information is collected form the customer.

2.  What USDA agencies are providing data for use in the system?

> The FSA and NRCS provide practice information, business structure, and
> payment limitations.

3.  What state and local agencies are providing data for use in the
    system?

> None.

4.  From what other third party sources is data being collected?

> Third party sources include technical service providers and farm
> management consultants.

4.  Will data be collected from sources outside your agency? For
    example, customers, USDA sources (e.g. NFC, RD, etc.) or Non-USDA
    sources.

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to section 3.1.2, question 1.

1.  How will the data collected from customers be verified for accuracy,
    relevance, timeliness, and completeness?

> Internal validation checks are used to verify data for accuracy,
> relevance, timeliness, and completeness.

2.  How will the data collected from USDA sources be verified for
    accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness?

> Data is handled through NRCS (TSP).

3.  How will the data collected from non-USDA sources be verified for
    accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness?

> Internal validation checks are used to verify data for accuracy,
> relevance, timeliness, and completeness.

### Data Use {#data-use .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

1.  Individuals must be informed in writing of the principal purpose of
    the information being collected from them. What is the principal
    purpose of the data being collected?

> The data is used as a filtering key internally.

2.  Will the data be used for any other purpose?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to question 3 (below).

1.  What are the other purposes?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Is the use of the data both relevant and necessary to the purpose
    for which the system is being designed? In other words, the data is
    absolutely needed and has significant and demonstrable bearing on
    the system's purpose as required by statute or by Executive order of
    the President.

> Yes
>
> No

4.  Will the system derive new data or create previously unavailable
    data about an individual through aggregation from the information
    collected (e.g. aggregating farm loans by zip codes in which only
    one farm exists.)?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to question 5 (below).

1.  Will the new data be placed in the individual's record (customer or
    employee)?

> Yes
>
> No

2.  Can the system make determinations about customers or employees that
    would not be possible without the new data?

> Yes
>
> No

3.  How will the new data be verified for relevance and accuracy?

> Field spot checks (10% annually) are performed.

5.  Individuals must be informed in writing of the routine uses of the
    information being collected from them. What are the intended routine
    uses of the data being collected?

> Conservation Program Information is the intended use of all data being
> collected.

6.  Will the data be used for any other uses (routine or otherwise)?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to question 7 (below).

1.  What are the other uses?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  Automation of systems can lead to the consolidation of data --
    bringing data from multiple sources into one central location/system
    -- and consolidation of administrative controls. When administrative
    controls are consolidated, they should be evaluated so that all
    necessary privacy controls remain in place to the degree necessary
    to continue to control access to and use of the data. Is data being
    consolidated?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to question 8 (below).

1.  What controls are in place to protect the data and prevent
    unauthorized access?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  Are processes being consolidated?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to section 3.1.3, question 1.

1.  What controls are in place to protect the data and prevent
    unauthorized access?

### Data Retention {#data-retention .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

1.  Is the data periodically purged from the system?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to question 2 (below).

1.  How long is the data retained whether it is on paper,
    electronically, in the system or in a backup?

> All data in the system is maintained indefinitely.

2.  What are the procedures for purging the data at the end of the
    retention period?

> N/A

3.  Where are these procedures documented?

> N/A

2.  While the data is retained in the system, what are the requirements
    for determining if the data is still sufficiently accurate,
    relevant, timely, and complete to ensure fairness in making
    determinations?

> Nightly backups and archives are performed. Closed/expired contracts
> cannot be altered. Audit trails are maintained.

3.  Is the data retained in the system the minimum necessary for the
    proper performance of a documented agency function?

> Yes
>
> No

### Data Sharing {#data-sharing .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

1.  Will other agencies share data or have access to data in this system
    (e.g. international, federal, state, local, other, etc.)?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to question 2 (below).

1.  How will the data be used by the other agency?

2.  Who is responsible for assuring the other agency properly uses of
    the data?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Is the data transmitted to another agency or an independent site?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to question 3 (below).

1.  Is there the appropriate agreement in place to document the
    interconnection and that the PII and/or Privacy Act data is
    appropriately protected?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Is the system operated in more than one site?

> Yes
>
> No. If NO, go to section 3.1.5, question 1.

1.  How will consistent use of the system and data be maintained in all
    sites?

> The centralized distribution of applications is used to ensure the
> consistent use of system data. Software is the same at all sites.

### Data Access {#data-access .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

1.  Who will have access to the data in the system (e.g. users,
    managers, system administrators, developers, etc.)?

> County, State, and National employees plus System Administrators have
> access to the data in the system.

2.  How will user access to the data be determined?

> Role-based and tiered access - County employees can see county
> information, State can see state data, and National spans across the
> entire system.

1.  Are criteria, procedures, controls, and responsibilities regarding
    user access documented?

> Yes
>
> No

3.  How will user access to the data be restricted?

> Role-based and tiered access is used to restrict access to data.

1.  Are procedures in place to detect or deter browsing or unauthorized
    user access?

> Yes
>
> No

4.  Does the system employ security controls to make information
    unusable to unauthorized individuals (e.g. encryption, strong
    authentication procedures, etc.)?

> Yes
>
> No

### Customer Protection {#customer-protection .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

1.  Who will be responsible for protecting the privacy rights of the
    customers and employees affected by the interface (e.g. office,
    person, departmental position, etc.)?

> Robert Stephenson, Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs
> Division

2.  How can customers and employees contact the office or person
    responsible for protecting their privacy rights?

Robert Stephenson

Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division

USDA/FSA/DAFP/ CEPD

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Farm Service Agency

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington D.C. 20250

\(202\) 720-6221

<robert.stephenson@wdc.usda.gov>

3.  A "breach" refers to a situation where data and/or information
    assets are unduly exposed. Is a breach notification policy in place
    for this system?

> Yes. If YES, go to question 4 (below).
>
> No

1.  If NO, please enter the POAM number with the estimated completion
    date:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Consider the following:

-   Consolidation and linkage of files and systems

-   Derivation of data

-   Accelerated information processing and decision making

-   Use of new technologies

> Is there a potential to deprive a customer of due process rights
> (fundamental rules of fairness)?

Yes

No. If NO, go to question 5 (below).

1.  Explain how this will be mitigated?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  How will the system and its use ensure equitable treatment of
    customers?

> Internal controls are applied consistently without respect of race,
> gender, nationality, or location. There are limited actionable
> choices.

6.  Is there any possibility of treating customers or employees
    differently based upon their individual or group characteristics?

Yes

No. If NO, go to section 3.1.7, question 1.

1.  Explain

### System of Record {#system-of-record .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

1.  Can the data be retrieved by a personal identifier? In other words,
    does the system actually retrieve data by the name of an individual
    or by some other unique number, symbol, or identifying attribute of
    the individual?

Yes

No. If NO, go to section 3.1.8, question 1.

1.  How will the data be retrieved? In other words, what is the
    identifying attribute (e.g. employee number, social security number,
    etc.)?

> Data is retrieved via a generated identifier number.

2.  Under which Systems of Record notice (SOR) does the system operate?
    Provide number, name and publication date. (SORs can be viewed at
    [www.access.GPO.gov](http://www.access.GPO.gov/))

> USDA/FSA-2 -- Farm Records File (Automated)

3.  If the system is being modified, will the SOR require amendment or
    revision?

> No.

### Technology {#technology .Style-Heading-3-+-Before:--18-pt}

1.  Is the system using technologies in ways not previously employed by
    the agency (e.g. Caller-ID)?

Yes

No. If NO, the Questionnaire is Complete.

1.  How does the use of this technology affect customer privacy?

Upon completion of this Privacy Impact Assessment for this system, the
answer to

OMB A-11, Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition and Management of Capital
Assets,

Part 7, Section E, Question 8c is:

**1. Yes.**

PLEASE SUBMIT A COPY TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICE/CYBER SECURITY

# Privacy Impact Assessment Authorization Memorandum 

I have carefully assessed the Privacy Impact Assessment for the

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Conservation System (CS)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document has been completed in accordance with the requirements of
the EGovernment Act of 2002.

We fully accept the changes as needed improvements and authorize
initiation of work to proceed. Based on our authority and judgment, the
continued operation of this system is authorized.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.999305555555556in"
height="2.8645833333333335in"}

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.993055555555555in"
height="0.9965277777777778in"}

[^1]: Comments of Latanya Sweeney, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory for
    International Data Privacy Assistant Professor of Computer Science
    and of Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University To the Department of
    Health and Human Services On \"Standards of Privacy of Individually
    Identifiable Health Information\". 26 April 2002.