Additional copies of this Annual Performance Plan 

can be downloaded at http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/pm/app2004.htm

To request paper copies, send an email with delivery 

Information to pm@cfo.usda.gov

If you have comments or questions, please 

submit via email to pm@cfo.usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, National origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political 

beliefs, sexual orientation and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

CONTENTS 

MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY .........................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: ENHANCE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURAL 

PRODUCERS ...............................................................................................................................5

Objective 1.1: Expand International Marketing Opportunities........................................................ 6

Objective 1.2: Support International Economic Development and Trade Capacity Building .......... 9

Objective 1.3: Develop Alternative Markets for Agricultural Products and Activities.................. 12

Objective 1.4: Provide Risk Management and Financial Tools to Farmers and Ranchers............. 15

STRATEGIC GOAL 2: SUPPORT INCREASED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND 

IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE IN RURAL AMERICA .............................................................20

Objective 2.1: Expand Economic Opportunities Through USDA Financing of Businesses .......... 21

Objective 2.2: Improve the Quality of Life Through USDA Financing of Quality Housing, 

Modern Utilities and Needed Community Facilities.............................................. 24

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: ENHANCE PROTECTION AND SAFETY OF THE NATION’S 

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SUPPLY ......................................................................................26

Objective 3.1: Enhance the Protection of Meat, Poultry and Egg Products from Foodborne 

Hazards in the United States.................................................................................. 27

Objective 3.2: Reduce the Number and Severity of Agricultural Pest and Disease Outbreaks...... 32

STRATEGIC GOAL 4: IMPROVE THE NATION’S NUTRITION AND HEALTH.......................39

Objective 4.1: Improve Access to Nutritious Food ....................................................................... 40

Objective 4.2: Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles .................................................... 42

Objective 4.3: Improve Food Program Management and Customer Service ................................. 44

STRATEGIC GOAL 5: PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE NATION’S NATURAL RESOURCE 

BASE AND ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................................46

Objective 5.1: Implement the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative and Other Actions to 

Improve Management of Public Lands .................................................................. 47

Objective 5.2: Improve Management of Private Lands ................................................................. 51

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES ....................................................................................................56

Management Initiative 1: Improve Human Capital Management.................................................. 56

Management Initiative 2: Improve Financial Management........................................................... 57

Management Initiative 3: Expand Electronic Government............................................................ 59

Management Initiative 4: Establish Budget and Performance Integration..................................... 60

FISCAL YEAR 2004 PROGRAM LEVEL ALLOCATIONS........................................................62

FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM LEVEL ALLOCATIONS........................................................67

APPENDIX A: DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION........................................................72

APPENDIX B: PROGRAM EVALUATIONS AND OTHER ANALYSES ...................................86

APPENDIX C: MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND PROGRAM RISKS .......91

APPENDIX D: CROSS-CUTTING PROGRAMS........................................................................98
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

This page left blank intentionally. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

1

MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY 

I am pleased to present the United States Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan 

for FY 2003. The plan is based on the long-term objectives described in the 

Department’s revised Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007 and the Administration’s policy book Food and Agriculture: Taking Stock for a New Century. It 

commits us to annual targets and strategies using the resources requested in 

our FY 2004 budget proposal. As such, this plan is a key step in budget and 

performance integration. 

USDA directly touches the lives of millions of Americans every day through 

its programs. The FY 2004 budget and the performance plan: 

• Support international marketing opportunities by providing over $6.0 billion for the Department’s international programs and activities. 

• Provide over $11 billion in loans, grants and technical assistance for rural development needs, including electric and telecommunications systems, water and waste disposal systems, rural housing and 

business and industry. 

• Strengthen protection against harmful bacteria in meat and poultry products by providing additional 

food safety inspectors and specialized food safety training and increasing microbiological testing. 

• Protect American agriculture from threats to plants and animals and transfer necessary inspection and 

research functions to support the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

• Provide continued support for fundamental and applied sciences in agriculture, including advancing research on agricultural genomics and on animal and plant pests and diseases. 

• Support record levels of participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children and covers increases in participation in the Food Stamp Program, including legal 

immigrants and others newly eligible for benefits under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 (2002 FSRIA). 

• Provide technical and financial assistance to enhance the conservation of natural resources. 

• Improve the management and delivery of the Department’s programs. 

Homeland security will continue to be a key priority for the Department. The Department is working to 

ensure that programs are protecting consumers and the farm and food sector from any threat to the food 

supply. 

This plan reflects our commitment to provide the best possible management of the resources under 

USDA’s stewardship. 

Ann M. Veneman 

Secretary of Agriculture 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

2

INTRODUCTION 

USDA’s mission is to provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources and related issues based 

on sound public policy, the best available science and efficient management. The USDA’s Strategic Plan 

for FY 2002-2007 identifies five goals and thirteen objectives in support of this mission. This Annual Performance Plan is structured around these goals and targets and supports the Strategic Plan by identifying: 

• Annual performance goals and targets, 

• Means and strategies to pursue those goals, 

• Efforts to verify and validate performance data, 

• Program evaluations, 

• Initiatives to address the management challenges faced by USDA and 

• Cross-cutting programs with other organizations. 

This plan summarizes the Department’s key goals and strategies. More detail is available in supporting 

plans produced by our component agencies and staff offices. Only federal employees were involved in its 

preparation. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

3

Exhibit 1: Program Level/Staff Year Allocations Dedicated to Strategic Goals 

USDA Program Level and Staff Year Allocations 

Dedicated to Strategic Goals 

FY 2003 

Estimate 

FY 2004 

Estimate 

Program Level ($ Mil) 115,376 105,614 

Staff Years 112,705 108,787 

Strategic Goal 3: 

Enhance Protection 

and Safety of the 

Nation's Agriculture 

and Food Supply

Strategic Goal 2: 

Support Increased 

Economic 

Opportunities and 

Improved Quality of 

Life in Rural America

FY 2004 

Program Level

Strategic Goal 4: 

Improve the Nation's 

Nutrition and Health

Strategic Goal 5: 

Protect and Enhance 

the Nation's Natural 

Resource Base and 

Environment

Strategic Goal 1: 

Enhance Economic 

Opportunities for 

Agricultural Produce

Continued on next page 

40% 

10% 

36% 

12% 

2% 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

4

Exhibit 1: Program Level/Staff Year Allocations Dedicated to Strategic Goals 

USDA Program Level and Staff Year Allocations 

Dedicated to Strategic Goals 

FY 2003 

Estimate 

FY 2004 

Estimate 

Program Level ($ Mil) 115,376 105,614 

Staff Years 112,705 108,787 

Strategic Goal 5: 

Protect and Enhance 

the Nation's Natural 

Resource Base and 

Environment

FY 2004 

Staff Years

Strategic Goal 4: 

Improve the Nation's 

Nutrition and Health

Strategic Goal 3: 

Enhance Protection 

and Safety of the 

Nation's Agriculture 

and Food Supply

Strategic Goal 1: 

Enhance Economic 

Opportunities for 

Agricultural Producers

Strategic Goal 2: 

Support Increased 

Economic 

Opportunities and 

Improved Quality of 

Life in Rural America

20% 

22% 

8% 

3% 

47% 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

5

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: ENHANCE ECONOMIC 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS 

Exhibit 2: Resources Dedicated to Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Strategic Goal 1 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

Program Level ($ Mil) 42,282 37% 37,794 36% 

Staff Years 26,965 24% 24,059 22% 

Goal 1 covers a myriad of programs and services USDA offers to agricultural producers to enhance their 

economic opportunities. A key to success in delivering these services at USDA is our focus on customers. 

With this in mind during FY 2003 and 2004, the Department will be actively engaged in modernizing its 

service delivery infrastructure to ensure services are offered in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Several initiatives are being launched to expand USDA’s accessibility and capability to deliver its 

services in the most customer-friendly manner possible. 

It is imperative for USDA to deliver high-quality, objective, relevant, timely and accurate statistics to 

producers and other data users in order to make sound, informed production and marketing decisions. Official USDA statistics promote a level playing field in production agriculture with impartial information 

available to the public at a predetermined and publicized date and time. Basic data supplied by USDA 

provides the information necessary for informed decision-making by public officials and private interests. 

These decisions will ultimately determine the success in achieving desired outcomes. USDA policymakers and Congress use this information to make informed decisions and policies that provide effective programs for producers and promote a strong, sustainable United States (U.S.) farm economy. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

6

OBJECTIVE 1.1: EXPAND INTERNATIONAL MARKETING 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Exhibit 3: Resources Dedicated to Expanding International Marketing Opportunities 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 1.1 

Estimate 

Percent 

of Goal 1 

 

Estimate 

Percent 

of Goal 1 

Program Level ($ Mil) 5,860 14% 5,019 13% 

Staff Years 6,280 23% 6,252 26% 

The most effective means of expanding foreign market opportunities is through trade agreements that either assure continued access to markets or increase market access by reducing trade impediments. USDA 

will work with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to pursue new trade agreements and enforce provisions of existing agreements. Greater access to foreign markets for our producers 

requires aggressive trade policy to lower tariffs and non-tariff restrictions. 

USDA plans to sharpen the focus of our exporter assistance programs, outreach and education activities 

and information services to enhance American exporters’ success in both emerging markets and in existing, highly competitive ones. USDA works in partnership with exporters to realize market development 

and promotional activities through trade shows, foreign trade missions and foreign buyer alerts. Through 

focused outreach activities, USDA also is working to educate U.S. producers, processors, and exporters 

on emerging trade opportunities and the importance of product differentiation in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. 

The U.S. plays a leadership role in promoting safe trade. USDA is working to ensure that international 

standards regarding animal and plant health are developed and adopted worldwide. Some trade issues involve highly technical scientific matters that must be resolved to remove barriers. 

While U.S. exporters of traditional bulk commodities will continue their successful partnership with 

USDA, U.S. exporters are facing increasingly stiff foreign competition in consumer-oriented, high-value 

import markets (such as meats, poultry, fruits and vegetables and processed grocery products). These 

value-added food products, which also help create jobs in rural communities and now account for twothirds of international trade by all countries worldwide, are targets for expanded promotional efforts. 

USDA will work to improve wholesale and other direct marketing facilities to encourage farmers’ markets and other endeavors that connect consumers directly with farmers, keeping a larger percentage of 

America’s food dollar on the farm. A key way to improve domestic marketing is by tailoring food and fiber products to satisfy niche markets. USDA helps producers and processors learn how to respond to new 

consumer demands and seize more market opportunities to increase their profitability. 

Improve International Marketing Opportunities 

To secure new trade agreements, the USDA is working closely with the USTR Office and is participating 

in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations with 144 developed and developing countries. The 

preparation for the current Doha Round of WTO negotiations began in FY 2000. The negotiations are 

scheduled to be completed January 1, 2005 (FY 2006). 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

7

Free Trade Agreements (FTA) will be pursued to both complement and reinforce multilateral negotiating 

objectives. FTA negotiations have recently been completed with Chile and Singapore in FY 2003. FTA 

negotiations targeted for completion in FY 2004 are Morocco and Central America. 

 

Due to the extended time for these agreements to be finalized and the gradual implementation schedule, 

expanded U.S. market opportunities, particularly in the short term (1-3 years) will be modest and only increase as the agreements are implemented. 

To bolster the Department’s efforts to increase access to overseas markets, the FY 2004 budget proposes 

to establish a fund within the Office of the Secretary to support important, cross-cutting trade related and 

biotechnology activities. The requested funding of $6.6 million will be available to support the work of 

USDA agencies in their trade negotiation, compliance, monitoring and enforcement activities. It also will 

help to address the growing array of regulatory and market access issues related to biotechnology. 

Exhibit 4: Increasing U.S. Marketing Opportunities 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators Actual 

1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Target 

2003 

Target 

2004 

1.1.1 Estimated annual trade opportunities 

preserved through WTO trade negotiations and notification process 

($ Million) 

$1,999 $837 $1,329 $1,327 $1,400 $1,450 

1.1.2 Estimated gross trade value of markets expanded/retained by market 

access activities other than WTO notification process ($Million) 

$2,525 $4,349 $2,684 $3,818 $3,900 $3,950 

1.1.3 Average tariff rate on agricultural 

imports worldwide (Percent) 

65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 

1.1.4 Increase the new or modified export 

protocols that facilitate access to 

foreign markets 

N/A N/A N/A 46 46 50 

1.1.5 Increase the international animal 

and plant health standards adopted 

N/A N/A N/A 7 6 6 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving these performance goals and related objective include the following: 

• Assist U.S. exporters in strategic market development. 

• Negotiate to reduce market access barriers, reduce trade-distorting domestic supports and eliminate export subsidies. 

• Enforce existing trade agreements through monitoring and surveillance of foreign government policies 

and practices, and pursue appropriate remedies either in bilateral or in multilateral settings. 

• Provide market development support and assistance through cost-sharing promotional activities, trade 

show assistance and foreign trade missions and foreign buyer alerts. 

• Educate U.S. producers and processors on emerging trade opportunities and the importance of product 

differentiation in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. 

• Certify the health of animals and plants and related products for export and interstate commerce. 

• Implement programs that encourage new, innovative and alternative uses for agricultural commodities 

and byproducts. 

• Expand research, education and extension activities to help producers, processors and distributors develop new products. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

8

• Provide timely and accurate agricultural statistics used to determine supplies and establish competitive 

prices in the world markets. 

Key External Factors 

Factors that may impede achieving this goal include economic conditions that affect import demand for 

U.S. products; remaining trade barriers in other countries outside of negotiated agreements; noncompliance of agreements; creation of new trade barriers to U.S. market access; and trade promotion and marketing practices of foreign competitors. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

9

OBJECTIVE 1.2: SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE CAPACITY BUILDING 

Exhibit 5: Resources Dedicated to Support International Economic Development and Trade 

Capacity Building 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 1.2 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 1 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 1 

Program Level ($ Mil) 2,022 5% 1,596 4% 

Staff Years 763 3% 762 3% 

Many developing and transition countries receive U.S. funds and technical assistance for agricultural development and trade to help spur economic growth. USDA, working with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other Federal agencies, 

supplies technical assistance in a number of different fields to improve and expand capacity to produce 

and trade agricultural products. 

USDA focuses on four primary areas with respect to economic development and trade capacity building 

in developing and transitioning economies. These include: trade and investment liberalization; research 

and education; development of market information and mapping systems and processes; and institution 

building to support sustainable agricultural development. USDA targets developing and transition countries with several programs designed to enhance economic development and trade capacity building. 

These include the Cochran Fellowship program, the Emerging Markets program and a research and scientific exchange program. USDA also is working to strengthen linkages between U.S. agricultural communities and multilateral development banks that will assist developing nations while also serving U.S. agricultural interests. 

Support International Economic Development and Trade Capacity Building 

USDA’s research, training and technical assistance activities related to building trade and economic capacity via sound science and technology—especially agricultural technology—expand the goals outlined 

in its U.S. Action Plan on Food Security. USDA works with other Federal agencies, multilateral institutions, colleges and universities and research institutions to administer activities and projects that will result in long-term improvements in the economies and trade capacity of developing and transition countries. 

A major focus of the Department’s efforts during FY 2003 to assist countries advance their agricultural 

development and improve food security will be a Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology to take place in Sacramento, California in June 2003. The Conference will focus on 

the critical role science and technology can play in raising sustainable agricultural productivity in developing countries, with the goal of boosting food availability and access and improving nutrition. USDA is 

sponsoring the conference jointly with the USAID and Department of State. Ministers from over 180 

countries have been invited. 

For FY 2004, the Department’s budget proposals request additional funding for the Foreign Agricultural 

Service (FAS) for a trade capacity building initiative. This request includes assistance to countries to implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity. The protocol addresses the transboundary movement of 

living modified organisms (LMOs). USDA intends to ensure that the protocol's provisions are properly 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

10

interpreted and applied in order to avoid trade disruptions. USDA will work with developing countries so 

that science based, transparent, and non-discriminatory regulatory systems are adopted. 

Exhibit 6: Promoting Assistance on International Economic Development 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

1.2.1 Increase the activities/projects completed in support 

of international economic development and trade 

capacity building in developing and transition countries (Cumulative) 

789 967 1,005 1,005 1,020 1,040 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Work with developing and transition countries to achieve freer trade and assure that benefits, especially 

increased incomes and more stable supplies of food, are equitably realized. 

• Provide technical assistance to developing and transition countries in helping bring their sanitary standards up to par with those of major import markets so they can sell their agricultural commodities on 

international markets. 

• Provide technical assistance to help developing and transition countries develop credible statistical systems needed to monitor agriculture sector performance, to formulate agricultural policies and to implement agriculture programs. 

Key External Factors 

Factors that may impede achieving this goal include recipient country policies, cultural barriers and receptivity to change. 

Support Foreign Food Assistance 

More than 800 million people worldwide suffer from hunger and malnutrition—most of them children. 

The U.S is the world’s leader in international food aid, providing over 50 percent of total worldwide food 

assistance to combat this challenge. Working with the USAID, non-profit organizations and American 

universities, USDA works continuously to meet immediate food aid needs while seeking long-term solutions to alleviate global food insecurity. These activities foster economic growth and development, which 

increases the recipient countries’ ability to reduce their dependence on food aid, to increase domestic production and to reduce their reliance on commercial imports. 

During FY 2003, USDA will begin implementation of the new McGovern-Dole International Food for 

Education and Child Nutrition Program that was authorized by the 2002 FSRIA. The program provides 

for the donation of U.S. agricultural commodities and associated financial and technical assistance to 

carry out preschool and school feeding programs in developing countries. Maternal, infant and child nutrition programs also are authorized under the program. Its purpose is to improve food security, reduce the 

incidence of hunger and malnutrition and improve literacy and primary education. During FY 2003, the 

program will be funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Beginning in FY 2004, the 

program is funded through appropriations, and the Department’s FY 2004 budget requests $50 million for 

that purpose. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

11

Exhibit 7: Reduce Reliance on Food Aid Programs 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

1.2.2 Share of countries’ food import needs met through 

food aid programs (Percentage) 

1.99% 1.06% 1.70% 1.50% 1.40% 1.30% 

1.2.3 Improve food security and nutrition through 

McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program by the 

number of daily meals and take-home rations for 

mothers, infants, and schoolchildren (Mill) 

NA NA NA NA 1.75 1.75 

1.2.4 Improve literacy and primary education through 

 McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. 

• Percent increase in enrollment for Girls/Boys N/A N/A N/A N/A 5% 5% 

• Percent increase in the proportion of children who are 

promoted N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% 10% 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Target short-term economic and food aid assistance to developing and transition countries suffering 

from economic and food insecurity resulting from natural and manmade disasters and famine conditions. 

− Dependence on foreign food assistance will decrease as developing countries increase both their domestic food production capabilities and their commercial food purchases. 

• Implement the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Initiative to improve food security and nutrition, as 

well as literacy and primary education among children in developing countries. 

Key External Factors 

Factors that may impede achievement of this objective include U.S. domestic supply situation and global 

weather patterns and their impacts in major producing and importing countries. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

12

OBJECTIVE 1.3: DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE MARKETS FOR 

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND ACTIVITIES 

Exhibit 8: Resources Dedicated to Develop Alternative Markets for Agricultural Products and 

Activities 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 1.3 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 1 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 1 

Program Level ($ Mil) 512 1% 400 1% 

Staff Years 1,264 5% 1,269 5% 

This objective is important to implement the President’s energy policy by increasing the production and 

use of bioenergy, biobased products and renewable energy. The passage of FSRIA provides new opportunities for USDA to foster the development and use of bioenergy, biobased products and renewable energy 

and to assist farmers, ranchers and small rural businesses in becoming more energy efficient. The programs and authorized funding, along with funding from the CCC to support certain programs, enable 

USDA to strengthen its role in biomass and renewable resources. 

A step in this process is to encourage the development of renewable and biomass based energy production 

by farmers, ranchers and small rural businesses to electric power distribution companies. Another step is 

to increase the demand for biobased products by Federal agencies to foster economies of scale in the production and marketing of such products. Similarly USDA will support research, development and demonstration of bioenergy and biobased product production aimed at improving the conversion efficiency and 

economic viability of these products in the market place. 

Increase the Use of Bioenergy and Biobased Products 

In collaboration with the Department of Energy (DOE), USDA will work to address the President’s Energy Policy. Each Department will carry forth projects, consistent with that Department’s comparative 

advantage, assuring that the effort is complementary. USDA and DOE also will cooperate on programs in 

a number of areas. 

In accordance with Section 9002 of Title IX of FSRIA, USDA will develop, publish and issue guidelines 

and will work with all Federal agencies to create a regulatory framework for procurement preference for 

biobased products. An outreach and education program for federal agencies will be developed in cooperation with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. 

An outreach program will inform the manufacturers and vendors of the steps needed to qualify their 

products for preferred procurement. Iowa State University is developing the infrastructure to operate this 

program, including an interactive electronic website that will list information on biobased products that 

manufacturers/vendors voluntarily provide. 

In accordance with Section 9006 of Title IX of FSRIA, USDA will implement a loan, loan guarantee and 

competitive grant program that will support development of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements for farms, ranches and small businesses. This program will encourage agricultural 

producers to begin producing energy on the farm from agricultural or waste materials. This program also 

supports objective 2.1, creating economic opportunity using USDA financing of businesses. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

13

In accordance with Section 9008 of Title IX of FSRIA, USDA will operate a competitive grant program, 

jointly with DOE, to stimulate research focusing on the production and use of bioproducts made from biomass. This initiative will support the objectives of the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. 

USDA will also work with DOE to improve DOE’s 1605 (b) program for registering greenhouse gas offset activities of farmers, ranchers and foresters. These improvements will encourage carbon sequestration 

and other greenhouse gas mitigation activities that will support the President’s national energy policy and 

provide producers with economic opportunities by providing the basis for carbon sequestration credit 

trading. 

USDA will continue a program under which the Secretary provides incentive payments to eligible producers for increased production of ethanol and biodiesel Section 9010 Title IX of FSRIA. FSRIA authorizes not more than $150 million in funding, out of the funds of the CCC, for each of the fiscal years 2003 

through 2006. 

Exhibit 9: Increase the Use of Bioenergy and Biobased Products 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

1.3.1 Increase the use of bioenergy and biobased 

products**: 

 

• Qualify the number of products in five or more 

categories of Biobased Products for preferred procurement by Federal agencies 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 in 2 

• Encourage a number of farmers to produce energy 

for their own use and sale (# farms, ranches, & 

businesses assisted) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 140 18 

• Develop a research, development and demonstration program to increase production of bioenergy, 

bioproducts and renewable energy (# projects 

funded) 

N/A N/A N/A 2 5 5 

• Develop accounting rules and guidelines for greenhouse gas offset activities in agriculture (Percentage) N/A N/A N/A Create 

Baseline 

50% 100% 

** The FSA is developing measures to focus on the desired key outcomes of the CCC bioenergy program. The agency is planning to provide new measures in time for the FY 2005 budget submission. 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Issue guidelines for the federal procurement program for biobased products. 

• Develop an outreach program to manufacturers/vendors of biobased products, supported by an electronic information system on which manufacturers may post information on qualifying biobased products they offer to federal agencies under the new procurement program; identify and qualify test centers 

to test biobased products; conduct tests of biobased products; develop business plan for operation of 

program and develop a logo for use in labeling program through Iowa State University under a cooperative agreement with Office of Energy Policy and New Uses (OEPNU). 

• Develop model procurement program within USDA to promote purchase of biobased products by 

USDA agencies. 

• Publish a Notice of Funds Availability informing potential grantees of a program to support development of energy efficiency and renewable energy development for farmers, ranchers and small rural 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

14

businesses. Evaluate grant proposals under the competitive program and commit available funding to 

requests for funding that best meet the selection criteria. 

• Develop a loan, loan guarantee and grant program for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency 

improvements, evaluate proposals using a USDA-DOE interdepartmental review team and award funds 

to selected proposals. Work with USDA conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to ensure the full range of USDA resources are working in combination to facilitate 

the development of new energy systems on farms and ranches.

• Issue a request for proposals jointly with DOE for the Biomass Research and Development Initiative. 

Use an interdepartmental review team to assess proposals with USDA and DOE each selecting final 

proposals to be awarded grants consistent with each Department’s priorities.

• Develop accounting rules and guidelines for carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas offset activities. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will have the lead for agricultural guidelines and 

the Forest Service (FS) will have the lead for forest guidelines. The USDA Global Change Working 

Group will provide resource support. Comments from the public will be utilized in development of the 

guidelines. 

• Develop and publish regulations governing the operation of, and incentive formulas for, the continuation of the Bioenergy Energy Program provided for in Section 9010 of FSRIA. The Farm Services 

Agency (FSA) will prepare and publish necessary regulations and manage the program. The FSA also 

will provide incentive payments, consistent with provisions of the statute, to producers of ethanol and 

biodiesel on qualifying production of these biofuels. 

Key External Factors 

The success of these programs depends on the coordination and cooperation of USDA agencies; the cooperation and coordination of other Federal agencies such as the DOE, the cooperation of private manufacturers and vendors; private sector ethanol and biodiesel producers; potential grant and loan recipients 

such as farmers, ranchers, small rural businesses, academic research institutions and other private sector 

and public sector entities requesting funding under one or another of the USDA programs promoting the 

development of bioenergy, biobased products and other renewable energy; and appropriated funds to meet 

the objectives. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

15

OBJECTIVE 1.4: PROVIDE RISK MANAGEMENT AND 

FINANCIAL TOOLS TO FARMERS AND RANCHERS 

Exhibit 10: Resources Dedicated to Provide Risk Management and Financial Tools to Farmers and 

Ranchers 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 1.4 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 1 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 1 

Program Level ($ Mil) 33,888 80% 30,778 82% 

Staff Years 18,658 69% 15,777 66% 

In FY 2003 and 2004, USDA will continue to establish and implement the framework for farm and commodity programs in the 2002 FSRIA. The 2002 FSRIA provides America’s farmers and ranchers with a 

variety of risk management and financial tools, including crop insurance, direct and counter-cyclical 

payments and farm operating and ownership loans to promote stability in the agricultural sector. Additionally, USDA continues its efforts to streamline and modernize its program delivery structure that will 

result in more effective and efficient service for our customers. USDA will continue to offer advanced research and education tools and services to help producers better manage their risks. 

Provide Risk Management Tools to Farmers and Ranchers 

The increase in the number of insurance plans indicates the variety of risk management tools available for 

use by producers to manage their risk. These increases are a reflection of USDA’s efforts to implement 

new pilot programs and new insurance plans and to expand the availability of existing programs to producers. USDA continuously assesses producers’ needs and private risk management tools to ensure that 

new and innovative risk management alternatives are available. The increase in insurance liability and 

participation indicate producers’ acceptance of the risk management tools. Each of these measures indicates that producers accept the usefulness of USDA products as an effective means to manage agricultural 

risks. 

USDA agricultural forecasts are for lower planted acres in FY 2004 and crop insurance liabilities are 

based, to a large extent, in agricultural commodity prices and planted acres. The coverage level is expected to stay the same or increase, but the dollar amount will decrease according to the forecasts. 

Exhibit 11: Expand Use of Risk Management Tools 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

1.4.1 Expand USDA risk management tools available for 

agricultural producers to use in managing production and price risks: 

 

• Increase crop insurance coverage as measured by 

potential liabilities covered by crop insurance ($ Bil) 

30.9 34.5 36.7 37.3 40.6 40.1 

• Increase crop insurance participation as measured by 

planted acres having crop insurance coverage (Percentage) 

72.5% 76.5% 78.5% 81.1% 81.1% 81.1% 

• Increase the number of commodities eligible for crop 

insurance 

328 343 343 358 366 374 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

16

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Make available to farmers an actuarially sound risk management program. 

• Provide timely and accurate market intelligence information that enables producers and policy makers 

to make well-informed decisions. 

• Increase available coverage of risk management programs to current and additional products, including 

livestock, underserved producers, area, regions, commodities and risks. 

• Evaluate effectiveness of education and outreach processes and implement changes to processes to 

achieve and monitor concrete results and benefits to producers and the program in improving producers’ knowledge and use of risk management tools. 

Key External Factors 

The demand for risk management tools, the local and the national economies, bad weather, sharp fluctuations in farm prices, interest rates and unemployment impact the ability of farmers, other rural residents, 

communities and businesses to qualify for credit and manage their debts. Another key external factor that 

impacts the availability and participation by agricultural producers in crop insurance is the extent of marketing by the private insurance companies. 

Provide Credit to Agricultural Producers 

Farmers and ranchers, who are temporarily unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere, may obtain credit 

assistance through USDA to finance their actual needs at reasonable rates and terms. Some are beginning 

farmers or socially disadvantaged farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters, or 

who have limited resources with which to establish and maintain profitable farming operations. Thus, the 

farm loan program provides support to family farmers and ranchers who would otherwise be unable to 

contribute to the farm sector. 

To help ensure the effectiveness of these programs, it is important to provide timely financial resources 

and other assistance to borrowers when a need arises. Therefore, we plan to continue to reduce processing 

times for loan requests each year. Additionally, we will continue to closely monitor the delinquency and 

loss rates of the direct loan portfolio. Borrower ability to pay installment debt on time is a strong indicator 

of financial strength and viability. Reduced losses in the program indicate that borrowers are experiencing 

greater success in meeting their financial obligations. 

Exhibit 12: Improve Loan Processing Efficiency and Fiscal Soundness of the Direct Loan Portfolio 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

1.4.2 Improve customer service by increasing the efficiency of loan processing:  

• Reduce the average direct loan processing time 

(Days) 

N/A 46 44 42 40 38 

• Reduce the average guaranteed loan processing time 

(Days) 

N/A 20 17 16 15 15 

1.4.3 Improve fiscal soundness of the direct loan portfolio: 

• Maintain the direct loan delinquency rate at or below 

15% (Percentage) 

14.2% 12.4% 11.3% 10.4% 15% 15% 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

17

Exhibit 12: Improve Loan Processing Efficiency and Fiscal Soundness of the Direct Loan Portfolio 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

• Maintain the direct loan loss rate at or below 5% (Percentage) 3.5% 4.2% 3.3% 7.3% 5% 5% 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving these performance goals and related objective include the following: 

• Continue to encourage the use of the Preferred Lender Program to improve the timeliness of guaranteed 

loan processing. 

• Market effectively the electronic filing capabilities to our customers to increase usage, thereby increasing the efficiency of the loan programs. 

• Focus additional resources on providing technical assistance and supervised credit to borrowers. 

• Continue the comprehensive streamlining project for the direct farm loan program regulations, handbooks and information collections. 

• Focus outreach efforts on increasing the amount of lending to beginning and socially disadvantaged 

farmers and ranchers. The financial and technical assistance provided will aid eligible farmers and 

ranchers in traditionally underserved groups to establish and maintain profitable farming operations. 

• Review all rejected loan applications filed by socially disadvantaged farmers to ensure the decision was 

valid. 

• Monitor closely loan processing timeliness for socially disadvantaged farmer applications compared to 

those of other farmers. If a greater than 10 percent discrepancy arises in any State, an analysis will be 

performed to determine the cause. 

• Consolidate information technology operations to improve efficiency and reduce costs. 

Key External Factors 

A significant external factor that could impact accomplishment of our goals is a drop in net farm income 

relative to the mid-1990's. This factor will increase demand for farm loan programs, as well as reduce 

borrower repayment ability, increase delinquency and losses in both the direct and guarantee programs 

and reduce the ability of direct borrowers to obtain guaranteed credit. A drop in net farm income will also 

dramatically increase the workload of our Service Centers, hindering our ability to provide needed assistance to producers in a timely manner. 

Provide Income Support to Agricultural Producers 

Producers have access to a number of USDA farm income support programs that bring much needed economic stability to the agricultural sector. Assistance is provided through direct payments, which are based 

on historical planting and yields and are not tied to the production of specific crops and counter-cyclical 

income support payments based on market prices in relation to target prices. Further, marketing assistance 

loans are provided through short-term financing on eligible crop production, which facilitates orderly 

commodity distribution and through loan deficiency payments (LDP) to farmers eligible for marketing 

assistance loans but who forgo loans in exchange for payments. Marketing assistance loans and LDPs assist producers in obtaining a minimum effective price for eligible commodities – wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, soybeans, minor oilseeds, upland cotton, peanuts, wool, mohair, pulse crops and rice. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

18

In FY 2003 and 2004, USDA anticipates that marketing assistance loan and LDP activity will remain near 

FY 2002 levels. 

Exhibit 13: Provide Income Assistance 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

1.4.4 Eligible commodity production placed under marketing assistance loan or loan deficiency payment 

(Percentage): 

 

• Wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, soybeans, 

minor oilseeds, peanuts, wool, mohair, pulse crops 

and rice 

80% 91% 76% 82% 82% 85% 

• Upland cotton 98% 97% 99% 97% 97% 98% 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Provide adequate infrastructure, including capable and well-trained staff; up to date information technology, such as the continued implementation of the Geographic Information System technology at 

USDA Service Centers, communication systems and physical facilities to ensure timely and accurate 

delivery of services to customers. 

• Utilize formal outreach initiatives to achieve greater county-to-county and State-to-State consistency, 

focusing on small, limited resources and minority producers. 

• Educate producers about program benefits using all available resources, including public meetings, the 

Internet, newspapers and radio. 

• Conduct national field office training on income support programs for employees to ensure our customers receive timely accurate assistance. 

Key External Factors 

Actual market prices for eligible commodities that are significantly different than the forecasted price levels used in establishing the performance targets for marketing assistance loans and LDPs could result in 

participation levels that are considerably different than projected. 

Improve Electronic Delivery of Information and Services 

Producers receive farm loans, commodity loans, direct payments and emergency assistance and participate in conservation programs to help ensure their economic viability. These programs are primarily targeted at agricultural producers, or in the case of farm loan programs, at those with farming experience. 

These programs help farmers and ranchers produce an adequate food supply, maintain viable operations, 

compete for export sales of commodities in the world marketplace and contribute to the year-round availability of a variety of low-cost, safe and nutritious foods. 

To meet the needs of our customers more effectively, we are improving access to services and program 

information and increasing the efficiency, integrity and ease of use of the number of farm commodity and 

farm loan program that can be accessed, completed and accepted electronically. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

19

Exhibit 14: Expand Customer Access to Services 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

1.4.5 Increase farm commodity and loan programs that 

can be accessed, completed and accepted electronically (Percentage) 

N/A N/A N/A 63% 68% 73% 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Continue migration to an operating environment where a greater proportion of information exchange 

and transaction processing occurs through off-site alternatives. Key components of this effort include: 

− Provide farm program information, availability and eligibility requirements electronically; 

− Provide on-line information collection and transaction processing capability; and 

− Develop information collection and management partnerships with State and local agricultural entities and private organizations to integrate information collection and sharing mechanisms among all 

service providers. 

Key External Factors 

A significant factor that could impact accomplishment of the established performance target is the ability 

to provide electronic authentication and signatures for multiple party transactions. Other factors affecting 

performance are legislatively driven short-term programs that may temporarily rise and then lower indicator percentages from fiscal year to fiscal year when a new program is implemented and then retired. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

20

STRATEGIC GOAL 2: SUPPORT INCREASED 

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPROVED 

QUALITY OF LIFE IN RURAL AMERICA 

Exhibit 15: Resources Dedicated to Support and Improve Rural America 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Strategic Goal 2 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

Program Level ($ Mil) 18,130 16% 12,185 12% 

Staff Years 8,273 7% 8,217 8% 

Goal 2 priorities are to develop analytical tools to measure the impact of program performance and support performance based budgeting; evaluate the rental housing program to meet simultaneously the housing needs of underserved rural Americans and the Department’s fiduciary responsibilities; undertake a review of rural cooperatives to determine how they become financially stronger, more market-sensitive and 

responsive to rural economic opportunities; and develop a strategy to ensure rural America is aware of the 

opportunities that are available with the programs of USDA. 

Legislative and regulatory changes can significantly alter the economic environment in which a family, 

community, business or agency operates. For example, the FFEIA requires Rural Development to give 

priority to energy programs that were not previously authorized or funded. Homeland security issues 

dramatically impact government and private sector entities. They also alter resource allocations within the 

Federal government. 

The census of agriculture is taken every five years and provides comprehensive data on the agricultural 

economy including the number of farms, land use, production expenses, value of land and buildings, farm 

size, characteristics of farm operators, market value of agricultural production sold, acreage of major 

crops, inventory of livestock and poultry and farm irrigation practices. This provides valuable detailed 

production, supply, economic and demographic data at the National, State and local levels on U.S. Agriculture. Census data supplied by USDA is the sole source for most locality-based agricultural and demographic data used in making sound and informed decisions by public officials and private interests at the 

local level. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

21

OBJECTIVE 2.1: Expand Economic Opportunities Through 

USDA Financing of Businesses 

Exhibit 16: Resources Dedicated to Expand Economic Opportunities through USDA Financing 

of Businesses 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 2.1 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 2 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 2 

Program Level ($ Mil) 7,157 39% 3,972 33% 

Staff Years 3,664 44% 3,615 44% 

One of USDA's core missions is ensuring that rural Americans enjoy economic opportunities equivalent 

to those of other Americans. Lack of credit and other market imperfections sometimes limit the ability of 

rural economies to create the jobs and incomes that would allow rural families to succeed and rural youth 

to remain in their communities. USDA serves as a capital enhancement tool for rural America by investing in businesses and infrastructure improvement and expansion. Through capital enhancement and by 

implementing energy-related provisions of 2002 FSRIA and loans specifically targeted for the deployment of broadband service in small towns and communities, USDA will expand its ability to improve 

economic opportunities in rural areas. 

Improve Rural Economic Opportunities 

By providing economic opportunities in rural areas through the creation of jobs as a result of the financing of businesses, USDA is concerned not only with the number of jobs created but with the quality of 

jobs. While unable to measure job quality, USDA provides funding priority to projects that support jobs 

with average wage rates that exceed the Federal minimum and strongly encourages coordination with 

other Federal programs. 

Exhibit 17: Strengthen Rural Businesses 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

2.1.1 Create or save additional jobs through USDA financing 

of businesses 

79,839 73,502 105,222 76,301 73,944 69,925

2.1.2 Reduce the Business and Industry Portfolio delinquency rate, excluding bankruptcy cases (Percentage) 4.8% 4.2% 4% 10.3% 9.5% 9.3% 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving these performance goals and related objective include the following: 

• Implement the provisions of the 2002 FSRIA, including the Rural Business Investment Program and 

the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program and the expanded assistance for broadband. 

• Increase outreach and partnerships with financial institutions and non-traditional lenders to encourage 

access to capital for rural minority business owners. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

22

• Develop formal partnerships with other Federal Departments and agencies to efficiently bring additional resources to rural areas. 

• Focus on value-added activities in agriculture and other natural resource industries by encouraging the 

establishment and growth of locally owned and operated rural businesses. 

• Provide more timely and consistent credit and financial analysis of applicant/borrower proposed and 

actual business operations with newly acquired state-of-the-art software. 

• Develop an accreditation training process for field staff. 

Key External Factors 

Under the Rural Community Advancement Program a certain percentage of funds from one program area 

can be made available for obligation by a different program. Therefore, funds available for obligation in 

any particular program could be impacted (increased or decreased) by the movement of funds from one 

program to another as authorized by the Rural Community Advancement Program. Any movement of 

funds will impact the ability to reach the targets. 

The development of the Internet-based economy provides unique opportunities for rural America. It 

eliminates the limitations on business development in rural areas caused by geographical distance and a 

limited customer base. The ability to provide a different type of employment base in a rural area impacts 

the ability to create or save jobs. This element also ties to the provision of broadband access. 

Improve Telecommunication for Rural Residents 

USDA finances the deployment of a seamless, nation-wide broadband network in which the only thing 

distinguishing to users is their zip code. Since private capital for the deployment of broadband services in 

rural areas is not sufficient, incentives offered by USDA are more important than ever before. Providing 

rural residents and businesses with barrier-free access to the benefits of today’s technology will bolster 

the economy and improve the quality of life for rural residents. 

The building and delivery of an advanced telecommunications network is having a profound effect on our 

nation’s economy, strength and growth. Broadband networks in small, rural towns will facilitate economic growth and provide the backbone for the delivery of increased educational opportunities over stateof-the-art telecommunications networks. While rural America can be defined by various statistics—

number of counties: 2,300; or percentage of landmass: 80 percent—the most important statistic is that rural America is HOME to 55 million people. Just as our citizens in our cities and suburbs benefit from access to broadband services, so should our rural residents. In rural America, access to broadband plays a 

vital role in solving the problems created by time, distance, location and lack of resources. The promise of 

broadband is not just “faster access.” It means new educational opportunities through distance learning; 

—enabling rural students to take virtual field trips to places all over the world, from historic Williamsburg to the Louvre; life saving medical treatment over telemedicine networks—allowing for specialists to 

guide surgeries hundreds of miles away; and economic growth and new markets—where businesses prosper and grow locally, while competing nationally and globally over high-speed networks and interconnecting with suppliers, manufacturers and consumers to optimize business strategies. 

Today’s advanced telecommunications networks will allow rural communities to become platforms of 

opportunity for new businesses to compete locally, nationally and globally and ensure that no rural resident—from students to parents and teachers, from patients to doctors, or from consumers to entrepreneurs—will be left behind in this new century. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

23

Exhibit 18: Improve Telecommunication Services in Rural America 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

2.1.3 Improve the ability of small, rural towns to enjoy economic growth through provision of financing to support 

high-speed telecommunications services (broadband): 

 

• Number of entities N/A N/A 12 16 23 23 

• Number of counties N/A N/A 61 163 184 184 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Build leveraging partnerships to expand resources going to rural areas. 

• Increase educational and health care levels in rural areas. 

Key External Factors 

Changes in the economy can have a major impact on both Rural Development programs and the ability of 

our customers to meet their obligations. Rural Development’s customers include residents, communities, 

and organizations in rural areas where monetary policy sometimes has a disproportionate effect. These 

customers do not typically share in economic upswings felt by metropolitan areas. For example, a rise in 

unemployment generally affects low-income families and communities first and can result in an increase 

in loan delinquency rates. A general lack of economic diversity in many rural communities also makes 

them particularly susceptible to changes in the economic environment. Interest rates impact the subsidy 

rates for each program and the amount of funds available for lending. Rates also affect the ability of new 

customers to afford needed assistance and the ability of existing RD customers to graduate to private sector credit. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

24

OBJECTIVE 2.2: Improve the Quality of Life Through USDA 

Financing of Quality Housing, Modern Utilities and Needed 

Community Facilities 

Exhibit 19: Resources Dedicated to Improve the Quality of Life 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 2.2 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 2 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 2 

Program Level ($ Mil) 10,973 61% 8,213 67% 

Staff Years 4,608 56% 4,603 56% 

Rural America is diverse and the challenges facing rural communities are wide-ranging and varied. Its diversity presents opportunities for the creative application of programs and policies and calls for unique 

partnerships. Through programs that provide for clean water, adequate housing and access to essential 

community facilities, USDA can meet the challenges and provide for an improved standard of living in 

Rural America. 

Improve the Standard of Living in Rural America 

The President has expressed his desire that all Americans share in homeownership opportunity and has 

established a major initiative to increase minority homeownership nationwide. USDA will implement an 

action plan in support of the President’s goal. An increase in new and improved community facilities and 

access to clean drinking water will serve to support an increase in homeownership. 

Exhibit 20: Raise Quality of Life in Rural America 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

2.2.1 Improve the quality of life in Rural America: 

• Increase financial assistance to rural households to buy a 

home 

55,941 45,420 44,073 42,069 45,700 49,000

• Increase the number of minority homeowners N/A N/A 6,300 8,200 8,400 8,480 

• Provide access for residents to new and/or improved essential community facilities (Mil) N/A N/A N/A 6.8 7.2 7.2 

• Provide access for residents to clean drinking water (Mil) N/A N/A N/A 1.96 2.06 2.03 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Support the President’s minority homeownership initiative by implementing a plan to: 

− Lower fees to reduce barriers to minority homeownership; 

− Increase the number of self-help participants; 

− Increase participation by minority lenders though outreach; 

− Promote credit counseling and homeownership education; and 

− Monitor lending activities to ensure an increase in minority homeownership. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

25

• Increase the leveraging of outside funds by developing relationships with all potential sources of funding in rural communities for water, environmental and essential community facilities. 

Key External Factors 

Changes in the economy can have a major impact on both Rural Development programs and the ability of 

our customers to meet their obligations. Rural Development’s customers include residents, communities, 

and organizations in rural areas where monetary policy sometimes has a disproportionate effect. These 

customers do not typically share in economic upswings felt by metropolitan areas. For example, a rise in 

unemployment generally affects low-income families and communities first and can result in an increase 

in loan delinquency rates. A general lack of economic diversity in many rural communities also makes 

them particularly susceptible to changes in the economic environment. Interest rates impact the subsidy 

rates for each program and the amount of funds available for lending. Rates also affect the ability of new 

customers to afford needed assistance and the ability of existing RD customers to graduate to private sector credit. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

26

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: ENHANCE PROTECTION AND 

SAFETY OF THE NATION’S AGRICULTURE AND 

FOOD SUPPLY 

Exhibit 21: Resources Dedicated to Protect and Secure the Nation’s Food Supply 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Strategic Goal 3 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

Program Level ($ Mil) 2,965 2% 2,604 2% 

Staff Years 21,888 19% 21,636 20% 

The U.S. has the best production and processing system for food in the world. Consumers are provided 

with the most abundant and safest food possible. USDA inspects meat, poultry and egg products to ensure 

that food safety and consumer protection standards are met, conducts research on ways to examine and 

improve food safety technologies, develops new vaccines and controls pests and diseases that may impact 

food production. We work to ensure the production of safe and wholesome products for consumers and to 

protect the food and agriculture sector against pests and diseases. 

Food safety is the responsibility of everyone involved in the food chain. We continue to increase our efforts to collectively ensure that everyone from farmer, processor, transporter, and retailer to consumer 

clearly understands the importance of food safety. We must defend U.S. livestock against threatening diseases; continue to employ aggressive plant, animal and food safety inspection processes; increase our 

food safety public education efforts and strengthen our science-based systems. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

27

OBJECTIVE 3.1: Enhance the Protection of Meat, Poultry and 

Egg Products from Foodborne Hazards in the United States 

Exhibit 22: Resources Dedicated to Enhancing Protection from Foodborne Hazards. 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 3.1 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 3 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 3 

Program Level ($ Mil) 1,112 38% 1,100 42% 

Staff Years 10,893 49% 11,052 51% 

Protecting the Nation’s food supply from potential hazards, whether chemical, microbial or physical, is a 

formidable task and one that is best accomplished by using sound science to drive decisions and policy 

development. In the light of the public’s heightened apprehension that the Nation’s food supply could be 

a target for terrorists and with the potential for new and emerging microbial hazards to enter the food 

supply, USDA’s food safety systems, particularly those for meat, poultry and egg products, must be continually assessed and updated in order to maintain consumer protection and confidence. These systems 

include activities to track the incidence of pathogens and illness-causing organisms in product to raise 

public awareness about food safety and safe product handling. Therefore, this objective from the USDA 

Strategic Plan and some of its performance goals has been updated for emphasis. 

Strengthen Food Safety 

One of our major efforts in enhancing food protection has been to determine how to strengthen meat, 

poultry and egg product inspection activities. The first step in this process has been to obtain a better understanding of the hazards associated with meat, poultry and egg production and consumption through 

various food safety assessments. This ongoing scientific process has provided a growing body of knowledge that allows us to define methods for inspection and policy development based on food safety hazards. In order to better define progress in this area, USDA has begun to alter some performance measures 

presented in the strategic plan to more accurately describe its activity, including assessing vulnerability to 

biosecurity threats. 

Exhibit 23: Conduct Risk Assessments 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.1.1 Conduct risk assessments of microbial, chemical 

and physical hazards to meat, poultry and egg 

products: 

 

• Number of risk assessments initiated N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 3 

• Number of risk assessments completed 2 0 2 7 N/A N/A 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Improve consistency and application of food safety regulations based on risk assessment data. 

• Evaluate the effectiveness of various performance standards to mitigate the risk of illness from newly 

identified pathogens in ready-to-eat products using risk assessments. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

28

• Enhance the capabilities of the inspection workforce through science-based training. 

• Focus training and education program on a public health and science basis. 

• Conduct an assessment to determine the imported products most vulnerable to biological, chemical and 

radiological terrorism agents. 

• Evaluate the effectiveness of environmental surface and product testing in mitigating the risks associated with the consumption of deli meats and frankfurters using risk assessments. 

• Continue our program of soliciting outside scientific expert reviews of risk assessments (peer reviews). 

• Integrate “lessons-learned” from risk assessments into policy, inspection and regulatory enforcement 

activities. 

Key External Factors 

The full projected implementation of this goal can be influenced by the fact that food safety biosecurity 

information may alter assessment priorities. If the food supply were to be compromised, security activities would take precedence over other resource requirements. Emerging information on pathogen identification or trace back may also cause us to alter assessment priorities. 

Enhance Protection from Salmonella

In order to more effectively define progress in this area, USDA has modified this performance measure 

from the Strategic Plan by using the term “incidence” versus “prevalence” to more accurately gauge progress towards tracking the occurrence of Salmonella related to classes of meat and poultry products in the 

United States based on verification sampling. The requirement for regulated plants to employ Pathogen 

Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) systems is an example of our efforts 

to require new methods to assure that food safety hazards are identified and managed across the farm-totable continuum. 

 

Exhibit 24: Enhance Industry Compliance 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.1.2 Enhance industry compliance with regulatory requirements**:  

• Incidence of Salmonella on broiler chickens (Percentage) 11.3% 8.7% 11.9% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 

• Incidence of Salmonella on market hogs (Percentage) 6.6% 7.6% 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 

• Incidence of Salmonella on ground beef (Percentage) 4.4% 3.6% 2.6% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 

** This standard more accurately reflects figures, which convey compliance-based verification results that will yield either declining or stabilized levels in products tested. The percentages that are considered viable for a stable level of compliance are based 

on extensive baseline studies and detection methods. 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Conduct hazard-based verification assessments of the food safety systems at slaughter and processing 

plants to ensure that food safety requirements, in addition to the Salmonella performance standards, are 

being met. 

• Evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of Pathogen Reduction/HACCP plans in operation. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

29

• Ensure that laboratory facilities meet security standards. 

• Identify, investigate and respond to food safety emergencies and monitor foodborne illnesses resulting 

from the consumption of adulterated or unwholesome meat, poultry and egg products. 

• Ensure that meat, poultry and egg products imported into the U.S. are safe by reviewing and auditing 

foreign programs to ensure the continued equivalence of foreign inspection systems. 

• Identify “best practices” regarding activities that are demonstrated to be important in effecting the incidence of Salmonella and provide guidance to the regulated industry. 

Key External Factors 

Many factors can influence the incidence of Salmonella on a year-to-year basis. Three representative species were chosen for this report: young chickens, cattle and market hogs. Due to the testing and sampling 

structure, one outlying result in a plant can affect the Agency’s total reported numbers. This effect can 

occur independent of the intended target. 

Enhance Protection from Listeria monocytogenes

USDA has also modified this performance measure from the Strategic Plan by using the term “incidence” 

versus “prevalence” to more accurately gauge progress (i.e., the “incidence” of a pathogen reflects the occurrence of this hazard in a set of verification-oriented samples of product that is intended to measure the 

effectiveness of the food safety system; the “prevalence” of a pathogen reflects the occurrence of this 

hazard in a set of scientifically-based samples of product that is intended to measure the national occurrence of this hazard, generally referred to as a baseline study). 

The incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products is an important public 

health risk, and USDA has been proactive in monitoring and addressing this issue. Through participation 

with other food safety partners in FoodNet and PulseNet, we are beginning to see major scientific advances in tracking matching pathogenic Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) from products, environment and 

humans afflicted with foodborne illnesses. These advances serve to raise awareness and better protect 

public health. 

Exhibit 25: Enhance Industry Compliance 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.1.3 Enhance industry compliance with regulatory requirements (Percentage) 1.91% 1.45% 1.26% 1.02% 1.02% 1.00% 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Complete an extensive, scientific risk assessment on Listeria monocytogenes to determine how the 

pathogen may contaminate meat and poultry products during production and packaging processes. 

• Issue a final regulation for the control of Listeria monocytogenes for certain ready-to-eat meat and 

poultry products. 

• Provide guidance to the regulated industry on demonstrating on-going effectiveness of sanitary controls 

and interventions in all operations, especially ready-to-eat processes. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

30

• Continue the dialogue with food safety stakeholders from government, academia, industry, advocacy 

groups and consumers through public meetings and forums to present research data as well as receive 

feedback on actions that best address the problems posed by Listeria monocytogenes.

• Begin environmental testing within plants to complement product testing and human isolate determinations to provide DNA fingerprinting for pathogens and improve USDA’s ability to trace pathogens 

back to the contamination source. 

• Continue to analyze data gathered during the 2002 outbreak of listeriosis in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Key External Factors 

Many factors can influence incidence data on a year-to-year basis. Listeria monocytogenes is found in soil 

and water and can contaminate a variety of raw foods, such as uncooked meats and vegetables. Foods can 

also become contaminated after processing; examples are soft cheeses, hot dogs and luncheon meats. In 

general, product in the plant targeted for Listeria monocytogenes testing is voluntarily put on hold by the 

plant until results are available. In the event that product was distributed to consumers and a positive 

sample is discovered, FSIS requests that the plant initiate a voluntary product recall. Depending upon the 

entity tested in any given year, results can vary. 

Improve Detection of Foodborne Hazards 

In order for regulatory/action agencies and industry to ensure the safety of the food supply, continued improvements in methodologies to sample, detect, identify and differentiate foodborne pathogens in all 

forms of foods are needed. USDA has focused its efforts on methods that can be nationally and internationally standardized for process validation, monitoring and verification. Testing protocols, if designed 

well, can be integrated into all steps within the farm-to-table continuum. Further, they can also assist in 

helping resolve disputes over health issues and the import and export of foods from different countries. 

USDA seeks to develop and transfer to the private sector systems that rapidly and accurately detect, identify and differentiate the most critical and economically important foodborne pathogenic bacteria and viruses. 

Exhibit 26: Improve Foodborne Hazards Detection 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.1.4 Develop new systems for detecting foodborne hazards. 1 2 3 2 3 3 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Complete full genome DNA sequencing of specific foodborne pathogens over the next 3-5 years. 

• Develop nucleic acid microarrays and specific antibodies for various pathogens over the next 3-5 years. 

• Transfer to the appropriate action/regulatory agencies and private sector customers’ genome and antibody-based devices that will rapidly and accurately detect, identify and differentiate the most critical 

and economically important foodborne pathogenic bacteria and viruses over the next 3-5 years. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

31

Key External Factors 

Technological innovations have allowed more rapid and sophisticated means of detection. However, even 

with the most sensitive testing methods, USDA recognizes that there are limitations in current technology 

that may have a bearing when determining whether a product is completely free of a target pathogen. 

Therefore, USDA will continue to support partnerships and collaborative efforts with other Federal agencies in the development and validation of new methods as indicated in the means and strategies above. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

32

OBJECTIVE 3.2: Reduce the Number and Severity of 

Agricultural Pest and Disease Outbreaks 

Exhibit 27: Resources Dedicated to Reduce Pest and Disease Outbreaks 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 3.2 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 3 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 3 

Program Level ($ Mil) 1,853 62% 1,504 58% 

Staff Years 10,995 51% 10,584 49% 

Safeguarding America’s plant and animal resources from exotic or foreign pests and diseases is one key 

way USDA can provide a secure and healthy agricultural production system and abundant food supply to 

consumers. Often these pests and diseases threaten not only U.S. agriculture, but also ecosystems, human 

health, trade opportunities and other integral pieces of national security. USDA cooperates with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to exclude these exotic or foreign pests from the U.S. USDA also 

conducts operations to quickly detect and respond to those that are introduced. USDA stations representatives in foreign countries to assist them in eradicating or reducing the prevalence of many of the pests 

and diseases, thereby reducing the agricultural risks to not only the U.S., but other countries as well. Our 

actions help minimize production losses, maintain market viability and contain environmental damage. 

Aside from its regulatory authorities, USDA encourages compliance through public awareness campaigns 

and educational materials for importers and the general public. 

New or re-emerging plant and animal pests and diseases have increased recently. The European experience with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy emphasizes the global nature of livestock disease and the 

potential impact on a country’s food, economy and public health. The threat that terrorists might deliberately introduce diseases or pests has sharply increased the awareness of scientific based programs. Early 

detection of and rapid response to invasive species is imperative to prevent pests and diseases from becoming established and to eradicate them. The U.S. needs to improve diagnostic tests for foreign and 

emerging disease agents by building on the expanding knowledge base of microbial genomics for both 

animal and plant pests. We need to hold periodic reviews of the agricultural and meat, poultry and egg 

product food safety systems for compliance; and we need to modernize them to keep pace with emerging 

and often unique challenges and rapidly changing conditions. We will use the best available science, 

training and technology to improve intervention strategies and design new ones. We will continue to use 

the best available science, information and technology to protect the Nation’s agriculture and food supply. 

Current prevention strategies and diagnostic methods may not be adequate to reduce the number and severity of disease and pest outbreaks for most agricultural products. Early detection of pathogens, pests 

and other threats, rapid and accurate assessment and immediate responses that reduce or prevent damage 

and control or eradicate the infection, are essential. Emergency preparedness and management requires 

that federal and state organizations make agreements in advance to cooperate when and if it becomes necessary. 

 

Research, education and extension programs develop the connectivity, knowledge and expertise required 

to ensure security of our agricultural and rural communities and a secure and safe food supply. It is imperative that we integrate efforts in basic and applied research, training and education and extension to 

prevent disruptions in production of raw food products, storage, processing, packaging, distribution and 

food service. USDA will work with its partners to ensure the conversion of research results into delivery 

technologies in plant and animal health to provide agricultural systems that are robust and resilient to en-
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

33

vironmental and biotic challenges. USDA will build on the animal and plant disease and pest surveillance 

and detection networks being set up, Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers and Regional Rural 

Development Centers, the Pesticide Safety Education Program, existing work in microbe, plant and animal genomics and the commonality of host-pathogen interactions among animals, insects and plants. 

These activities will be coordinated with a host of private and public sector efforts, including USDA 

agencies and other Federal departments including the DHS. 

Reduce the Risk of Entry and Establishment of Pests and Diseases 

For many years USDA has conducted inspection operations on passengers, vehicles and cargo at U.S. 

ports of entry. To reduce the number and severity of pest and disease outbreaks, USDA’s Agricultural 

Quarantine Inspection program has monitored the pathways along which exotic pests and diseases approach the country. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, USDA’s inspection operations and personnel located at ports of entry were transferred to the Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection. They have joined together with federal personnel from U.S. Customs and Immigration to provide the entire range of inspection services. USDA has retained predeparture inspection operations and 

continues to set agricultural inspection policy, provide instructional guidance to DHS around these policies and provide analytic support in monitoring compliance data for passengers, vehicles and cargo. 

USDA’s performance goals and indicators have been adjusted to fit the modified mission. The strategic 

emphasis has shifted away from safeguarding agriculture by excluding pests and diseases at ports of entry 

to safeguarding through surveillance activities in foreign countries and domestically. USDA will intensify 

the strategic thrust towards surveillance and early detection and will also amplify its emergency preparedness effort. 

Although USDA will continue to monitor AQI compliance data, the activity will be conducted for DHS’ 

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. DHS has adopted USDA’s performance measure focusing on 

compliance that was formerly shown in this section. The compliance results will appear in DHS’ plan. 

Two new performance measures are replacing it. 

 

Exhibit 28: Strengthen the Effectiveness of Pest and Disease Surveillance and Detection Systems 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.2.1 Increase the percent of known, significant introductions of 

plant pests or diseases that are detected before they 

spread from the original area of colonization and cause 

severe economic or environmental damage 

N/A N/A N/A 85% 95% 96% 

3.2.2 Number of significant introductions of foreign animal 

pests or diseases that spread beyond the original area of 

introduction and cause severe economic or environmental damage, or damage to the health of animals or 

humans. 

N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Partner with other countries, the Department of Homeland Security, State agencies, industries and professional organizations, to identify strategies to safeguard the many pathways by which exotic pests 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

34

and diseases may enter the U.S. Work closely with DHS to coordinate performance measures and other 

related issues. 

• Conduct offshore threat assessments and risk reduction surveys for targeted pests and foreign animal 

diseases. 

• Assess risks of various pathways for introduction of foreign animal and plant diseases and pests to develop appropriate, science-based quarantine regulations. 

• Participate with the States in the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) program to conduct 

more detection surveys, respond to detections in a timely manner, participate on state, regional and national committees, collect and report data, develop State Pest Lists and communicate with the public. 

• Participate in the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds to 

develop an interagency national early warning and rapid response system for new invasive species. 

• Train more identifiers (entomologists, plant pathologists, botanists) and procure up-to-date surveillance 

equipment to ensure that data are standardized across the country. 

• Track the spread of plant pests within the United States through the National Agricultural Pest Information (NAPIS) database. Expand and enhance it. Use it to demonstrate their absence, plan their control, 

certify commodities for export and verify and document the pest and disease status of the U.S. 

• Conduct research to develop better survey tools and techniques, and technology for diagnostics. 

• Expand fruit fly surveillance and eradication. 

• Ensure the safety of agricultural biotechnology research, release, movement and other events and of 

veterinary biologics and other organisms. 

• Enhance current animal health surveillance activities by working cooperatively with the States in rapid 

detection of foreign animal diseases, emerging diseases and diseases of economic importance to industries and those that impact trade. 

• Develop an infrastructure for targeted surveillance—a Comprehensive National Surveillance System, 

which includes a Geographic Information System and spatial analysis component. 

• Build an international plant and animal pest, disease and pathway information system that will feed into 

the National Surveillance System. 

• Provide expertise and training in animal and plant health. 

• Collect and disseminate science-based information on chemical usage used to fight pests and disease. 

Key External Factors 

As travel and trade increase around the globe, the number of invasive species that slip through ports into 

the interior of the country inevitably rises. Outbreaks among our foreign trading partners further increase 

the likelihood. It takes special expertise to recognize harmful exotic species. Once they start to propagate, 

crop and animal pests and diseases can spread quickly. Members of the public may not understand or 

want to cooperate with control and eradication programs. 

Improve Animal Emergency Management 

Because barriers designed to exclude invasive pests and diseases are imperfect, USDA must conduct 

other activities including surveillance, quarantine establishment, eradication and emergency management. 

An isolated incident may not lead to an outbreak if it is handled quickly enough. Pest and disease outbreaks may be contained and their severity reduced by employing quarantine and eradication measures. 

Effective operations in an emergency are much easier if there has been advance planning and arrangement. USDA is bringing the science of emergency management to bear on its ability to respond to an 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

35

animal health emergency that could threaten the Nation’s agricultural industries and the food supply. We 

have developed key partnerships within USDA, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 

related State Emergency Management Agencies and with State Departments of Agriculture. This infusion 

of science and technology, along with the human resources available through such partnerships, will help 

advance the Nation’s capability to respond to animal health emergencies. The National Animal Health 

Emergency Management Steering Committee outlined standards for animal health emergency management, which all States are working to implement. This initiative is an interdepartmental and a Federal and 

State effort. 

Exhibit 29: Increase the Number of States and Territories Meeting Standards 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.2.3 Increase the number of States and territories, which 

meet the standards for preventing, detecting and responding to animal health emergencies. 

0 0 1 5 30 40 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Establish area emergency response organizations with Federal and State partnerships in each State to 

provide immediate response capability for emerging events. 

• Expand partnerships with other Federal and State agencies and industry to respond to outbreaks. 

• Hire a minimum of 12 emergency managers to help USDA and its partners meet the standards in each 

State. 

Key External Factors 

Responses to actual emergencies, such as Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza and Exotic Newcastle Disease 

in California, impact resources and emergency response capability. The Federal and State expectations for 

building the response infrastructure involve using non-governmental employees who work temporarily in 

a variety of response roles. The pool of people who are capable of filling those temporary roles is limited 

and competing interests may limit their availability. In addition to this, trade barriers and conflicting priorities may limit U.S. exports and place demands on domestic resources. 

Improve Animal Diagnostic Services 

USDA partners with States to provide effective emergency response systems to detect, respond to, and 

eliminate outbreaks of invasive pests and diseases. There is a need for enough people and diagnostic laboratories, supported by modern equipment, to ensure that scientific and regulatory activities are up to the 

challenges posed by invasive diseases. Having a fully operational diagnostic laboratory located close to a 

detection site and linked to a national network increases the rapidity with which an unknown sample can 

be accurately tested and increases the probability that an introduction can be contained before it becomes 

a significant outbreak. More aggressive scientific monitoring for a broader array of emerging agricultural 

diseases will lead to earlier discovery and more timely submission of samples. Diagnostic, epidemiological and methods development programs, along with real-time diagnostic capabilities are all essential 

components of an effective effort to optimize our agricultural biosecurity efforts. 

Funding was first provided for the National Animal Health Laboratory Network in FY 2002. In FY 2003, 

five additional states received Homeland Security money and the actual number of certified laboratories 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

36

has been increased from 20 to 25. Any money received by the laboratories in FY 2004 will be concentrated on getting the 25 laboratories trained to conduct additional diagnostic tests and provided with lab 

equipment, not adding an additional state. 

Exhibit 30: Ensure States Provide Animal Diagnostic Services 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.2.4 Increase the number of States that can provide necessary Federal animal diagnostic services N/A N/A N/A 20 23 25 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Partner with States, universities, private practitioners, industry and state, federal and private laboratories to facilitate accurate, timely diagnostic services. 

• Increase scientific monitoring for a broader array of emerging agricultural diseases and catalogue occurrences and outbreaks. 

Key External Factors 

The introduction of emerging or foreign animal diseases, whether accidental or intentional, poses a threat 

to animal and human health and to the environment, making prevention, early detection, identification 

and rapid control or eradication a vital challenge. Collaboration between the public and private sectors 

plays a critical role in emergency preparedness. 

Improve Plant Diagnostic Laboratory Capabilities 

USDA agencies partner with State agencies and universities to achieve a high level of agricultural biosecurity through the early detection, response and containment of outbreaks of invasive pests and diseases. 

Diagnostic laboratories, adequately staffed and stocked with cutting edge technology, are essential to 

meet the temporal and spatial challenges of invasive pests and diseases by expediting the testing and verification of samples to eliminate or contain outbreaks before they become epidemic. International Standards Organization Certification of the five National Plant Pest and Disease Diagnostic Network Centers 

will establish harmonized leadership and coordination of the diagnostic laboratories, ensure the performance of timely diagnostics with uniform and adequate quality and will smooth the progress of producing 

and maintaining a timely, comprehensive catalogue of pest and disease outbreak occurrences in a nationally accessible database. Certification and linked communication are essential to ensure the accurate identification of new or uncommon pests and diseases, expedite initial control responses, verify the physical 

boundaries of an outbreak and initiate regional or national containment strategies. 

Exhibit 31: Ensure the Capabilities of Plant and Diagnostic Laboratories are Improved 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.2.5 Improve the capabilities of plant diagnostic laboratories: 

• Certify National Plant Pest and Disease Diagnostic Network Centers N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 5 

• Connect State Plant Diagnostic Laboratory to the National 

Agricultural Pest Information System at Purdue University 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 52 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

37

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Open five (5) National Plant Pest and Disease Diagnostic Network Centers. 

• Define the International Standards Organization (ISO) Certification criteria. 

• Certify each National Plant Pest and Disease Diagnostic Network Center by ISO. 

• Designate and connect 50 State laboratories to the National Agricultural Pest Information System. 

Key External Factors 

Continuing the partnerships among USDA research agencies, State Departments of Agriculture, Regional 

Pest Management Centers, Universities and private laboratories, as well as funding, collaboration, regional and State priorities and interstate barriers may impact or impede progress at any point in time. Mission limitations, multiple point data management and integrated coordination may be difficult to achieve. 

Research Plant Pathogens 

Existing and emerging plant pathogens pose serious economic threats to U.S. agricultural production and 

profitability because of a lack of resistance in commercial cultivars and effective control strategies for 

devastating diseases. USDA must conduct research to discover and exploit genetic mechanisms for plant 

pathogen control, develop agronomic germplasm with these defense traits and transfer these genetic resources for commercial use. To achieve these goals in an efficient and expedient manner, USDA will deploy its massive collection of genetic materials and genomic resources to identify or create genes that protect plants against disease symptoms. Advances in biotechnology provide genetic tools that facilitate the 

selection and development of desirable traits in crop species. Key partnerships have been developed with 

USDA and with States, commodity groups and industry. These efforts will help advance and expand the 

capacity of agriculture in the U.S. to provide a front-line of defense for plant pathogens that attack several 

different crop species, constituting the foundation of U.S. agricultural productivity. USDA will also develop and release to potential users varieties and/or germplasm that are new or provide significantly improved (either through traditional breeding or biotechnology) characteristics enhancing pest or disease resistance. 

Exhibit 32: Improve Germplasm Resistance to Disease 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

3.2.6 Release a series of new or improved varieties or germplasm that exhibit enhanced disease resistance to each 

of the following plant diseases: Sclerotinia, downy mildew, rusts and exotic viral diseases 

9 9 5 5 5 5 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Use traditional breeding or biotechnology, develop and release new or improved germplasm, or varieties that have enhanced resistance to Sclerotinia, downy mildew, rusts and exotic viral diseases over the 

next 5 years. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

38

Key External Factors 

Development of agronomic crop germplasm with genetic resistance to key disease pathogens is a time 

and labor intensive process which often is impeded by environmental influences on gene expression. 

Many agricultural crops species lack sufficient genomic information to expedite the discovery and use of 

gene markers that will effectively shorten the time-line for variety development. Depending on the genetic approach that is taken, trade barriers and conflicting priorities may limit the application and development of enhanced crop material. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

39

STRATEGIC GOAL 4: IMPROVE THE NATION’S 

NUTRITION AND HEALTH 

Exhibit 33: Resources Dedicated to Improve the Nation’s Nutrition and Health 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Strategic Goal 4 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

Program Level ($ Mil) 41,575 36% 42,810 40% 

Staff Years 3,240 3% 3,210 3% 

Goal 4 ensures that America’s agricultural abundance and the latest science and technology work together 

to support the nutrition and health of people in the U.S. The Department manages domestic nutrition assistance programs that touch the lives of one in five Americans in the course of a year and promotes better 

health for all Americans through food and nutrition education, guidance and promotion. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

40

OBJECTIVE 4.1: Improve Access to Nutritious Food 

Exhibit 34: Resources Dedicated to Improve Access to Nutritious Food 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 4.1 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 4 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 4 

Program Level ($ Mil) 40,729 97% 41,941 97% 

Staff Years 1,417 44% 1,460 45% 

USDA will continue to contribute significantly to America’s health and well-being by ensuring access to 

nutrition assistance programs for eligible Americans and providing nutrition guidance and promotion to 

the general public and targeted groups. 

Reduce Hunger and Improve Nutrition 

USDA programs provide nutrition for millions of America’s children, elderly, working poor and other 

targeted groups. For a variety of reasons, many individuals and families who are eligible to participate in 

these programs do not. USDA is committed to improving nutritional intake through increased access to 

and use of, these vital assistance and education programs by those who are eligible to participate. 

USDA will improve access to nutritious food, reducing low-income households that report hunger from 

10.9 percent in FY 2001 to 7.4 percent in FY 2007 based on an annual population survey; enrolling 68 

percent of those eligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program; and providing Program lunches to 55 

percent of enrolled children in both public and private schools. 

Exhibit 35: Improve Nutrition 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

4.1.1 Improve Access to Nutritious Food (Mil): 

• Food Stamp Program participation (people) 18.2 17.2 17.3 19.1 20.7 21.6 

• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants and Children participation (average monthly participation) 

7.31 7.20 7.30 7.50 7.7 7.8 

• National School Lunch Program participation 

(average daily participation) 

26.9 27.2 27.4 27.9 28.7 29.1 

• School Breakfast Program participation (average 

daily participation) 

7.4 7.8 7.8 8.1 8.8 9.1 

• Child and Adult Care Food Program meals served 1,638 1,670 1,678 1,740 1,831 1,872 

• Summer Food Service Program participation 

(average daily participation) 

2.17 2.09 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Effectively deliver nutrition assistance benefits to eligible participants by working with states to implement new FSRIA provisions that restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants and giving States 

substantial new flexibility to streamline some of the FSP complex rules. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

41

• Continue actions to ensure that the Food Stamp Program is accessible to all those eligible. 

• Continue to increase access to the Summer Food Service Program by conducting outreach, providing 

technical assistance and evaluating the use of program waivers to determine potential for expansion. 

• Maximize the availability of WIC benefits by reallocating funds to areas with high demand, using infant formula rebates to stretch program dollars. 

Key External Factors 

Our ability to achieve this performance goal depends partly on sound legislative authority to promote effective access to nutrition assistance and on adequate funding to support program participation. The quality of program delivery by third parties—State and local governments and other cooperators—impacts our 

efforts to reduce hunger and improve nutrition. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

42

OBJECTIVE 4.2: Promote Healthier Eating Habits and 

Lifestyles 

Exhibit 36: Resources Dedicated to Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 4.2 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 4 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 4 

Program Level ($ Mil) 716 2% 735 2% 

Staff Years 598 18% 533 17% 

The Nation faces significant public health issues related to the quality of America’s eating habits, including an increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity. USDA will use its nutrition assistance programs 

and its broader nutrition education efforts as key opportunities to promote more healthful eating and 

physical activity across the Nation. 

Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles 

A nutritious diet that includes the consumption of fruits and vegetables, combined with regular physical 

activity, is a key ingredient to a healthy life. For babies, breastfeeding has been shown to make a significant difference in their health, not only in their infancy, but beyond. 

USDA will promote healthier eating habits and lifestyles in several segments of American society. By 

2007, we will increase the Healthy Eating Index scores for low-income people by at least 5 points and for 

the broader U.S. population by at least 2 points; support 60 percent of postpartum women who participate 

in WIC to initiate breastfeeding; increase the proportion of elementary and secondary schools offering 

meal options that are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines to 100 percent and partner with the HHS to 

promote a reduction in overweight and obesity in adults and children. 

In FY 2003 and 2004, USDA will purchase and distribute nutritious foods, deliver targeted nutrition education and provide technical assistance and oversight to ensure meals and other benefits support healthful 

diets. USDA will also provide nutrition guidance to the general public. 

Exhibit 37: Improve America’s Diet 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

4.2.1 Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles: 

• Support for fruits and vegetables provided through 

nutrition assistance programs ($ Mil) 

6,692 6,747 7,102 7,628 8,246 8,479 

• School Meals Initiative monitoring reviews conducted by State agencies 2,937 3,939 4,073 3,517 2,900 4,100 

• Percentage of WIC mothers initiating breastfeeding 

(Percentage, data collected biennially) 

N/A 44.5% N/A 48%1 N/A 50% 

• USDA nutrition education materials and education 

interventions disseminated (Mil. of pieces) 

.38 2.2 3.4 14.8 6.1 6.6 

1 Preliminary data. Final data expected December 2003. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

43

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Purchase and distribute fruits and vegetables to schools participating in the National School Lunch 

Program. 

• Provide fresh fruit and vegetables to Indian Tribal organizations. 

• Promote Farmers’ Markets as means of improving access to fresh fruits and vegetables. 

• Support USDA’s School Meals Initiative to ensure nutrition education and school meals that support 

healthy food choices and monitor schools’ progress in carrying out this important initiative. 

• Promote breastfeeding through WIC as the preferred infant feeding practice. 

• Develop and disseminate nutrition education materials and education interventions targeting children 

and their caregivers. 

• Foster behavior change to reduce obesity and increase the effective use of USDA nutrition education 

materials through training programs and public awareness. 

• Integrate nutrition education with food assistance by working with States to build a more effective 

means for delivering nutrition education. 

• Develop and disseminate print and Internet-based tools to help more people assess and improve their 

diets. 

• Implement a Memorandum of Understanding with the National 5 A Day Partnership, CDC and the National Cancer Institute to promote increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. 

• Foster behavior change to reduce obesity and increase the effective use of USDA nutrition education 

materials through training programs and public awareness efforts. 

• Conduct research on food consumption and nutrient content to help shape national food assistance programs and nutrition education efforts. 

Key External Factors 

Efforts to improve the diets of program participants depend in part on the emphasis that the Nation more 

broadly places on healthy eating, including products and practices in the food marketplace. Moreover, 

physical activity and other lifestyle issues have a significant affect on bodyweight and other health issues. 

Since many of these factors are beyond the scope of nutrition education, USDA must look to the efforts of 

partners. To that end, our efforts to promote nutrition also rely on coordination among USDA and its Federal, State and local partners, including universities engaged in nutrition research and education. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

44

OBJECTIVE 4.3: Improve Food Program Management and 

Customer Service 

Exhibit 38: Resources Dedicated to Improve Food Program Management and Customer Service 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 4.3 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 4 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 4 

Program Level ($ Mil) 130 1% 134 1% 

Staff Years 1,225 38% 1,216 38% 

Consistent with the President’s Management Agenda (PMA), USDA is strongly committed to maintaining a high level of stewardship and customer service in the nutrition assistance programs and preventing 

errors and other problems before they occur. 

USDA will continue its strong performance by requiring that States pay cash sanctions when their error 

rates in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) greatly exceeds the national average, by assuring that the FSP 

Quality Control system remains strong and by monitoring and working with all States to improve performance. 

Efforts are underway to improve the accuracy of eligibility determinations for school meal programs. 

USDA is pilot testing alternatives to the current eligibility determination process and intends to use the 

results of these pilots to improve this process for the future. As school meal eligibility data are widely 

used to distribute education aid, errors in school meal certifications can result in the misdirection of targeted education funds. USDA is working with the OMB and the Department of Education to develop options for eligibility determinations for all benefits targeted to low-income students. 

New communication and eGovernment technologies represent a prime opportunity to serve our customers 

and work with partners more effectively. We plan to make targeted, cost-effective investments to enable 

USDA to bring its programs and businesses into the digital age. 

Improve Food Management Efficiency 

Effective stewardship helps ensure that those families and individuals most in need of nutrition assistance 

receive it and that the funds intended for this purpose are not diminished by waste or program abuse. Improved customer service helps ensure that eligible families and individuals are aware of the lifetime benefits of good nutrition and know about the assistance that is available to them to improve their nutritional 

intake. 

USDA will improve food program management and customer service by: increasing the Food Stamp 

payment accuracy rate to 92.2 percent by FY 2004; and providing services electronically to increase efficiency and ease-of-use and benefit delivery within the Food Stamp and WIC programs. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

45

Exhibit 39: Increase Efficiency in Food Management 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

4.3.1 Improve Food Program Management and Customer Service:  

• Increase the Food Stamp payment accuracy rate 

(Percentage; Cumulative) 

90.1% 91.1% 91.3% Available 

5/03 

91.5% 92.2% 

• Decrease the number of children certified for free 

school meals in excess of those estimated eligible 

(Percentage) 

27% Not 

Available1

Not 

Available1

Available 

11/03 

25% 24% 

1

 Result of special data analysis that uses a combination of FNS administrative data and information from the Current Population

Survey; data will be available by Fall 2003. Questions have been raised about the methodology and the agency is currently conducting a reassessment. 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Work with States to reduce errors in FSP benefit payments. 

• Work with State agencies and local school food authorities to improve certification accuracy in school 

meals programs. 

• Increase training and technical assistance to improve State and local management for vulnerable programs. 

Key External Factors 

Some erroneous payment problems are inherent to the legislatively mandated program structure, which is 

intended to serve people in special circumstances and settings. Often, State and local governments bear 

direct responsibility for delivering the programs. Therefore, we must address erroneous payment problems through monitoring and technical assistance. This approach requires adequate numbers of trained 

staff, supported by a modernized information technology infrastructure, to ensure full compliance with 

national program standards and to prevent or minimize error, waste and abuse. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

46

STRATEGIC GOAL 5: PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE 

NATION’S NATURAL RESOURCE BASE AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

Exhibit 40: Resources Dedicated to Protect the Nation’s Natural Resource Base and Environment 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Strategic Goal 5 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Total USDA 

Program Level ($ Mil) 10,424 9% 10,220 10% 

Staff Years 52,339 47% 51,664 47% 

Goal 5 addresses both stewardship and technical assistance responsibilities for the nation’s natural resources and the environment. The stewardship role on federally owned land is to sustain the capacity of 

the natural resources for current and future generations. USDA also serves an advisory role on state and 

privately owned land in matters dealing with the natural resources and the environment. These matters include a wide range of issues, from soil and water protection and enhancement, to vegetation cover and 

wildlife populations and habitat, as well as issues related to crops and grazing. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

47

OBJECTIVE 5.1: IMPLEMENT THE PRESIDENT’S HEALTHY 

FOREST INITIATIVE AND OTHER ACTIONS TO IMPROVE 

MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS 

Table 41: Resources Dedicated to Implement Forest Initiatives 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 5.1 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 5 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 5 

Program Level ($ Mil) 5,308 51% 4,788 47% 

Staff Years 36,144 69% 34,430 67% 

USDA must manage the 192 million acres of Federally owned land under our stewardship to sustain our 

long-term capability to meet the needs of society while protecting the environment. USDA is guided in its 

stewardship by, for example, the National Forest Management Act, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, 

the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative, the interagency, inter-Department 10-Year Fire Strategy, interagency working agreements on hazardous materials management and the Resources Planning Act Natural 

Resources Assessments, a scientifically-based compilation of 25 years of trend data of natural resources 

and their conditions. 

In FY 2003 and 2004, USDA will continue its systematic efforts to evaluate, prioritize and cleanup sites 

contaminated with hazardous substances that threaten human health or the environment. 

Improve Fire Management 

Wildland fire is of major interest to USDA as a natural component of ecosystem processes and, conversely, as a threat to both communities and the environment. The Department’s challenge is to manage 

wildland fire within its place in natural systems as well as reducing the risk of losses from catastrophic 

fire. This complex challenge is addressed both through the planning that identifies when and where priority work can be implemented and the specific field level projects that affect future fire behavior. USDA, 

State foresters and local fire departments through the FIREWISE Program assist community property 

owners in the wildland/urban interface in preventing fires and increasing the survivability of their homes 

from wildfires. 

Exhibit 42: Reduce Risk of Catastrophic Fire 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

5.1.1 Continue to restore, rehabilitate and maintain fireadapted ecosystems by treating hazardous fuels 

in both the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and 

non-WUI areas (Mil of acres) 

1.4 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.4 

5.1.2 Ensure Federal fire management plans are in 

compliance with Federal Wildland Fire Policy 

(Percentage) 

N/A N/A N/A 50% 75% 100% 

5.1.3 Control unplanned and unwanted fires during initial attack (Percentage) N/A N/A N/A 99.0 99.0 98.5 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

48

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving these performance goals and related objective include the following: 

• Develop a Fire Management Plan template that incorporates the objectives and priorities established 

through the 10 Year Strategy, and determine an implementation schedule. 

• Develop and implement a process for Federal, State, Tribal and local governments to collaborate on the 

annual selection of fuel treatment projects within their respective jurisdictions. 

• Assess the regulatory process governing projects and activities done in conformance with the 10 Year 

Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, and identify measures to improve timely decisionmaking. 

• Implement the Memorandum of Understanding signed in January 2003 by the USDA FS, USDI Bureau 

of Land Management/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Park Service, the National Association 

of State Foresters and the National Association of Counties to ensure a collaborative fuels treatment 

program across federal and non-federal boundaries. 

• Develop an improved technical assistance program to promote commercial uses for small-diameter materials. 

• Develop a Memorandum of Understanding among Federal wildland fire agencies and the National Association of State Foresters for promoting FIREWISE programs to more wildland urban interface 

communities. 

• Maintain fire preparedness levels matching those established in FY 2002 to ensure a high initial attack 

success rate. 

Key External Factors 

The likelihood of loss from natural or man-made causes depends upon the vulnerability of the ecosystems 

at the time of the event. To mitigate loss from unexpected events, ecosystems must be returned to and 

maintained in a resilient state. Natural factors including prolonged drought and lower than average annual 

precipitation contribute significantly to the risk of wildland fire. Other factors include arson and accidental human-caused fires, as well as administrative appeals of proposed fuel treatment projects and litigation. Projected fuel treatment acres for FY 2004 are less than FY 2003 due, in part, to increasing unit 

costs associated with treatments in the wildland urban interface. 

Managing Sustainable Grasslands 

USDA is responsible for managing federally owned grasslands to assure the sustainability. Land managers base their management decisions on information derived from environmental analyses and assessments of land conditions. Implementing decisions based on the National Environmental Policy Act on 

National Forest Systems Lands provides for the appropriate maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of 

grazing lands. There are approximately 90 million acres of rangeland within grazing allotments. 

Exhibit 43: Maintain Rangeland Allotments 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

5.1.4 Allotment acres administered to 100% of standard 

(Mil of acres) 

N/A 45.0 44.0 21.0 24.5 22.6 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

49

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Implement a strategy for completing National Environmental Policy Act analyses for grazing allotments pending renewal. 

• Improve monitoring and management of grazing allotments in force. 

Key External Factors 

Past grazing practices, Endangered Species Act concerns, riparian area concerns, state listed sensitive 

species concerns and expanding deer and elk populations have led to a decline in available forage. Appeals and litigation of decisions have increased substantially in recent years, resulting in a decline in the 

number of animals that are permitted to use National Forest System lands as a source of annual forage. 

This situation has also diverted human resources from implementing recent management decisions in allotment management plans and has resulted in lower than expected restoration and maintenance accomplishments. 

Cleanup Hazardous Wastes 

Many sites with environmental contamination directly or indirectly threaten human health or the environment. Contamination limits the quality or quantity of benefits and services ecosystems and watersheds 

can provide—sources of drinking and irrigation water, recreational activities, subsistence hunting and 

gathering and havens of biodiversity. It also impairs local economies and impedes community revitalization efforts. As of 2001, more than 2,000 of these sites—most resulting from the activities of others—

were estimated to remain on USDA-managed lands. By law, USDA uses public funds for environmental 

cleanups when the actual responsible parties will not or cannot do so. Reducing threats to human health 

and the environment provides a safe and healthy place for people to work or visit, makes it possible to return important natural resources to service, improves environmental security, and eases community development or revitalization. 

USDA uses five-year performance goals to address the inherent uncertainties in this complex program 

expected to take decades to complete. The first intermediate goal was to complete 150 Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanups by 2002. That goal was 

exceeded by 10 percent, with 165 cleanups actually completed. The new goal is completing another 150 

CERCLA cleanups in the five years between 2003 and 2007. If this goal is met, 10-15 percent of the total 

CERCLA cleanup program should be complete. 

Exhibit 44: Cleanup USDA Managed Lands 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

5.1.5 Cleanup CERCLA sites on USDA-managed lands 

and facilities (Cumulative percent of five-year 

goals to complete 150 cleanups) 

44 60 91 1101 26 51 

1

 5-year goal exceeded. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

50

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Promote partnerships with Federal and State agencies, Tribal organizations and private parties in prioritizing planning and carrying out environmental cleanups and related activities. 

• Conduct all work in a manner consistent with the Superfund National Contingency Plan. 

• Support other USDA goals and initiatives relating to the health and security of natural resources, environmental quality, overall security and the safety of the Department’s workforce and the general public. 

Key External Factors 

Environmental cleanups vary widely in cost and duration. They require extensive coordination with other 

federal agencies, states and stakeholders who often have different and conflicting objectives. Deferral can 

dramatically increase cleanup costs and simultaneously increase the risk of enforcement actions against 

USDA. Diverting the necessary resources to perform timely cleanups on lands that are not now managed 

by USDA may jeopardize the cleanup program on USDA-managed lands. The Department may be liable 

under CERCLA for environmental contamination that resulted from historical USDA activities on lands 

owned or managed by others, including private land. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

51

OBJECTIVE 5.2: Improve Management of Private Lands 

Exhibit 45: Resources Dedicated to Improve Management of Private Lands 

FY 2003 FY 2004 

USDA Resources 

Dedicated to Objective 5.2 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 5 

 

Estimate 

Percent of 

Goal 5 

Program Level ($ Mil) 5,117 49% 5,432 53% 

Staff Years 16,196 31% 17,234 33% 

In FY 2003 and 2004, USDA will continue to focus on implementing the new and expanded conservation 

programs authorized by the 2002 FSRIA. The Act represents the single most significant commitment of 

resources toward conservation on private lands in the Nation’s history. It applies to all natural resources—

including increased emphasis on air, wildlife and energy, in addition to the traditional support for soil and 

water conservation. 

Maintain Resource Health and Productive Capacity 

Good management of natural resources on private land will help to ensure that the Nation’s crop, grazing 

and forestlands can continue to be used efficiently to produce adequate food, fiber and forest products to 

meet today’s needs without reducing the capacity of those lands to meet the needs of future generations. 

The conservation of working cropland and grazing land reflects the actions farmers and ranchers take in a 

given year, with technical assistance from USDA, to address specific resource needs. The practices applied each year will continue to protect the resource base in following years so long as the practices are 

properly maintained. USDA’s assistance to individual farmers and ranchers is a partnership activity in 

which USDA delivers assistance through local conservation districts in cooperation with State conservation agencies. The performance indicator for cropland and grazing land retired from production reflects 

land protected under long-term contracts. The projected declines in rates of application of practices on 

working land in FY 2003 and FY 2003, compared to FY 2002, are based on analysis of the workload associated with each task in implementing the increased financial and technical assistance authorized by the 

2002 FSRIA. The increase in time required to evaluate applications and administer contracts associated 

with the increased financial assistance is projected to limit the staff time available for assistance in planning and application of practices, at least in the initial years of implementation. In FY 2003 and 2004, 

USDA will also continue to place emphasis on strengthening the delivery of services through its basic 

Conservation Technical Assistance and water resources programs, which provide the comprehensive resource assessment and conservation planning needed to ensure sustainable use of the natural resource 

base. 

Forest Stewardship management plans are prepared by non-industrial private forestland owners with 

technical and financial assistance from USDA provided through the State foresters. These plans identify 

owners’ management objectives and activities required for good management. Each State forester, with 

USDA assistance, has also developed forestry best management practices to protect water quality. Annual 

monitoring of a sample of forest activities allows the USDA and State foresters to determine the level of 

compliance with these conservation practices. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

52

Exhibit 46: Maintain Productive Health of Land 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

5.2.1 Protect the productive capacity of agricultural and 

forestland: 

 

• Protect against degradation (Mil acres) 

- Reduce erosion and the associated sediment by 

80 million tons (5 percent) annually on the 232 

million acres of cropland requiring conservation 

treatment. 

- Highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive cropland and grazing land under long-term 

land retirement contracts (Cumulative) 

N/A 

29.8 

20.7 

31.5 

21.8 

33.6 

25.6 

33.9 

16 

34.4 

16 

36.3 

• Total erosion prevented (Mil tons) 368 470 506.8 479.5 474.5 498.5 

• Non-industrial private forestlands under approved 

stewardship management plans (Acres)1

1,866.0 1,437.3 1,617.0 1,640.0 1,618.0 3,197.0 

1

 The FS’s State and Private Forestry office is revising measures to focus on desired key outcomes. The agency is planning to 

provide new measures in the FY 2005 budget submission. 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Provide comprehensive planning assistance to help producers identify all natural resources issues for 

their operation as a basis for sustainable management. 

• Provide high-quality, site-specific technical assistance to producers, enabling them to apply needed 

conservation practices to meet their production goals and protect the resource base. 

• Ensure that current, locally tailored technical guidance is readily accessible to producers and to technical service providers. 

• Implement opportunities the 2002 FSRIA provides to stimulate innovation by supporting new approaches. 

• Provide increased incentives and appropriate technical advice to help limited-resource producers and 

beginning producers to practice conservation in their operations. 

• Continue to administer the conservation compliance requirement for highly erodible land. 

• Conduct continuous and periodic general Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) enrollment. 

• Use innovative technology in a Common Computing Environment to automate program management 

processes such as the calculation of the Environmental Benefits Index and integrate the use of geospatial information system software in Service Center record-keeping and land treatment analyses. 

• Continue to pilot and adopt promising electronic technologies such as geographic positioning systems 

to streamline processes, reduce costs and improve quality of technical assistance to landowners. 

• Collect and disseminate science-based information on management practices related to private farmland. 

Key External Factors 

Concern about the global economy and political situation and uncertainty about the strength of the Nation’s 

economy could reduce producers’ ability or willingness to make increased investments to protect long-term 

productive capacity of their resource base. Conversely, sharp increases in demand, driven by stronger global 

markets or development of new uses for agricultural commodities, could encourage rapid expansion of produc-
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

53

tion without adequate accompanying increases in conservation management. Severe and prolonged adverse 

weather could hamper producers’ ability to apply new conservation practices. 

Clean and Abundant Water Supplies 

Comprehensive, locally-led watershed planning and management can ensure that the Nation’s watersheds 

provide adequate supplies of clean, well-managed water to meet the multiple needs of the Nation’s people. Demand for water is growing nationwide; the needs for competing uses must be considered to find 

the best balance. Water quality in many watersheds, furthermore, is inadequate for the ways people want 

to use it. Livestock or crop production activities can cause water pollution. Weather conditions can make 

problems worse: each year, droughts and floods adversely affect farms, ranches and communities and 

public health and safety. To manage water supplies sensibly, people must work together to plan for a watershed as a whole. USDA’s activities to improve management of water supplies and protect water quality 

are carried out in cooperation with Tribal governments, State conservation agencies, resource conservation and development councils, conservation districts, irrigation districts, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and the EPA. 

Most of the performance measures are set in terms of conservation measures applied to land, which are 

intermediate indicators of improvements in resource health and environmental quality that will occur in 

time as a result of the improved resource management. The indicator for sheet and rill erosion measures 

the estimated annual reduction in erosion that results from placing environmentally sensitive land under 

long-term protective cover. The indicators for reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus applications measure 

the estimated annual reduction that results from placing environmentally sensitive land under long-term 

conservation. The projected declines in rates of application of practices on working gland in FY 2003 and 

FY 2003, compared to FY 2002, are based on analysis of the workload associated with each task in implementing the increased financial and technical assistance authorized by the 2002 FSRIA. The increase 

in time required to evaluate applications and administer contracts associated with the increased financial 

assistance is projected to limit the staff time available for assistance in planning and application of practices, at least in the initial years of implementation. 

Exhibit 47: Ensure Clean and Abundant Water Supplies 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

5.2.2 Manage watersheds to provide clean and abundant water supplies:  

• Animal feeding operations with comprehensive nutrient management plans (Number)* 

- Developed 

- Applied 

N/A 

N/A 

6,314 

4,405 

6,206 

4,315 

5,214 

3,352 

4,556 

4,242 

3,015 

2,885 

• Working land with conservation measures applied 

to reduce potential for off-site pollution by nutrients 

(Mil acres per year) 

2.7 4.3 5.4 5.5 4.1 3.9 

• Sheet and rill erosion prevented (Mil tons per year) 175 201 214 215 216 220 

• Reduced nitrogen applications on land under longterm land retirement contract (Thousand tons) 552.7 605.2 633.5 681.3 691.3 737.0 

• Reduced phosphorus applications on land under 

long-term land retirement contract (Thousand tons) 

80.0 86.7 99.1 104.1 105.8 113.3 

• Land in buffers under long-term retirement (Mil 

acres) 

1.2 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.9 

• Land benefiting from application of improvements to 

irrigation management (Mil acres) 

N/A 1.25 1.25 1.9 1.5 1.4 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

54

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

• Carbon sequestered in soil and vegetation through 

long-term retirement of crop and grazing land (Mil 

metric tons per year) 

14.6 15.5 16.1 16.3 16.8 17.8 

• Increase national implementation rate: 

- Forestry best management practices (Percentage) Not 87% Not Not 89% 90% 

- States conducting effectiveness monitoring Tracked 17 Tracked Tracked 26 29 

* Technical guidance for CNMPs was first implemented in FY 2002. The data for FY 2000 and 2001 are for waste management systems,

which may be less complex and comprehensive than CNMPs.

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Work with State agencies and local sponsors to develop watershed-level plans to enhance water supplies, protect water quality, mitigate drought and flood hazards and enhance wildlife habitat. 

• Educate and help producers to comply with State, local and national regulatory requirements to protect 

the environment. 

• Provide high-quality, site-specific technical assistance to producers and other resource managers, enabling them to meet their production goals and protect the quality of the environment. 

• Implement provisions authorizing private sector vendors, non-profit organizations and public sector 

agencies to provide education and technical assistance to producers who receive financial assistance 

under mandatory conservation programs. 

• Continue emphasis on enrolling water quality enhancing buffers in land retirement programs. 

• Design market-oriented policies that leverage Federal resources by enabling the private sector to invest 

in the provision of environmental goods and services. 

• Expand research and program accounting USDA-wide to improve the measurement of agricultural pollutants and project the costs and benefits of conservation. 

• Assist state foresters to monitor and compile data on compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices. 

Key External Factors 

Watersheds comprise co-mingled agricultural, urban and developing lands. Activities in parts of a watershed outside USDA influence can offset the effects of improved management of agricultural land, so that 

the watershed as a whole may fail to show the expected improvement. State governments have the primary responsibility for water quality. The budget constraints facing many State governments may hamper 

their conservation programs and reduce opportunities to leverage Federal dollars. 

Wildlife Habitat 

The rural landscape provides critical habitat, food and safety for much of our Nation’s wildlife. Many of 

the conservation practices that farmers and ranchers apply to cropland and grazing land as part of comprehensive plans to manage their operations productively also improve the habitat those lands provide for 

wildlife. In addition, protecting specific ecosystems and landscapes—including wetlands, grasslands, 

floodplains and certain types of forests—can help support wildlife and aquatic species and provide benefits in the form of recreation, hunting and other forms of agro-tourism. The 2002 FSRIA authorized ex-
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

55

panded incentives to protect wetlands and other important habitat. USDA’s activities for protecting wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat are cooperative actions conducted in partnership with Tribal governments, State agencies, private sector organizations and interest groups and Federal land-management 

agencies. 

The following performance indicators reflect the annual progress towards the long-term goal of no net 

loss of wetlands to agriculture and the actions that farmers, ranchers and others take each year to maintain 

and improve habitat for wildlife on their lands. 

Exhibit 48: Improve Wildlife Habitats 

Fiscal Year 

Annual Performance Goals 

and Indicators 1999 

Actual 

2000 

Actual 

2001 

Actual 

2002 

Actual 

2003 

Target 

2004 

Target 

5.2.3 Ensure diverse wildlife habitats: 

• Increase protection of wetlands by enrolling in the 

Wetlands Reserve Program wetlands identified as 

high priority by States (Mil acres, Cumulative) 

0.785 0.934 1.074 1.27 1.5 1.7 

• Wetlands and associated upland under multi-year 

CRP contracts (Mil acres) 

1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 

• Apply new management practices to improve wildlife habitat on working cropland, grazing land, forest 

and other land (Mil acres) 

N/A 7.5 8.1 10 7 7 

• Land retired from cropping and grazing and restored to ecosystems with high benefits for wildlife, 

including threatened and endangered species (Mil 

acres, Cumulative) 

1.6 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.9 

Means and Strategies 

Planned actions for achieving this performance goal and related objective include the following: 

• Implement opportunities for improving and expanding habitat provided by the 2002 FSRIA. 

• Expand partnerships with State wildlife agencies and private sector organizations to leverage Federal 

funds. 

• Continue to require agricultural producers to protect wetlands values in order to remain eligible for 

USDA programs. 

• Cooperate with the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop methodology to compare the costs and benefits of establishing an 

acre of wetland under each of the agencies’ programs. 

Key External Factors 

The habitat of many wildlife species includes areas of agricultural, urban and developing lands. Activities 

in critical parts of habitat outside USDA’s influence can offset the effects of improved management of 

agricultural land. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

56

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES 

We will work to improve and strengthen USDA’s management through vigorous execution of President 

Bush’s Management Agenda (PMA). Better management will result in more efficient program operations 

that offer improved customer service and more effective stewardship of taxpayer funds. We plan to: 

• Ensure an efficient, high-performing, diverse, competitively sourced workforce, aligned with mission 

priorities and working cooperatively with USDA partners and the private sector. 

• Enhance internal controls, data integrity, management information and program and policy improvements as reflected by an unqualified audit opinion and a reduction of erroneous payments by USDA 

programs. 

• Implement business processes and information technology needed to make our services available electronically. 

• Link budget decisions and program priorities more closely with program performance and recognize 

the full cost of programs. 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE 1: Improve Human Capital 

Management 

USDA developed a Human Capital Plan in December 2002. This Plan is the Department’s overall blue 

print, identifying actions that will help USDA achieve its mission and excel as an organization. The Plan 

is designed to ensure that USDA will have the talent necessary to carry out its programs and that the environment is one where each employee can perform to his or her potential and be recognized for successful 

performance. 

With 70 percent of senior executives eligible to retire by FY 2006, USDA is challenged by a potentially 

heightened gap in critical occupation skills. USDA’s Human Capital Plan focuses on development, recruitment and other components designed to attract and retain a quality workforce to meet these challenges and builds on the USDA Workforce Restructuring Plan developed in January 2002. As an important part of improving return on human capital, USDA will ensure that its diversity goals are met and that 

effective systems to process both program and employment complaints of discrimination are maintained 

to ensure complaints are processed, to the point of report of investigation, within the target of 180 days. 

Additionally, USDA’s Human Capital Plan contains interdependent improvement goals and action strategies that will transform how we assess, plan for and respond proactively to our human capital challenges 

and needs and will help improve service to USDA customers. A framework of policies and practices have 

been established that links human capital plans with business plans; ensures leadership continuity and development through workforce planning and analysis; uses workforce planning and flexible tools to recruit, retain and reward employees while developing a high-performing and accountable workforce; ensures employment opportunities for all members of the workforce while implementing programs targeted 

at critical occupations with projected skill gaps and underrepresented groups and integrates the human 

capital impacts of Presidential Initiatives such as competitive sourcing and e-Government. 

In compliance with OMB and PMA initiatives for competitive sourcing, USDA intends to conduct competitions through FY 2003 on 15 percent of USDA’s inventory of commercial activities. Currently, 

USDA is developing plans for achieving the long-range goals to compete 50 percent of the FY 2000 

commercial activities. Undertaking such a goal requires investment in resources and training to sustain 

the effort. Accordingly, USDA is building the infrastructure, knowledge base and influencing our culture 

to make competitive sourcing a routine business decision—within the larger context of human capital 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

57

management. Additionally, USDA will identify crosscutting functions where we can use competitive 

sourcing to improve service and reduce costs. 

Means and strategies planned for achieving this initiative include the following: 

• Develop a Human Capital Accountability System Plan as a companion document to the Human Capital 

Plan. 

• Update Workforce Restructuring Plan Department-wide to incorporate the new 2002 FSRIA initiatives, 

Homeland Security and other restructuring developments and develop a new SES Candidate Development Program. 

• Promote recruitment and retention of groups that are under-represented in the workforce and promote 

Alternative Dispute Resolution awareness. 

• Provide model conflict management training to USDA personnel and ensure civil rights training is 

available to all USDA employees. 

• Improve processing time frames for employment and program complaints by implementing long-term 

improvements in the systems and processes for complaint processing and improve civil rights case 

tracking information systems. 

• Complete training on an annual basis on competitive sourcing practices and policies and publish a guidebook to assist USDA agencies with implementing the revised OMB Circular A-76. 

• Implement an OMB approved USDA express review process for those organizations desiring to compete a 

government organization with fewer than ten positions and award Department-wide Blanket Purchase 

Agreements for use by USDA mission areas and agencies to procure competitive sourcing contract support. 

• Solicit input from commercial and employee representatives, OMB and Federal agencies to identify best 

practices for comparison studies and compete agencies’ arrangements for reimbursable support services for 

competition with the private sector. 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE 2: Improve Financial Management 

USDA intends to ensure that all funds we spend are properly accounted for to the taxpayers and the Congress. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) works to improve financial management, in 

partnership with the Chief Financial Officers of USDA agencies – all of who are working to embed effective financial management disciplines into our operating culture. 

Financial Management 

Owing to our recent successful results in improving financial management, we have received unqualified 

opinions on all stand-alone agency audits and on a consolidated basis. OCFO is working closely with 

USDA agencies to ensure that we continue to receive a clean audit on the Consolidated USDA Financial 

Statements. The OCFO will lead efforts to support and enhance the Department’s management process by 

helping USDA’s agencies increase the availability of useful, timely information, such as monthly financial reports, on-line access to real-time information and program cost reporting. By enhancing the integrity of financial and administrative data, we will protect corporate assets and conserve scarce resources. 

In order get to green on the scorecard for Financial Management in the PMA, USDA must meet all four 

core criteria of the Standards for Success established by OMB. These are: 1) Financial management systems meet Federal financial management system requirements and applicable Federal accounting and 

transaction standards as reported by the agency head; 2) accurate and timely financial information; 3) integrated financial and performance management systems supporting day-to-day operations; and 4) un-
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

58

qualified and timely audit opinion on the annual financial statements; no material internal control weaknesses reported by the auditors. 

Means and strategies planned for achieving this initiative include the following: 

• Accelerate the date to publish the FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report, which include the 

audited, consolidated financial statements, to November 14, 2003, a year earlier than the date required 

by OMB. 

• Accelerate the issuance of quarterly financial statements beginning with 2nd quarter FY 2003 and produce quarterly financial statements within 21 days after quarter ends for FYs 2004, 2005 and 2006. 

• Develop financial management and accounting operations leadership and talent in depth within the 

agencies sufficient to transform USDA’s culture into an effective financial operating enterprise. 

• Fill open positions within the OCFO and USDA agencies with competent professionals who have the 

proper mix of skills, so that we may hold them individually and collectively accountable for sound financial management through performance evaluations. 

• Develop and implement management information that addresses Department-wide and Agency operations, including program operating statements, loan portfolio summaries and cash management reporting, etc. 

• Enhance internal control, data integrity, management information and decision making by training all 

managers in the importance of financial management controls, holding managers accountable and continuing efforts to bring program systems in compliance with FFMIA. 

• Continue aggressive implementation of effective operational processes, correct agency-specific deficiencies and transfer financial management knowledge through documentation and training. 

• Renovate administrative feeder systems to streamline processing, reduce reconciliation and improve 

data integrity. 

• Develop, complete and implement policies and procedures, and monitor performance in: financial data 

integrity; compliance with directives; financial performance and personnel performance, including senior management accountability. 

• Improve controls and procedures related to physical inventories of capitalized assets and procurement. 

• Continue to reflect proper management of credit programs through complete disclosure in the financial 

statements. 

Management Controls 

USDA is committed to the best management of the resources under its stewardship. Therefore, the OCFO 

issued a new Management Control Manual for implementation Department-wide beginning the first quarter of FY 2003. This manual institutionalizes control processes to aid in the early identification, detection 

and correction of potential management control deficiencies. By assessing USDA’s greatest areas of risk, 

reviewing and testing controls, agencies will be able to mitigate the negative impacts of control weaknesses before they are discovered by an independent audit. Additionally, OCFO leadership will work 

closely with Under/Assistant Secretaries and Agency and Staff Office Heads to ensure corrective actions 

for existing material deficiencies are proceeding expeditiously. 

The elimination of material deficiencies is an indication that existing material control deficiencies have 

been adequately addressed to ensure that mission critical control objectives are being met. It is also an indication that newly discovered material deficiencies are resolved quickly and to a degree that reduces the 

control risk to an acceptable level. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

59

Means and strategies planned for achieving this initiative include the following: 

• Increase Agency managers’ awareness of their internal control responsibilities. 

• Work with management and the OIG to verify the continued materiality of existing deficiencies. 

• Implement the Department-wide Management Control Manual that provides specific guidance on developing and maintaining an effective internal controls program including: 

- Conducting risk assessments, 

- Planning, conducting and reporting on the results of management control reviews, 

- Implementing corrective actions to address newly identified control weaknesses as quickly as 

possible and 

- Validating the effectiveness of controls implemented. 

• Increase involvement by Agency Heads and the Subcabinet in monitoring individual agencies’ Management Control Programs and the correction of material deficiencies. 

• Correct long-standing financial management material deficiencies within specific component agencies. 

• Review, analyze and report quarterly on progress in achieving major corrective action milestones 

scheduled for completion during the period. 

• Review and assess the materiality of control weaknesses identified by the OIG on a monthly basis. 

• Work with the OIG to identify actions required to bring financial systems in compliance with standards 

set forth by the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE 3: Expand Electronic Government 

The PMA calls for the increased development of electronic government (eGovernment). USDA’s eGovernment Strategic Plan provides a framework for transforming the delivery of information and services 

via integrated investment approaches that focus on cutting costs by delivering services collaboratively. By 

focusing on customers, working with business partners and empowering employees, we will use information and communications technologies to securely conduct our mission-critical business support functions 

“better, cheaper, faster,” and reinforce execution of the PMA. 

USDA has established goals to track the progress of its efforts to meet the President’s expanding eGovernment agenda. The Department’s Enterprise Architecture goal will help ensure that leveraging resources across agencies is improving the delivery of information and services. The USDA e-Government 

goal focuses on providing citizens, public and private partners and USDA employees with electronic access to USDA services, as required by the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998 (GPEA), P. 

L. 105-277. Specifically, by the end of fiscal year 2003, 31 percent of all USDA transactions covered by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act will be available electronically. This number will rise to 50 percent by the 

end of FY 2004. While the USDA FISMA performance goal will help concentrate USDA’s cyber security 

resources on identifying and resolving the most serious information and IT vulnerabilities. With the 

growth in eGovernment services, USDA is continuously finding and fixing new cyber security vulnerabilities. Recognizing this fact, the Department’s goal is to consistently complete all of the action items 

identified in USDA’s cyber security plan. 

Means and strategies planned for achieving this initiative include the following: 

• Provide agency staff with new planning tools to assist in EA, GPEA and FISMA development. 

• Govern all aspects of the eGovernment Program via the appropriate project teams and the Executive 

Information Technology Investment Review Board. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

60

• Fully integrate the processes for developing the EA with agency programs and services, capital investment planning, paperwork management and security. 

• Require regular reporting from agencies concerning EA, IT Security, and GPEA compliance progress. 

• Develop and implement a Department-wide process to ensure that as USDA’s IT security weaknesses 

are identified, plans of action and milestones are developed to fix these weaknesses, and the Department is able to track progress in closing out these weaknesses. 

• Monitor USDA’s progress in remediating IT security weaknesses on a quarterly basis through performance measures provided by OMB guidance. 

• Integrate the IT staffs for infrastructure support for the Service Center Agencies (Farm Service Agency, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Development mission area) into a new converged IT organization under the OCIO. 

• Inform Congress and the general public regarding steps to meet the FISMA, GPEA, Paperwork Reduction Act, Clinger-Cohen legislative mandates and fulfill the promise of Presidential and USDA eGovernment initiatives. 

• Hold Senior Executive Service (SES) employees accountable for implementing eGovernment and ensuring security of the information and systems that support their program at USDA. 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE 4: Establish Budget and Performance Integration 

We are taking steps to improve performance information and systematically integrate it into our budget 

decision-making processes. During FY 2002, we began to develop a Department-wide strategy for integrating budget and performance at every stage of the budget process from Department decision-making to 

the President’s Budget and developed a budget and performance integration plan to guide our efforts. In 

addition, we have developed a new strategic plan, which provides a framework for developing performance information. Improving the Department’s performance information and increasing its use during the 

budget process will be the focus of our efforts in FY 2004. 

Integrate Performance Information into Budget Decisions and Presentation 

During FY 2002, the Department took a number of steps to improve the linkage of performance information into the budget decision-making process. New formats were developed to display performance objectives and measures in conjunction with budget data and this information were presented to Department 

decision makers during the development of the FY 2004 Budget. Modifications were also made to the 

Department’s detailed justification materials provided to the Appropriations Committees to present additional performance information jointly with budget information and align budget proposals with strategic 

goals. 

Building on this work, steps are being taken in FY 2003 to further enhance the use of performance information in the budget development process. A revised Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) Plan was 

sent to the OMB. A working group with representation from five (5) USDA agencies, OCFO and OBPA 

has been established as a means to assist in the implementation of enhanced BPI and to pilot-test new 

budget processes and presentations. Significant enhancements to the budget development process are being implemented for the FY 2005 budget development process that will occur during FY 2003. A key feature of the new process is identification of mission area strategic goals, objectives and performance measures consistent with the Department’s revised Strategic Plan and other policy documents. 
 FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

61

Means and strategies planned for achieving this initiative include the following: 

• Develop and implement new budget and planning processes and displays that demonstrate linkages between performance results and resource levels. 

• Provide guidance to mission areas and agencies to assist in the development of improved performance 

measures. 

• Establish a process to monitor performance on an ongoing basis. 

Program Assessment 

The Department worked with OMB to conduct Program Assessment Rating tool (PART) evaluations on 

14 programs during FY 2002. These evaluations provided input into the budget formulation process and 

will form the basis for further review of these programs during FY 2003. USDA agencies are being asked 

to review these PART assessments during FY 2003 and develop improved performance measures to address concerns identified. Further, PART assessments covering an additional 20 percent of USDA programs will be conducted during FY 2003 to provide input into the FY 2005 Budget development process. 

Means and strategies planned for achieving this initiative include the following: 

• Work with OMB staff to develop a list of high-priority programs for review. 

• Provide suggestions on how to improve the PART process. 

• Work jointly with OMB staff to conduct PART evaluations. 

• Develop proposals for other types of program evaluations. 

• Use PART assessments and other evaluations in budget decisions. 

Align Budget with Performance Targets 

The Department will look at ways to facilitate changes in agencies’ budget line items when necessary to 

achieve alignment of budget accounts and staff in support of performance targets. The Department will 

also look for ways to improve its ability to estimate costs of achieving performance results. 

Means and strategies planned for achieving this initiative include the following: 

• Consider changes to budget line items that could better show program costs and improve accountability 

for full costs. 

• Propose budget line item changes to OMB and Congress as necessary. 

• Develop guidance to help improve the Department’s ability to estimate the cost of achieving its strategic goals and objectives. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

62 

FISCAL YEAR 2004 PROGRAM LEVEL ALLOCATIONS The following table depicts the component agencies and staff offices of the Department of Agriculture with total prograccount allocated to each strategic objective. The program level dollars are displayed in millions and have been rounde

funding was allocated to more than one objective when the amount for each objective was significant and could be idenprovides a general indication of the funding dedicated to each objective. Staff office and departmental management accUSDA strategic objectives and, in most cases, have been reallocated equally among all strategic objectives. 

USDA FY 2004 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

OSEC Office of the Secretary 21.8 1.2 7.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 OCFO OCFO 7.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 OCIO OCIO 31.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4  Common Computing Environment 177.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 - - DA Agriculture Buildings and Facilities Rental Payments 199.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3  Departmental Administration 45.1 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5  Hazardous Materials Management 15.7 - - - - - 3.1 - 0.3 OC OC 10.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 OIG OIG 82.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 OGC OGC 37.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 OCE OCE 14.3 0.9 0.9 2.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 NAD NAD 14.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 OBPA OBPA 8.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 HSS HSS 1.5 - - - - - - - 1.5 ERS Economic Research 76.7 10.7 3.8 3.8 12.3 2.3 4.6 3.8 7.7 NASS NASS 136.2 75.8 - - 8.4 24.2 - - 12.6 ARS ARS Salaries and Expenses 987.0 - - 101.7 - - - 94.8 540.9  Buildings and Facilities 24.0 - - 2.5 - - - 2.3 13.2  Miscellaneous Contributed Funds 23.0 - - 2.4 - - - 2.2 12.6 CSREES Extension Activities 422.0 29.5 16.9 38.0 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 50.6 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

63 

USDA FY 2004 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

Research and Education Activities 514.0 46.3 46.3 66.8 15.4 15.4 15.4 36.0 72.0 Integrated Activities 63.0 - - 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 5.0 30.2 

CSREES (cont.) 

Native Americans Institutions Endowment Fund 11.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.3 

 Community Food Projects 5.0 - - - - - - - -  Outreach for Socially Disadvantage Farmers 4.0 - - - 4.0 - - - - APHIS Salaries and Expenses 803.0 96.4 - - - - - - 706.6  Buildings and Facilities 5.0 - - - - - - - 5.0  Trust Funds 14.0 - - - - - - - 14.0 FSIS FSIS-Salaries & Expenses 896.0 - - - - - - 896.0 -  Trust Funds 3.0 - - - - - - 3.0 - GIPSA Salaries and Expenses 42.0 17.2 0.8 2.1 18.5 3.4 - - -  Inspection and Weighing Services 42.0 42.0 - - - - - - -  GIPSA Undistributed Inter-governmental Payments 0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - AMS Marketing Services 75.0 75.0 - - - - - - -  Payments to States and Possessions 1.0 1.0 - - - - - - -  Perishable Ag. Commodities Act Fund 9.0 9.0 - - - - - - -  Funds for Strengthening Markets/Income/Supply 848.0 848.0 - - - - - - -  Wool Research Development and Promotion Trust Fund 2.0 2.0 - - - - - - -  Expenses & Refunds, Inspection & Grading of Farm 

Products 

186.0 186.0 - - - - - - - 

RMA Administrative and Operating Expenses 78.0 - - - 78.0 - - - -  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund 2,938.0 - - - 2,938.0 - - - - FSA Salaries and Expenses 1,311.0 - - - 1,179.9 - - - -  State Mediation Grants 4.0 - - - 4.0 - - - -  Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (Prog.) 3,651.0 - - - 3,651.0 - - - - 

Dairy Indemnity Program 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - - 

Commodity Credit Corporation 28,284.0 3,394.1 - 101.2 22,788.7 - - - - 

NRCS Conservation Operations 718.0 - - 14.5 - - - - - 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

64 

USDA FY 2004 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

NRCS Watershed Rehabilitation Programs 10.0 - - - - - - - - (cont.) Farm Security and Rural Investment Programs 1,417.0 - - - - - - - -  Resource Conservation and Development 50.0 - - 0.7 - - - - -  Farm Bill Technical Assistance 432.0 - - - - - - - -  Watershed Surveys and Planning 5.0 - - - - - - - -  Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 40.0 - - - - - - - - RD Rural Community Advancement Program 2,606.0 - - - - 1,120.6 1,485.4 - -  Salaries and Expenses 680.0 - - - - 272.0 408.0 - - RHS Rental Assistance Program 740.0 - - - - - 740.0 - -  Rural Housing Assistance Grants 42.0 - - - - - 42.0 - -  Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants 34.0 - - - - - 34.0 - -  Rural Housing Insurance Fund (Prog.) 4,319.0 - - - - - 4,319.0 - -  Farm Labor Housing 59.0 - - - - - 59.0 - - RBCS Rural Technology and Cooperative Development Grants 11.0 - - 2.0 - 9.0 - - -  Rural Development Loan Fund (Prog.) 40.0 - - - - 40.0 - - -  Rural Economic Development Grants 4.0 - - - - 4.0 - - -  Renewable Energy Program 3.0 - - 3.0 - - - - -  Rural Economic Development Loans (Prog.) 15.0 - - - - 15.0 - - - RUS RETRF (Prog. Acct.) 3,135.0 - - - - 2,194.5 940.5 - -  Distance Learning and Medical Link Programs 273.0 - - - - 191.1 81.9 - - FAS Salaries and Expenses 196.0 127.4 68.6 - - - - - -  McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 50.0 - 50.0 - - - - - -  Title I Ocean freight Differential Grants 28.0 - 28.0 - - - - - -  P.L.480 (Prog.) 132.0 - 132.0 - - - - - -  P.L 480 Title II 1,185.0 - 1,185.0 - - - - - - FNS Food Stamp Program 25,741.0 - - - - - - - - 25 Commodity Assistance Programs 181.0 - - - - - - - - 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

65 

USDA FY 2004 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

FNS Food Program Administration 145.0 - - - - - - - - (cont.) Supplemental Feeding Programs (WIC) 4,971.0 - - - - - - - - 4 Child Nutrition Programs 11,421.0 - - - - - - - - 11FS Capital Improvement and Maintenance 524.6 - - - - - - - -  Forest and Rangeland Research 252.2 - - a1 - - - - -  State and Private Forestry 315.8 - - - - - - - -  National Forest System 1,369.6 - - - - - - - -  Wildland Fire Management 1,541.8 - - - - - - - -  Management of National Forest Lands for Subsistence 

Uses 

5.5 - - - - - - - - 

 Land Acquisition 44.1 - - - - - - - -  Recreation Fees for Collection Costs 0.7 - - - - - - - -  Federal Payment, Payments to States, National Forests 

Fund 

384.0 - - - - - - - - 

 Timber Roads, Purchaser Elections 6.8 - - - - - - - -  Roads and Trails for States, National Forest 15.0 - - - - - - - -  Timber Salvage Sales 70.0 - - - - - - - -  Brush Disposal 17.0 - - - - - - - -  Range Betterment Fund 3.0 - - - - - - - -  Acquisition of Lands Special Acts 1.1 - - - - - - - -  Licenses Programs 0.1 - - - - - - - -  Restoration of Forest Lands 8.0 - - - - - - - -  Acquisition of Lands to Complete Land Exchanges 0.2 - - - - - - - -  Operation and Maintenance Quarters 8.0 - - - - - - - -  Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration Fund 4.0 - - - - - - - -  Recreation Fee Demonstration Program 42.0 - - - - - - - -  Midewin National Tallgrass Prairies Rental Fees 0.6 - - - - - - - -  Land Between the Lakes Management Fund 3.9 - - - - - - - - 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

66 

USDA FY 2004 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

FS Cooperative Work Trust Fund 158.0 - - - - - - - - (cont.) Earnings on Investments, Land Between the Lakes Trust 

Funds 

1.0 - - - - - - - - 

 Reforestation Trust Fund 30.0 - - - - - - - - Total* 105,614 5,019 1,596 400 30,778 3,972 8,213 1,100 1,504 4Total by Goals* 37,794 12,185 2,604 

a1 Related programs under Objective 5.1 (about $19.4 million) 

*Goal and objective totals have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Totals may not add due to rounding. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

67 

FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM LEVEL ALLOCATIONS The following table depicts the component agencies and staff offices of the Department of Agriculture with total prograccount allocated to each strategic objective. The program level dollars are displayed in millions and have been rounde

funding was allocated to more than one objective when the amount for each objective was significant and could be idenprovides a general indication of the funding dedicated to each objective. Staff office and departmental management accUSDA strategic objectives and, in most cases, have been reallocated equally among all strategic objectives. 

USDA FY 2003 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

OSEC Office of the Secretary 12.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 OCFO OCFO 5.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4  Working Capital Fund 11.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 OCIO OCIO 15.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2  Common Computing Environment 132.3 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 - - DA Agriculture Buildings and Facilities Rental Payments 186.8 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4  Departmental Administration 37.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9  Hazardous Materials Management 15.6 - - - - - 3.4 - 0.3 OC OC 9.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 OIG OIG 73.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 OGC OGC 34.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 OCE OCE 10.5 0.7 0.7 2.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 NAD NAD 13.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 OBPA OBPA 7.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 ERS Economic Research 68.7 9.6 3.4 3.4 12.4 2.7 4.1 3.4 4.8 NASS NASS 138.4 68.8 - - 6.7 40.7 - 12.3 - ARS ARS Salaries and Expenses 1,045.9 - - 98.3 - - - 98.3 592.0  Buildings and Facilities 168.7 - - 15.9 - - - 15.9 95.5  Miscellaneous Contributed Funds 20.0 - - 1.9 - - - 1.9 11.3 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

68 

USDA FY 2003 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

CSREES Extension Activities 450.5 31.5 18.0 40.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 54.1  Research and Education Activities 616.8 55.5 55.5 80.2 18.5 18.5 18.5 43.2 86.4  Integrated Activities 46.4 - - 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.7 22.3  Native Americans Institutions Endowment Fund 8.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1  Community Food Projects 5.0 - - - - - - - -  Outreach for Socially Disadvantage Farmers 3.5 - - - 3.5 - - - - APHIS Salaries and Expenses 1,056.0 126.7 - - - - - - 929.3  Buildings and Facilities 10.0 - - - - - - - 10.0  Trust Funds 14.0 - - - - - - - 14.0 FSIS FSIS-Salaries & Expenses 853.0 - - - - - - 853.0 -  FSIS-No Year Funds 22.0 - - - - - - 22.0 -  Trust Funds 3.0 - - - - - - 3.0 - GIPSA Salaries and Expenses 40.0 16.4 0.8 2.0 17.6 3.2 - - -  Inspection and Weighing Services 42.0 42.0 - - - - - - -  GIPSA Undistributed Inter-governmental Payments 0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - AMS Marketing Services 75.0 75.0 - - - - - - -  Payments to States and Possessions 1.0 1.0 - - - - - - -  Perishable Ag. Commodities Act Fund 9.0 9.0 - - - - - - -  Funds for Strengthening Markets/Income/Supply 1,419.0 1,419.0 - - - - - - -  Wool Research Development and Promotion Trust 

Fund 

2.0 2.0 - - - - - - - 

 Expenses & Refunds, Inspection & Grading of Farm 

Products 

183.0 183.0 - - - - - - - 

RMA Administrative and Operating Expenses 70.2 - - - 70.2 - - - -  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund 3,792.0 - - - 3,792.0 - - - - FSA Salaries and Expenses 1,320.0 - - - 1,201.2 - - - - 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

69 

USDA FY 2003 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

FSA State Mediation Grants 4.0 - - - 4.0 - - - - (cont.) Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund (Prog.) 4,051.1 - - - 4,051.1 - - - -  Dairy Indemnity Program 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - -  Emergency Conservation Program 73.0 - - - - - - - -  Commodity Credit Corporation 30,430.0 3,651.6 - 140.2 24,638.2 - - - - NRCS Conservation Operations 833.5 - - 14.4 - - - - -  Watershed Rehabilitation Programs 29.8 - - - - - - - -  Farm Security and Rural Investment Programs 1,208.8 - - - - - - - -  Resource Conservation and Development 50.7 - - 0.7 - - - - -  Watershed Surveys and Planning 11.1 - - - - - - - -  Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 109.3 - - - - - - - - RD Rural Community Advancement Program 2,985.9 - - - - 1,283.9 1,702.0 - -  Salaries and Expenses 619.2 - - - - 247.7 371.5 - - RHS Rental Assistance Program 721.3 - - - - - 721.3 - -  Rural Housing Assistance Grants 42.2 - - - - - 42.2 - -  Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants 34.8 - - - - - 34.8 - -  Rural Housing Insurance Fund (Prog.) 5,807.6 - - - - - 5,807.6 - -  Farm Labor Housing 54.3 - - - - - 54.3 - - RBCS Rural Technology and Cooperative Development 

Grants 

48.9 - - 40.0 - 8.9 - - - 

 Rural Development Loan Fund (Prog.) 39.7 - - - - 39.7 - - -  Rural Economic Development Grants 4.0 - - - - 4.0 - - -  Renewable Energy Grants 23.0 - - 23.0 - - - - -  Rural Economic Development Loans (Prog.) 14.9 - - - - 14.9 - - -  National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Revolving Fund 0.5 - - - - 0.5 - - - 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

70 

USDA FY 2003 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

RBCS Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities 14.9 - - - - 14.9 - - - (cont.) Rural Business Investment Program 324.0 - - - - 324.0 - - -  Rural Strategic Investment Program 85.0 - - - - 85.0 - - - RUS RETRF (Prog. Acct.) 5,561.6 - - - - 3,893.1 1,668.5 - -  Rural Telephone Bank Program Account 173.5 - - - - 121.5 52.1 - -  Distance Learning and Medical Link Programs 432.0 - - - - 302.4 129.6 - -  Local Television Loan Guarantee Program 970.0 - - - - 679.0 291.0 - - FAS Salaries and Expenses 184.0 119.6 64.4 - - - - - -  Title I Ocean freight Differential Grants 33.0 - 33.0 - - - - - -  P.L.480 (Prog.) 217.0 - 217.0 - - - - - -  P.L 480 Title II 1,581.0 - 1,581.0 - - - - - - FNS Food Donations Programs 1.1 - - - - - - - -  Food Stamp Program 24,858.5 - - - - - - - - 24, Commodity Assistance Programs 178.8 - - - - - - - -  Food Program Administration 135.7 - - - - - - - -  Supplemental Feeding Programs (WIC) 4,735.6 - - - - - - - - 4, Child Nutrition Programs 11,302.3 - - - - - - - - 11,FS Capital Improvement and Maintenance 684.0 - - - - - - - -  Forest and Rangeland Research 273.1 - - a1 - - - - -  State and Private Forestry 361.7 - - - - - - - -  National Forest System 1,415.4 - - - - - - - -  Wildland Fire Management 1,441.0 - - - - - - - -  Management of National Forest Lands for Subsistence Uses 5.5 - - - - - - - -  Working Capital Fund 30.0 - - - - - - - -  Land Acquisition 275.9 - - - - - - - - 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

71 

USDA FY 2003 Program Level Allocations 

(Dollars in Millions) 

Objectives 

Agency Account 

Program 

Level 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 

FS Recreation Fees for Collection Costs 1.0 - - - - - - - - (cont.) Federal Payment, Payments to States, National Forests Fund 384.0 - - - - - - - -  Timber Roads, Purchaser Elections 30.0 - - - - - - - -  Roads and Trails for States, National Forest 4.0 - - - - - - - -  Timber Salvage Sales 111.8 - - - - - - - -  Brush Disposal 36.9 - - - - - - - -  Range Betterment Fund 2.7 - - - - - - - -  Acquisition of Lands Special Acts 1.1 - - - - - - - -  Licenses Programs 0.1 - - - - - - - -  Restoration of Forest Lands 7.5 - - - - - - - -  Acquisition of Lands to Complete Land Exchanges 4.9 - - - - - - - -  Operation and Maintenance Quarters 9.9 - - - - - - - -  Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration Fund 3.0 - - - - - - - -  Recreation Fee Demonstration Program 58.5 - - - - - - - -  Midewin National Tallgrass Prairies Rental Fees 0.5 - - - - - - - -  Land Between the Lakes Management Fund 3.5 - - - - - - - -  Cooperative Work Trust Fund 162.3 - - - - - - - -  Gifts, Donations & Bequests for Forest & Rangeland 

Research 

0.1 - - - - - - - - 

 Earnings on Investments, Land Between the Lakes 

Trust Funds 

1.0 - - - - - - - - 

 Reforestation Trust Fund 30.0 - - - - - - - - Total* 115,376 5,860 2,022 512 33,888 7,157 10,973 1,112 1,853 4Total by Goals* 42,282 18,130 2,965 

a1 Related programs under Objective 5.1 (about $17.3 million) *Goal and objective totals have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Totals may not add due to rounding.
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

72 

APPENDIX A: DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION Data Verification and Validation identifies the quality of performance data reported in this Annual Performance Plan. T

goals and indicators are contained in the first column. The Data Source column identifies from where this data is collecfication/Validation Method column provides information on the method used for assessing data completeness, accuracy

and related quality control practices; and whether data are appropriate for the performance measures used in the Plan. T

umn describes limitations of data to evaluate performance and indicates unavailable or low-quality data. 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

1.1.1 Estimated annual trade opportunities preserved through WTO trade 

negotiations and notification process. 

1.1.2 Estimated gross trade value of 

markets expanded/retained by market access activities other than WTO notification process. 

Manual and automated systems capture required data. USDA employs a mix of manual and automated procedures and systems to verify and validate 

performance goals and indicators. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) managers have developed verification and validation procedures for each measure to improve the accuracy of information reported for USDA’s Annual Performance Report. The FAS Compliance Review Staff periodically audits the procedures and reporting for completeness and accuracy. 

The shortage of many U.S. commtion (WTO) trade 

access barriers mcollection time laand validation of access issues is availability. Recewill enable FAS and access capaHowever, insufficwill continue to sand verifying suc

1.1.3 Average tariff rate on agricultural 

imports worldwide. 

Manual and automated systems capture required. USDA employs a mix of manual and automated procedures and systems to verify and validate 

performance goals and indicators. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) managers have developed verification and validation procedures for each measure to improve the accuracy of information reported for USDA’s Annual Performance Report. The FAS Compliance Review Staff periodically audits the procedures and reporting for completeness and accuracy. 

The shortage of many U.S. commtion (WTO) trade 

access barriers mcollection time laand validation of access issues is availability. Recewill enable FAS and access capaHowever, insufficwill continue to sand verifying suc
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

73 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

1.1.4 Increase the new or modified export protocols that facilitate access 

to foreign markets. 

APHIS Phytosanitary Issues Management Staff, APHIS National Center for Import/Export, APHIS Foreign Service Officers, & Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States annual report 

APHIS Trade Support Team reviews data from various APHIS staff officers and goes through an extensive interview process before publishing the annual SPS Accomplishments Report. It has 

also provided some definitions and guidance around counting these protocols and work plans for the various APHIS programs involved in trade. 

Data can not be time.” Some APments on a mononly aggregated year. Data arouncols is housed in area. PPQ has a No remedial acti

1.1.5 Increase the international animal 

and plant health standards adopted. 

International Plant Protection Convention. International Organization of Epizoonotics 

Official reports from the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)’s Commission on Phytosanitary Measures; Official reports from the International Organization of Epizoonotics (OIE)’s International Animal Health Code Commission

There are no kno

1.2.1 Increase the activities/projects 

completed in support of international economic development and trade capacity building in developing and transition countries. 

1.2.2 Share of countries’ food import 

needs met through USDAadministered food assistance programs. 

Manual and automated systems capture required data. USDA employs a mix of manual and automated procedures and systems to verify and validate 

performance goals and indicators. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) managers have developed verification and validation procedures for each measure to improve the accuracy of information reported for USDA’s Annual Performance Report. The FAS Compliance Review Staff periodically audits the procedures and reporting for completeness and accuracy. 

For research, traactivities related capacity via souare deemed to bknown limitationsFor food aid, botconstantly in fluxmatching specifiwith U.S. domestime extremely titure of the data nsions is the majoof budgetary resFAS intends to emated means of formation relative availability within 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

74 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

1.2.3 Improve food security and nutrition 

through McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program by the number of daily meals and take-home rations for mothers, infants, and schoolchildren. 

Manual and automated systems capture required. USDA employs a mix of manual and automated procedures and systems to verify and validate 

performance goals and indicators. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) managers have developed verification and validation procedures for each measure to improve the accuracy of information reported for USDA’s Annual Performance Report. The FAS Compliance Review Staff periodically audits the procedures and reporting for completeness and accuracy. 

The shortage of many U.S. commtion (WTO) trade 

access barriers mcollection time laand validation of access issues is availability. Recewill enable FAS and access capaHowever, insufficwill continue to sand verifying suc

1.2.4 Improve literacy and primary education through McGovern-Dole 

Food for Education Program. 

• Percent increase in enrollment for 

Girls/Boys 

• Percent increase in the proportion of 

children who are promoted 

Manual and automated systems capture required. USDA employs a mix of manual and automated procedures and systems to verify and validate 

performance goals and indicators. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) managers have developed verification and validation procedures for each measure to improve the accuracy of information reported for USDA’s Annual Performance Report. The FAS Compliance Review Staff periodically audits the procedures and reporting for completeness and accuracy. 

The shortage of many U.S. commtion (WTO) trade 

access barriers mcollection time laand validation of access issues is availability. Recewill enable FAS and access capaHowever, insufficwill continue to sand verifying suc

1.3.1 Increase the use of bioenergy and 

biobased products: 

• Qualify the number of products in 

five or more categories for inclusion on the Designated Biobased Products List 

Federal Statute, regulations and operating procedures of other similar programs in Federal government. 

Check source documents for USDA guidelines developed. 

There are no kno

• Encourage a number of farmers to 

produce energy for their own use and sale 

Federal procurement procedures and practices. 

Check source documents and consult with procurement officials in Federal Agencies and with OMB’s OFPP that preference to biobased products are in place. 

Ease of use of eporting program Remedial: interaprocurement offi

• Develop a research program for 

competitive grants for bioproducts made from biomass 

Manufacturers of biobased products and testing institutions conducting tests on products for biobased content, BEES analysis and product performance. 

Cross check of data at time of entry into electronic information system that the products are in the proper categories. 

Create audit sysvelop firewalls in protect integrity o
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

75 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

• Develop accounting rules and guidelines for greenhouse gas offset activities in agriculture Regulatory programs in USDA of similar nature, FSRIA statutory lan- guage, Copyright search. Cross check of data and use of professional copyright search firms for the criteria to be es- tablished. Make use of esta

minimization of pprogram. 

1.4.1 Expand the USDA risk management tools available for agricultural 

producers to use in managing production and price risks: 

• Increase crop insurance coverage as 

measured by potential liabilities covered by crop insurance 

• Increase crop insurance participation 

as measured by planted acres having crop insurance coverage 

• Increase the number of commodities 

eligible for crop insurance 

RMA maintains databases of all crop insurance statistics, including detailed farmer information collected from the private companies that sell the crop insurance. 

All data from the private companies is validated through the Data Acceptance System edits before being added to the insurance experience databases. All RMA databases and business information is audited annually by independent auditors, as well as periodically by OIG and other government auditing entities. 

All data for these RMA’s databaseand are audited 

1.4.2 Improve customer service by increasing the efficiency of loan 

processing: 

• Reduce the average direct loan 

processing time 

• Reduce the average guaranteed 

loan processing time 

1.4.3 Improve fiscal soundness of the 

direct loan portfolio: 

• Maintain the direct loan delinquency 

rate at or below 15% 

• Maintain the direct loss rate at or below 15% 

Guaranteed Loan System (Guaranteed Loan Processing Timeliness) MAC System (Direct Loan Processing Timeliness) Program Loan Accounting System (Direct Loan Loss and Delinquency Rates) 

Reports generated from the Executive Information Service system and the intranet are the primary means of measuring farm loan program performance. FSA National Office reviews these reports quarterly to monitor progress towards achievement of the performance goals. Additionally, web-based FOCUS programs have been developed and are used to monitor performance. Most farm loan program data originates from FSA’s accounting system and is subject to internal and external audit. Service center staff enters application processing progress as applications are processed. The reliability of this data has been enhanced through system changes and reviews. Comprehensive reviews are conducted annually to ensure that loan decisions are sound and that program implementation is in accordance with statutes and regulations. 

There are no kno
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

76 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

1.4.4 Eligible commodity production 

placed under marketing assistance loan or loan deficiency based on economic conditions in the farm sector: 

• Wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats 

and soybeans 

• Upland cotton 

Production Data - NASS Published Estimates Database (http://www.nass.usda.gov.81/ipedb/)

Loan and LDP data - National Loan Summary Report and LDP Summary Report. Online Reports section of FSA’s Price Support Division (PSD) web page: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/psd/)

Data for the amount of commodity placed under marketing assistance loans and LDP originates from the USDA Service Centers, where it is input by FSA staff. This data is then uploaded daily to an automated system maintained at Kansas City. To help ensure accuracy of system data, FSA personnel perform periodic spot checks to verify the quantity and eligibility of commodities placed under loan or LDP. 

NASS productiocommodities for the crop year. In have data for evbase shows loan includes data for LDP data and NAtion is that resultpercent of loan/L

1.4.5 Increase farm commodity and loan 

programs that can be accessed, completed and accepted electronically. 

Web based Database maintained by FSA’s Forms, Graphics and Records Branch, within the Management Services Division. 

Data is updated daily as additional forms are added or a change in the status of a form occurs. For example, forms may become obsolete or programs expire. Reports are generated on request for Agency management. 

Information contchanges becausenhancements, wadded. 

2.1.1 Create or save additional jobs 

through USDA financing of businesses. 

2.1.2 Reduce the Business and Industry 

Portfolio delinquency rate, excluding bankruptcy cases. 

Guaranteed Loan System (GLS). This is an accounting system for the Agency’s 

portfolio of guaranteed loans. It contains a variety of edits to minimize the risk of inaccurate data being placed in the system. It provides reports used by OIG in their annual audit of the Rural Development financial Statement. 

There are no kno

2.1.3 Improve the ability of small, rural 

towns to enjoy economic growth through provision of financing to support high-speed telecommunications services (broadband): 

• Number of entities • Number of counties 

Borrower Loan Applications. All loan advances must be for approved purposes. Therefore, upon completion of the project, funds will have been expended to bring 

broadband service to the counties indicated in the application. In addition, loan fund audits will be scheduled for borrowers after the full draw down of funding and project completion. 

There are no kno

2.2.1 Improve the quality of life in Rural 

America: 

• Increase financial assistance to rural 

households to buy a home 

• Increase the number of minority 

homeowners 

• Provide access for residents to new 

and/or improved essential community facilities 

• Provide access for residents to clean 

drinking water 

Program Loan Accounting System (PLAS), Guaranteed Loan System (GLS) and Dedicated Loan Origination and Servicing System (DLOS). 

These systems contain a variety of data edits to minimize the risk of inaccurate data being placed in the system. Reports from these systems are used by OIG in development of the Rural Development audited financial Statement. 

There are no kno
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

77 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

To gauge our progress, we conduct public meetings and technical conferences and issue draft risk assessments to the public for comment. 

This measure dotest for and therereflected in this r

3.1.1 Conduct risk assessments of microbial, chemical and physical 

hazards to meat, poultry and egg products. 

Internal program documents. 

To ensure the scientific validity, we request outside, independent science-based review of risk assessments. 

Three types of hthe Nation’s food and physical hazonly potential mi

The Microbial & Residues Contamination Information System (MARCIS). Salmonella laboratory testing results are stored in MARCIS. MARCIS provides information on 

microbiological, chemical and pathological analyses of meat and poultry and their processed products. 

Based on past n“representative” port, however, bgiven time period affect the overalof the intended t

3.1.2 Enhance industry compliance with 

regulatory requirements: 

• Incidence of Salmonella on broiler 

chickens 

• Incidence of Salmonella on market 

hogs 

• Incidence of Salmonella on ground 

beef 

The Pathogen Reduction Enforcement Program (PREP). PREP is used for scheduling and recording Sal- monella compliance data. Three types of h

the Nation’s food and physical hazonly potential miUSDA maintains year not fiscal ye

Results from laboratory analyses are used to verify the achievement of pathogen reduction targets and compliance with national baseline standards. 

Three types of hthe Nation’s food and physical hazonly potential mi

3.1.3 Enhance industry compliance with 

regulatory requirements. 

MARCIS. 

Standard recognized scientific protocols are used. 

USDA maintains year basis. 

3.1.4 Develop new systems for detecting foodborne hazards. Agriculture Research Service. Peer Review or Codex. There are no kno3.2.1 Increase the percent of known, 

significant introductions of plant disease or pests that are detected before they spread from the original area of colonization and cause severe economic and environmental damage. 

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS) 

Data is verified and validated through the appropriate state regulatory agencies before it is entered into NAPIS Lack of compreh

ficient personnel Inconsistent data inadequate equiGetting data from sometimes difficRemedial Steps: ber of additional 

tion technologiesagreements to im
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

78 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

States, training idate surveillance ducting research and techniques, ses. 

3.2.2 Number of significant introductions 

of foreign animal pests or diseases that spread beyond the original area of introduction and cause severe economic or environmental damage, or damage to the health of animals or humans. 

Submissions from state, federal, and university cooperative laboratories to the Foreign Animal Disease Surveillance system.

Sample submissions verified through expert diagnosticians at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) and the Foreign Animal Disease Laboratory at Plum Island.

Non-reporting froof suspect cases of the foreign anRemedial Steps: and public awareappears that a fohas occurred, in suspect cases. 

3.2.3 Increase the number of States and 

territories, which meet the standards for preventing, detecting and responding to animal health emergencies. 

The key Federal and State offices in each State and territory. 

USDA – In FY 2003 and 2004, APHIS will reassess progress towards meeting the standards by using a national self-assessment of the State systems (which involves Federal and collaboration in completing the assessment instrument). The 12 emergency managers APHIS is planning to hire then would work with 4-5 States each to verify and validate the assessment results. 

The assessment and Federal offic

3.2.4 Increase the number of States that 

can provide necessary Federal animal diagnostic services. 

The National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL). 

Each laboratory must submit their qualifications and procedures for approval to NVSL and periodic on-site are conducted when necessary. 

Periodic check terequired. 

3.2.5 Improve the capabilities of plant 

diagnostic laboratories: 

• Certify National Plant Pest and Disease Diagnostic Network Centers State Labs; National Plant Pest and Disease Diagnostic Network Centers. Internal review; Report signoff by designated authority. • Connect State Plant Diagnostic 

Laboratory to the National Agricultural Pest Information System at Purdue University 

National Agricultural Pest Information System. 

Confirmation of diagnostic data by certified labs; Technical formatting; Bio-technical review by the National Agricultural Pest Information System Director 

Completeness; T

3.2.6 Release a series of new or improved varieties or germplasm that 

exhibit enhanced disease resistance to each of the following plant diseases: Sclerotinia, downy mildew, rusts and exotic viral diseases. 

Agricultural Research Service. Crop Science; HortScience J. 

Internal Review, Technical Release and Release by ARS PI Signoff; Technical formatting. Journal Peer review. 

Completeness oTimeliness; ComInclusion in cultivARS may releasder exclusive or 

ments. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

79 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

4.1.1 Improve Access to Nutritious Food 

• Food Stamp Program participation • Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children participation • National School Lunch Program participation • School Breakfast Program participation • Child and Adult Care Food Program 

meals served 

• Summer Food Service Program participation 

Reports from State agencies. Program data are submitted by States and entered into two “parent systems”, the Food Stamp 

Integrated Information System (FSPIIS) and the Special Nutrition Program Integrated Information System (SNPIIS). Regional offices follow up with States to resolve issue of missing or questionable data. Once reviews are complete and any questions or concerns regarding the data are resolved, the data are moved from a “preload system” into the National Databank production system and become USDA’s official program data. 

Because USDA important adminfunctions, as wereporting, it empediting and analycomplete, consisdata show absolrather than partictions. Participation dattimates of eligiblsecurity and otheate program effegenerally not avapreparing annuabeen incorporatewill be reported p

4.2.1 Promote Healthier Eating Habits 

and Lifestyles: 

• Support for fruits and vegetables 

provided through nutrition assistance programs 

Agency administrative and financial records. 

This estimate is based on records of direct commodity purchases for nutrition assistance programs, which is reconciled monthly and annually to ensure accuracy and participation levels for certain programs that support fruit and vegetable consumption, collected from State agencies consolidated and reviewed for accuracy and consistency by FNS. 

The estimate is btion of program dpants and operaconsumption. USDA will use aof the proportion port fruit and vegestimation metho

• School Meals Initiative monitoring 

reviews conducted by State agencies 

State reports, supplemented and verified by reviews and management evaluations conducted by FNS State reports. 

Data are collected, compiled and reviewed generally for consistency by USDA. USDA’s ability to 

data reported by compliance with is limited by the tary, informal andures. These limposition from the to a more formal 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

80 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

• Percentage of WIC mothers initiating 

breastfeeding 

WIC Participant and Program Characteristics studies. These biennial studies, conducted by FNS, in- clude data on breastfeeding initiation. Since 

these studies are census data collections, they are not subject to sampling error; in addition, [non-response is very low,] thus minimizing bias in the data. These data will be verified as practicable by other studies. 

Data is only avatinued ability to cfunding to condufunding at FNS favailable. 

• USDA nutrition education materials 

and education interventions disseminated 

Agency administrative records/Commerce Department’s National Technical Information Service. USDA—compile Web use data each month to verify data accuracy. USDA—gather distribution data from sources 

such as internal mailing lists and agency print orders and other lists. 

Data on the overnated cannot be proportion of parUSDA intends to education efforts 

 USDA administrative records. Data on Web use compiled monthly, are accurate and verifiable. Distribution data are gathered from sources such as internal mailing lists 

and agency print orders and other lists. 

No significant limof the data relateThe accuracy of hanced by regulanumber of copiemeans (e.g. dist

4.3.1 Improve Food Program Management and Customer Service: 

• Increase the Food Stamp payment 

accuracy rate 

Annual Quality Control statistical reports based on a sample of 60,000 actual State FSP cases. 

USDA sub-sampling and review, regression analysis and on-site reviews of State operation. 

The data has no 

Data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) (estimated number of students eligible for free and/or reduced price meals). 

The CPS sampling and estimation methodologies produce reliable national monthly estimates of American worker and consumer economic and demographic characteristics. 

The indicator meportunity to partiproperly, but the translates into im

• Decrease the number of children 

certified for free school meals in excess of those estimated eligible 

Federal nutrition assistance program data (the number of students certified to receive these benefits). 

USDA compiles Federal program data from State reports and reviews it for completeness and reasonableness. 

Using NSLP free to distribute billioother aid adds to certification erroNSLP paymentsStudies could be which certificatioments as resour
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

81 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

5.1.1 Continue to restore, rehabilitate 

and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems by moving Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and non-WUI hazardous fuels from a moderate/high risk to a lower risk of catastrophic fire. 

5.1.2 Ensure Federal fire management 

plans are in compliance with Federal Wildland Fire Policy. 

5.1.3 Control unplanned and unwanted 

fires during initial attack. 

National Fire Plan. Coordination/verification with FS Regions. The data has no 

are deemed to bRemedial steps: 

• Establish con

ues (Federal

• Include data 

Year Comprerehabilitationtance and re

• Integrate per

and systemsthe first and mconsistent an

5.1.4 Allotment acres administered to 

100% of standard. 

FS Management Attainment Report (MARS) 

Coordination/verification with FS Regions. There are no kno

5.1.5 Cleanup CERCLA sites on lands 

and facilities under USDA custody and control. 

CERCLA Reporting Data. Senior management attests to the quality (completeness, accuracy, consistency, timeliness) of 

the performance and financial data they report. Senior technical specialists review the submitted data for gross errors and inconsistencies and perform a limited number of program reviews and audits each year. 

There are no kno

5.2.1 Protect the productive capacity of 

agricultural and forestland: 

Forest Stewardship Management Plans. 

Data provided by field and state forestry agencies are reviewed for accuracy and consistency by regional program managers. 

Data are conside

• Protect against degradation FS contract with National Association 

of State Foresters to compile forestry Best Management Practice information. 

States and territories provide the BMP data, which are reviewed and compiled by a principal scientist. 

Data are collecteon FS funding. 

- Working cropland and grazing land 

by applying conservation practices 

NRCS Performance and Results Measurement System (PRMS). 

PRMS was designed to ensure the data would be collected accurately and consistently nationwide. Internal controls to ensure data quality include: 

• On-line definitions and help screens for all 

performance data collection items 

• Telephone hotline • Surveys and reviews conducted by the national oversight and evaluation staff. 

Data are reporteners in each field ing quality assurminimize variatiotions. Additional cate a need. Data are conside
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

82 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

• On-going quality assurance activities conducted by NRCS State offices. • Program and functional appraisals are also 

carried out. Performance data are reviewed as part of these appraisals. 

- Highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive cropland and 

grazing land under long-term land retirement contracts 

FSA National CRP Contract and Offer Data Files. CRP data is uploaded from the USDA Service Centers to the automated CRP data files weekly. 

CRP offer data files are uploaded following each general signup period. These files are evaluated to determine the environmental benefits of CRP and upon contract approval; the data is updated to reflect land use, land treatment and environmental benefits. To help ensure program integrity, service center employees conduct on-site spot checks and review producer files prior to annual payment issuance to ensure conservation practices are maintained in accordance with program requirements. 

Data limitations lag from when sisigned and when mated systems aupdating of the Cchanges in the dand offer data fil

• Total erosion prevented (Mil tons) FSA National CRP Contract and Offer Data Files and NRCS PRMS. See description of PRMS above. See the description of the CRP Contract and 

Offer Data Files above. Erosion impacts of CRP are estimated using regional average National Resources Inventory (NRI) erosion rates on CRP land in 1997 (“after CRP”) compared with erosion rates estimated to have occurred on CRP land in 1982 (“before CRP”). Erosion rates “before CRP” are estimated by a multi-step process. First, 1982 average erosion rates by county, type of erosion and erodibility index (EI) from the NRI are assigned to each CRP contract based on the contract’s county, erosion type and EI. State (and regional, if needed) average erosion rates are used to assign erosion rates to CRP contracts that do not have assigned rates after the first step. Erosion prevented, by type of erosion, is the difference between the “before” and “after” erosion estimates. 

PRMS data are See Statement oFiles above. Erosion on CRP points from the Nthat can be used is an estimate. Fgather informatioerosion reductioin improved perf
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

83 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

• Non-industrial private forestlands 

under approved stewardship management plans (Acres) 

FS Performance Measurement Accountability System (PMAS). Annual program review by FS in cooperation with National Association of State Foresters. Program data su

esters. This preserative program and program qua

5.2.2 Manage watersheds to provide 

clean and abundant water supplies 

• Animal feeding operations with comprehensive nutrient management 

plans and working land with nutrient management improved plans: 

- Developed - Applied 

• Working land with conservation 

measures applied to reduce potential for off-site pollution by nutrients 

NRCS Performance and Results Measurement System (PRMS). 

See PRMS information above. FY 2002 is the fi

new guidance fofield staff was coData are conside

• Sheet and rill erosion prevented FSA National CRP Contract and Offer Data Files and NRCS PRMS. See description of PRMS above. See the description of the CRP Contract and 

Offer Data Files above. Erosion impacts of CRP are estimated using regional average National Resources Inventory (NRI) erosion rates on CRP land in 1997 (“after CRP”) compared with erosion rates estimated to have occurred on CRP land in 1982 (“before CRP”). Erosion rates “before CRP” are estimated by a multi-step process. First, 1982 average erosion rates by county, type of erosion and erodibility index (EI) from the NRI are assigned to each CRP contract based on the contract’s county, erosion type and EI. State (and regional, if needed) average erosion rates are used to assign erosion rates to CRP contracts that do not have assigned rates after the first step. Erosion prevented, by type of erosion, is the difference between the “before” and “after” erosion estimates. 

Data are consideSee Statement oFiles above. Erosion on CRP points from the Nthat can be used is an estimate. Fgather informatioerosion reductioin improved perf

• Reduce nitrogen application on land 

under long-term retirement contract 

FSA National CRP Contract and Offer Data Files. See the description of the CRP Contract and Offer Data Files above. Statewide avera

izer application r
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

84 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

• Reduce phosphorus application on 

land under long-term retirement contract 

NASS Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). Reduced nitrogen and phosphorus applications are estimated using CRP contract data and 

NASS land management practice data. Land under long-term land retirement contract is assumed to have been growing a normalized mix of crops by State. Fertilizer application rates for those crops are estimated using State averages from the ARMS surveys. Reduced nutrient applications are estimated by merging fertilizer application rates with CRP State acres. 

data. In aggregaCRP landowner 

• Land in buffers under long-term retirement FSA National CRP Contract and Of- fer Data Files. See the description of the CRP Contract and Offer Data Files above. 

The amount of land managed as buffers is a subset of the total acres under long-term land retirement contract. Conservation practices such as grass filter strips and riparian buffers planted with trees are identified within the contract data. 

Data are conside

• Land benefiting from application of 

improves to irrigation management 

NRCS Performance and Results Measurement System (PRMS). 

See PRMS information above. Data are conside

• Carbon sequestered in soil and 

vegetation through long-term retirement of crop and grazing land 

FSA National CRP Contract and Offer Data Files. See the description of the CRP Contract and Offer Data Files above. 

Carbon sequestration is estimated using CRP contract data and current global change research data. The CRP contract data is sorted to identify the area in grass and tree cover. The tree data are then sorted by region and age. For grasslands, estimates of the carbon sequestered per acre are obtained from the Agricultural Research Service and merged with CRP contract data used to estimate total carbon sequestered by CRP grasslands. FS estimates of the carbon sequestered per acre by region, tree species and age are merged with the corresponding data from CRP contract data to estimate total carbon sequestered by CRP forestlands. Total carbon sequestered is the sum of the grassland and forestland estimates. 

See statement oFiles above. The data for estiquestered is still mates rely on exAdditional reseaurement capabilestimates. The dthe best estimatechange as the Urules are comple
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

85 

Data Verification and Validation 

Performance Goals Data Source Verification/Validation Method Data Limi

• Increase national implementation 

rate: 

- Forestry best management practices - States conducting effectiveness 

monitoring 

Biennial report to FS by National Association of State Foresters (NASF), under the leadership of NASF Water Resources Committee. 

Sample of timber harvest operations in each state lead by state Forestry Best Management Practices coordinator in cooperation with FS and EPA representatives and stakeholders from industry, conservation groups and environmental groups 

Compilation is caannually. NAS, tbiennial tracking ing operations pmonitoring. FS is 2003 to cover m

5.2.3 Ensure diverse wildlife habitats: 

• Increase protection of wetlands by 

enrolling in the Wetlands Reserve Program wetlands identified as high priority by States 

NRCS WRP National database. WRP data provided by field and State offices are 

reviewed for accuracy the national program manager. 

Data are conside

• Wetlands and associated upland under multi-year CRP contracts FSA National CRP Contract and Of- fer Data Files. See the description of the CRP Contract and Offer Data Files above. See statement o

Files. 

• Apply new management practices to 

improve wildlife habitat on working cropland, grazing land, forest and other land 

NRCS Performance and Results Measurement System (PRMS). 

See PRMS information above. Data are conside

• Land retired from cropping and grazing and restored to ecosystems with 

high benefits for wildlife, included threatened and endangered species 

FSA National CRP Contract and Offer Data Files. See the description of the CRP Contract and Offer Data Files above. See statement o

Files above. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

86 

APPENDIX B: PROGRAM EVALUATIONS AND OTHER ANALYUSDA will be undertaking new evaluations during the period covered by this plan and using them to make budget and lowing table highlights some of the studies as they related to the relevant performance goals. USDA’s evaluations are r

process and can include: assessments of the manner and extent of program objectives; assessment of program policies, program or management analyses; comprehensive reviews; cost-benefit studies; research to provide baseline data; and 

Program Evaluations and Other Analyses 

Performance Goals Evaluations/Analyses Proposed Achievement 

1.1.1 Estimated annual trade opportunities preserved through WTO trade negotiations 

and notification process 

Compliance review staff annually reviews agency-wide performance reporting and verification. 

Will enable FAS to validate the information provided, identify discrepancies and develop more meaningful performance measures. 

1.1.2 Estimated gross trade value of markets 

expanded/retained by market access activities other than WTO notification process 

OIG and GAO Audits of USDA and Subagency financial systems. Improve internal controls and agency financia

statements and receive an unqualified opinion

1.1.3 Average tariff rate on agricultural imports 

worldwide 

Compliance review staff annually reviews agency-wide performance reporting and verification. 

Will enable FAS to validate the information provided, identify discrepancies and develop more meaningful performance measures. 

1.1.4 Cumulative number of new or modified 

export protocols that facilitate access to foreign markets 

N/A N/A 

1.1.5 Number of international animal and plant 

health standards adopted 

N/A N/A 

1.2.1 Increase the activities/projects completed 

in support of international economic development and trade capacity building in developing and transition countries 

N/A N/A 

1.2.2 Share of countries’ food import needs 

met through USDA-administered food assistance programs 

N/A N/A 

1.2.3 Improve food security and nutrition 

through McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program by the number of daily meals and take-home rations for mothers, infants, and schoolchildren 

Compliance review staff annually reviews agency-wide performance reporting and verification. 

Will enable FAS to validate the information provided, identify discrepancies and develop more meaningful performance measures. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

87 

Program Evaluations and Other Analyses 

Performance Goals Evaluations/Analyses Proposed Achievement 

1.2.4 Improve literacy and primary education 

through McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. 

• Percent increase in enrollment for 

Girls/Boys 

• Percent increase in the proportion of children who are promoted 

Compliance review staff annually reviews agency-wide performance reporting and verification. 

Will enable FAS to validate the information provided, identify discrepancies and develop more meaningful performance measures. 

1.3.1 Increase the use of bioenergy and biobased products N/A N/A 1.4.1 Expand the USDA risk management tools 

available for agricultural producers to use in managing production and price risks 

PART Evaluation for the Crop Insurance Program. Assess and evaluate the programs and pro- mote the use of improved performance measures and budget request justifications. 

1.4.2 Improve customer service by increasing 

the efficiency of loan processing 

PART Evaluation of the Guaranteed Loan Program. Assess and evaluate overall program effective

ness and promote the development and use operformance information to improve program management. 

1.4.3 Improve fiscal soundness of the direct 

loan portfolio 

N/A N/A 

1.4.4 Eligible commodity production placed 

under marketing assistance loan or loan deficiency based on economic conditions in the farm sector 

PART Evaluation of the Marketing Assistance Loan Program PART Evaluation of Counter-cyclical Payments 

Assess and evaluate overall program effectiveness and promote the development and use oimproved performance information to improve program management and support budget justifications. 

1.4.5 Increase farm commodity and loan programs that can be accessed, completed 

and accepted electronically 

Customer Survey1 

1The customer survey is proposed for FY 2004. 

However at this time specific start and completion dates have not been established. 

The survey of internal and external USDA eForm customers will provide information on customer satisfaction with the eForms procesidentify problem areas and allow customers to provide feedback that could result in system enhancements to improve the usefulness of thsystem. 

2.1.1 Create or save additional jobs through 

USDA financing of businesses 

Business Program Assessment review. Assure compliance with program intent and 

Civil rights compliance. 

2.1.2 Reduce the Business and Industry Portfolio delinquency rate, excluding bankruptcy cases Assure compliance with program intent. 2.1.3 Improve the ability of small, rural towns to 

enjoy economic growth through provision of financing to support high-speed telecommunications services (broadband) 

OIG audit of Rural Development financial statements. 

Improve internal controls and agency financiastatements and receive an unqualified opinion
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

88 

Program Evaluations and Other Analyses 

Performance Goals Evaluations/Analyses Proposed Achievement 

2.2.1 Improve the quality of life in Rural America OIG audit of Rural Development financial statements. Improve internal controls and agency financia

statements and receive an unqualified opinion

3.1.1 Conduct risk assessments of microbial, 

chemical and physical hazards to meat, poultry and egg products 

3.1.2 Enhance industry compliance with regulatory requirements 3.1.3 Enhance industry compliance with regulatory requirements 3.1.4 Develop new systems for detecting foodborne hazards 

HACCP Evaluation; Evaluate the impact of the HACCP Final Rule; Multi-year project, various components; October 2002. National Academies of Science (NAS); Review of the Agency draft risk assessment of E.ColiO157:H7 in ground beef; Peer review; Began in February 2002 and ongoing. NAS; Study the role of scientifically determined criteria, such as microbiological criteria, in production and regulation of meat and poultry products; Comprehensive study; to be completed in the spring of 2003. 

Evaluates the impact of the components of thHACCP Final Rule. Peer Review of the Agency draft risk assessment of E. coli 0157:H7 in ground beef. 

Studies the role of scientifically determined crteria, such as microbiological criteria, in production and regulation of meat and poultry products. 

3.2.1 Increase the percent of known, significant 

introductions of plant diseases or pests that are detected before they spread from the original area of colonization and cause severe economic and environmental damage 

PPQ Safeguarding Review Recommendations are being implemented 

based on the completion of the review in FY 2000. 

3.2.2 Number of significant introductions of foreign animal pests or diseases that spread 

beyond the original area of introduction and cause severe economic or environmental damage, or damage to the health of animals or humans 

VS Safeguarding Review Recommendations are being implemented 

based on the completion of the review in FY 2002. States are regularly conducting test exercises and “table top” exercises around the detection of a Foreign Animal Disease in the U.S. This ian exercise for Emergency Preparedness 

3.2.3 Increase the number of States and territories, which meet the standards for preventing, detecting and responding to 

animal health emergencies 

Reassessment of Progress Towards Meeting the Standards. 

To identify areas of strength and weakness so that efforts can be made to improve the emergency management system so that all the standards can be met. 

3.2.4 Increase the number of States that can 

provide necessary Federal animal diagnostic services 

No formal, outside review of this new development is planned for FY 2003. As part of the development of the formal National Animal Health Laboratory Network, there will be continuous review of changing needs under the auspices of a steering committee composed of both USDA and State representatives. 

A formal National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) with an official listing of member laboratories and a growing number omembers in future years. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

89 

Program Evaluations and Other Analyses 

Performance Goals Evaluations/Analyses Proposed Achievement 

3.2.5 Improve the capabilities of plant diagnostic laboratories Annual Plans of Work of Regional Diagnostic Networks. Define and Fine Tune Network Activities and Priorities; Demonstrate Results. 3.2.6 Release a series of new or improved varieties or germplasm that exhibit enhanced disease resistance to each of the 

following plant diseases: Sclerotinia, downy mildew, rusts and exotic viral diseases 

Formal outside review of this activity is on a five-year cycle, starting in 2003. Each year, research accomplishments toward the goal are evaluated on an individual project basis. 

Release a series of new or improved varieties or germplasm that exhibit enhanced disease resistance to each of the following plant diseases: Sclerotinia, downy mildew, rusts and exotic viral diseases 

4.1.1 Improve Access to Nutritious Food Universal Free School Breakfast Pilot and 

Evaluation. 

Demonstration project assesses the effects of free school breakfasts for all children on academic performance, absenteeism, tardiness, behavior and cognitive development. 

4.2.1 Promote Healthier Eating Habits and 

Lifestyles 

Integrated Study of School Meal Programs Evaluate the conformance of meals offered 

through the NSLP and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

 WIC Participant/Program Characteristics 2002 Data collection will include tabulations of data 

on breastfeeding in WIC. 

4.3.1 Improve Food Program Management and 

Customer Service 

FSP Quality Control: An annual analysis of a statistically valid sample of food stamp cases from each State. 

Measures the rate of benefit accuracy (versus under- and overpayments) in the Food Stamp Program. 

NSLP Application/Verification Pilots and Evaluation. 

Demonstrates and tests a number of alternative approaches to the application and verification process for the school meals programs. 

5.1.1 Continue to restore, rehabilitate and 

maintain fire-adapted ecosystems by moving Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and non-WUI hazardous fuels from a moderate/high risk to a lower risk of catastrophic fire 

Quarterly multi-agency OMB PART reviews on all aspects of wildland fire prevention and management, including fire suppression, rehabilitation/restoration, community assistance and reduction of hazardous fuels. 

Demonstrated multi-agency progress in the implementation of “A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and Environment: 10-Year ComprehensivStrategy” Found on the web: www.fireplan.gov/10yrlPfinal.cfm

5.1.2 Ensure Federal fire management plans 

are in compliance with Federal Wildland Fire Policy 

GAO/OIG Audit of the implementation of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. 

An objective, comprehensive evaluation and analysis of all aspects of the multi-agency 10-year strategy, demonstrating the areas in whicprogress has or has not been made. 

5.1.3 Control unplanned and unwanted fires 

during initial attack 

Tracked as part of National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System (NFPORS). Maintain the high percentage of fires controlle

during initial attack as other fire performance goals are addressed. 

5.1.4 Restore, rehabilitate and/or maintain 

rangeland ecosystems within grazing allotments 

Staff reviews compliance annually for agencywide performance reporting and verification. Continuous process improvement to enable allotments to be administered in the most cos

effective and efficient manner, under existing funding. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

90 

Program Evaluations and Other Analyses 

Performance Goals Evaluations/Analyses Proposed Achievement 

5.1.5 Cleanup CERCLA sites on lands and facilities under USDA custody and control Methods used to set project priorities and or- ganizational levels of program management 

will be evaluated. 

Ensuring that the highest-priority cleanup needs are first in line for funding and improvements in program and project management. 

5.2.1 Protect the productive capacity of agricultural and forestland Evaluation of Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Farmland Protection Program. Determine program effectiveness in meeting the intent of Congress and the effectiveness 

and efficiency of program management. 

 Evaluations of stewardship management plans 

and forestry best management practices held periodically with states. 

Continued strong cooperation from states in program implementation and evaluation. 

5.2.2 Manage watersheds to provide clean and 

abundant water supplies 

Assessment of conservation programs, called for by the 2002 FSRIA. 

Identify strategies to coordinate programs for land retirement and conservation of agricultur

working lands to eliminate redundancy, streamline delivery and improve services to agricultural producers. 

5.2.3 Ensure diverse wildlife habitats State of the Land assessment. Appraise the status, condition and trend of so

water and related resources on non-Federal land. 

 Evaluation of the Resource Conservation and 

Development Program, called for by the 2002 FSRIA. 

Determine effectiveness of the program and develop recommendations for improvements. 

 National Conservation Partnership Workload 

Assessment. 

Develop revised estimates of the time, by technical discipline, required to produce each of thpartnership’s core work products and of the fiscal year and long-term workload for selecteproducts. 

 Review of the operation of agricultural and 

natural resource programs available to farmers and ranchers operating on tribal and trust land, required by the 2002 FSRIA. 

Develop strategies for increasing tribal participation in agricultural commodity programs and conservation programs and describe actions tbe taken to implement program improvements

 Assessment of the environmental benefits of 

Farm Bill conservation programs. 

Develop capacity to report in quantitative termthe annual soil quality improvements, water quality improvements and carbon sequestratiogains resulting from application of conservatiounder the Farm Bill programs. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

91 

APPENDIX C: MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND PROTo ensure strong performance throughout USDA, we must focus our accomplishments on the most significant managemgram risks. The U.S. General Accounting Office’s report (GAO 03-96, January 2003, Major Management Challenges 

USDA’s Office of the Inspector General’s report in Appendix C of the USDA Performance and Accountability Report www.usda.gov/ocfo/pm/pdf/par2002.pdf identified management challenges and program risks as areas of vulnerability

USDA’s strategies for addressing these concerns. 

Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks 

Planned Actions/Performance Measures 

for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 

Homeland Security Issues (OIG) and Ensuring Adequate Security (GAO)

• USDA Laboratory Facilities New guidelines for containment facilities have been developed, including a policy on gr

tainment facility personnel, inspectors and risk-evaluation specialists. APHIS is implemrity Policies and Procedures for Biosafety Level-3 Facilities. APHIS is working with ARSAssociation of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians to improve the security of non-APH

• Inadequate Security Procedures over Aircraft The items in progress are: 

The Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) completed detailed secmisuse at 14 air tanker bases, issued specific findings for each facility and agency-wide Reviews of aircraft security for remaining facilities are continuing to be completed. Direction regarding aircraft security provided in the form of Management Alerts. FS pro

evaluation of the aircraft and facility security to partner State forestry agencies. An interim security plan and interim strategy was implemented to ensure that aircraft anprotected from potential misuse. A National Aviation Security Policy that links agency rdent’s Homeland security Advisory System is being finalized. Developing background check requirements for all pilots, co-pilots and flight engineers contracts incorporate appropriate security provisions.

• Importing Animal Diseases As a result of OIG’s audit, APHIS and FSIS strengthened their long-standing Memoran

vide better coordination and communication. As a result of the Foot and Mouth Disease of veterinarians to work with port personnel. The AQI Monitoring Team has been focus

various types of incoming cargo and international mail. APHIS personnel have unique qualifications and training in biological sciences that sui

mit this knowledge may require a period of working with the Homeland Security Depart

• Biosecurity and Biosafety HMMP staff will continue to play a leading role in USDA security efforts, including safeg

general public and enhancing USDA's capacity to respond effectively to intentional and 

• Information Security USDA is working to address weaknesses identified by the GAO and OIG in the Departm

sets from fraud, misuse, disclosure and disruption. The Office of the Chief Information improve information and information technology security controls in following areas: ris(developing and training agencies in the use of a standard methodology and tools, as wrisk assessments of USDA security program and IT systems), physical and logical acceoverseeing established policy and guidance), disaster recovery and contingency plann
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

92 

Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks 

Planned Actions/Performance Measures 

for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 

disaster recovery and business resumption plans for the Department's highest priority m

nology systems), intrusion detection and response (deploying a common preventive pascanning tool across USDA agencies, as well as operating a 24 X 7 IDS capability that tification & accreditation (developing methodology to be used by agencies in certifying rity awareness (implementing plan to meet all Federal security training requirements).

Federal Crop Insurance Issues (OIG)

• Implementation of ARPA Contracts and partnership agreements for new products (such as data mining, cost of p

dated by ARPA have been initiated. Some are in operation and others are in developm

measure for each of these products would be their completion and submission for FCIC gram integrity issues has been accomplished through modification of the Basic Provisio

ments have been received and are being processed. The specific performance measu

eral register of the rule that addresses the program integrity issues and incorporates th

• Oversight by Insurance Companies and RMA Updates to Manual 14 will prescribe the types and number of internal reviews to be per

panies and evaluating alternative methods to improve its oversight responsibilities. A sseeking non-government services of performance management experts to develop a mreview. 

Farm Security & Rural Investment Act of 2002 (OIG) and Improving the Delivery of Services to Farmers (GAO) 

• Farm Programs To help ensure accurate and timely delivery of services to eligible producers, FSA will c

delivery and program management through its various review processes, including the gram and program compliance activities.

• Conservation Programs NRCS has recognized the need for greater oversight and plans to focus its Oversight a

related reviews in FY 2003 and 2004. Reviews are planned on EQIP, FPP, Conservatioers to implementation of the Farm Bill and the NRCS Accountability System. 

Food Stamp Program (OIG) and Improving the Integrity of Food Assistance Programs (GAO)

Given the size and scope of USDA nutrition assistance programs, the Department faceviding help to eligible people who need it, while protecting the programs from those whtifies three key challenges or risks under Federal nutrition assistance program manageProgram (FSP) payment accuracy; and the persistence of retailer trafficking of FSP beof Inspector General identifies improving eligibility certification accuracy in the National Breakfast Programs and achieving full implementation of electronic benefit transfer (EBagement challenges.

• Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Systems Implementation FSP Electronic Benefits Transfer is addressed in Objective 4.3: Improve Food Program 

Service. The Department expects to delivery 100% of benefits through EBT by the end 

• Improper Payments FSP Payment Accuracy is addressed directly in this plan under Objective 4.3 Improve 

Customer Service. FSP Payment accuracy for FY 2001 (most current data available) reThe plan includes a performance indicator to continue improvement in Food Stamp pay% payment accuracy rate by FY 2004.

• Retailer Abuses Specific performance metrics for FSP retailer management are tracked by the FNS. Fo

continuing to update and seek improvements in its periodic measure of FSP trafficking
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

93 

Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks 

Planned Actions/Performance Measures 

for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program (OIG)

National School Lunch and Breakfast Program eligibility certification is addressed direcProgram Management and Customer Service. The plan includes a performance metric dren certified for free school meals in excess of those estimated eligible.

Food Safety Issues (OIG) and Enhancing the Safety of the Nation’s Food Supply (GAO) 

FSIS and APHIS have updated a Memorandum of Understanding to enhance communcies. FSIS has taken corrective action on many of the recommendations and plans to compl2003 on implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System; FSIS and Poultry Products; FSIS Imported Meat and Poultry Inspection Process, Phase I; anerations Compliance Activities. During the last few years, FSIS has enhanced its process to identify and review firms. number of enhancements and prioritized its efforts consistent with available resources. identify and halt all activity involving contamination of meat, poultry and egg products. T

to resolve any reinspection and equivalency issues arising from these audits. In the Federal government, food safety responsibilities are shared among several entitand Human Services and the EPA. Concerns about the need for fundamental changes about overcoming perceived fragmentation of food safety responsibilities are being add

Departmental partnerships and program coordination activities. Statistics for the Centevention show a 21 percent drop in the incidence of foodborne illness during the last six represent the efforts of several Federal Agencies, State and local governments, regulasumers, the USDA contribution to the reduction of foodborne illnesses cannot be ignore

safety organization addressing all foods, as suggested by GAO, is beyond the legal scodepartment. The FSIS is a Federally mandated program. It can take no independent acmerge itself with other agencies. Therefore, this management challenge has not been iFSIS GPRA documents. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Issues (OIG)

• Risk identification Specially qualified risk analysts in APHIS Policy and Program Development provide tra

before publication. Recent risk assessments are on Clementines from Spain, citrus and 

and U.S. domestic procedures concerning bovine tuberculosis. To increase public awahas been developing its Internet web pages, allowing web-based comments on proposbeen developed at the national level for surveying exotic plant pests in the U.S. The lisscientifically based with supporting pest risk analyses, interception data and input from 

and risk-based mapping techniques are being developed to target areas of potential pe

• Inspection coverage at all types of ports APHIS no longer has responsibility for inspection coverage. • Inspection coverage at all times APHIS no longer has responsibility for inspection coverage. • Handling of restricted-use compounds Upon further examination by the OIG, it was determined that all chemicals used by AP

were accounted for. However, an adequate chemical inventory and tracking system waa new Chemical Inventory and Tracking System in five States. The new tracking system tional in October 2002 in all States.

• Permit controls for pathogens and restricted materials APHIS’ Plant Protection and Quarantine’s permitting unit has undergone staff reorganiz

additional personnel have been dedicated to greater scrutiny of permit requests. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

94 

Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks 

Planned Actions/Performance Measures 

for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 

Forest Service Management and Program Delivery Issues (OIG) and Improving Performance Accountability at the Forest Service (GAO)

In cooperation with Department of the Interior land management agencies under the NService has begun to test the new interagency fire planning system to optimize cost effresources; implement large landscape level fuels treatment projects to reduce the threahealthy ecosystems; implement the blue ribbon panel’s recommendations to improve aimplement emergency stabilization treatments on lands that were severely burned in 20that were severely burned in the fires of 2002 and 2003; continue the Healthy Forests Iprocesses to restore forest and rangeland health and prevent catastrophic wildfires on management efforts; improve fire incident obligation reporting among all Federal wildlacoordinate with the Office of Management and Budget to improve the two DepartmentsProgram performance assessment scores initially assigned in FY 2002; expand forest utilization projects that support the fuels treatment program; maintain high level of resecapacity, forest and rangeland rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuels reduction improve communications with States, Tribes, non-governmental organizations and othelaboration on National Fire Plan projects and actions undertaken by federal agencies aaccountability for National Fire Plan funding and accomplishments. Common USDA/DOPercent of unplanned and unwanted fires controlled during initial attack; gross fire suppof high-priority acres treated in the wildland/urban interface (WUI); number of acres in coutside the WUI in fire regimes 1, 2, or 3; number of acres in fire regimes 1, 2, or 3 moand number of acres in fire regimes 1, 2, or 3 moved to a better condition class per mil

Forest Service National Fire Plan (OIG) OIG draft report "Forest Service's National Fire Plan Implementation", dated Septembe

with fire preparedness funding in FY 2001 and use of National Fire Plan funds for spection projects. The FS addressed these concerns in a response dated November 2, 200information into the National Fire Management Analysis System when determining wildworking with the Department of the Interior to jointly update the preparedness planning ing OIG's concern that rehabilitation and restoration projects meet project selection critare reviewed through a National Fire Plan integrated review process. 

Forest Service Grant and Agreement Administration (OIG) 

Since FY 97, the FS has made adjustments to the management of grants and agreemeProper controls were implemented to ensure program integrity, program budget planninand reviews are occurring regularly to protect resources and to ensure prudent use of amission and with the scope of expectations, laws, regulations and authority. The approcial information are maintained and used for decision-making purposes. These actions 

Rural Rental Housing (OIG)

• Portfolio Management RHS has drafted a proposed rule to completely restructure it sections 515 and 514/516 

prove its ability to ensure properties are maintained and to provide decent, safe and sa

housing. The regulation is at OMB and is anticipated to be published the latter part of ttive in fiscal year 2004.

• Guaranteed RRH Program Performance and results reported under the section 538 guaranteed rental program ha

units reports are those for which funds have been obligated to built new construction prRural Development feels that this issue has been addressed and can be removed.

• Rental Assistance Future year appropriations requests will reflect additional funding needed for the Renta

of inflation. $10 million and an additional $25 million in FY 04 increased the FY 03 apprthe program staff will also address this issue. Rural Development feels this issue has b

moved.
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

95 

Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks 

Planned Actions/Performance Measures 

for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 

• RRH Projects Leaving the Program Section 515 preservation administration has been improved by the implementation of p

ing, thereby ensuring that incentive payments are fair. Additional tracking systems for lment process have been implemented, which have improved the Agency's ability to deposing prepayment and those that have been prepaid. This improves this agency's abiervation incentives. Rural Development feels that this issue has been addressed and cRHS has drafted a proposed rule to completely restructure it sections 515 and 514/516 improve its ability to ensure properties are maintained and to provide decent, safe and 

housing. The regulation is at OMB and is anticipated to be published the latter part of ttive in fiscal year 2004.

• Unallowable and Excessive Expenses Charged to 

RRH Projects

Under current agency procedures, unallowable and excessive expenses charged are idtution is made. We continue to refer cases to our "Enforcement Team" and OIG for actthis issue has been addressed and can be removed.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service (OIG)

• Business and Industry (B&I) Loan-making and Servicing Procedures• Waivers of Internal Controls

The Business Programs Assessment Review (BPAR) process is designed to ensure a functions of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), Business Programs. In adState operations, the BPAR will identify program areas for which increased training or ocreate an organized mechanism for National Office and field staffs to discuss Business 

quirements. RBS has also entered into an Interagency Agreement with the Farm Crediagreement calls for FCA to evaluate the safety and soundness of Business and Industrnon-traditional lender operations and assure compliance with applicable laws and RBS Oversight Division is performing a Management Control Review of the Business and Ingram in Fiscal Year 2003. Rural Development is working with the Office of the Inspectoommendations based on findings in audits to improve program efficiency. RBS has est

regarding the waiver of loan regulation processes and is working on a major rewrite of regulations to fine-tune the Agency’s responsibilities versus the lender responsibilities.

Civil Rights Complaints (OIG) and Resolving Discrimination Complaints (GAO) Document-by-document sweep of EEO complaint case files – CR conducted a post OI

plaint files and submitted a report of its findings dated 02/12/02 to OIG; Provide OIG with final Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Conducting Agency CiSOP has been finalized, signed by the Deputy Director for Programs and submitted to Provide OIG with final SOP on Negotiation of Settlement Agreements in Program DiscrSOP has been revised as noted and was forwarded to the Office of General Counsel fofinal SOP has been forwarded to the Director of Civil Rights for review and signature; Revised USDA/HUD Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - RD has responded to thvelopment Memorandum of Understanding requesting major, significant changes to the Project 365: Review of Cases Potentially Closed Improperly – a) CR located 30 cases improperly closed and b) CR found no record of the 50 cases identified in OIG’s additio
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

96 

Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks 

Planned Actions/Performance Measures 

for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 

Financial Management (OIG) and Enhancing USDA’s Ability to Account for Financial Activities (GAO)

Owing to USDA’s recent successful results in improving financial management, USDA opinion on five stand-alone audits and on a consolidated basis in FY 2002. OCFO will bthe FY 2002 financial processes to ensure a repeatable process for clean audits in FY will lead the efforts to support and enhance the Department’s management process by prove internal controls, data integrity, management information and decision making as 

audit opinion. The following steps are being taken to strengthen the quality control processes throughthat information provided for the audit is complete, accurate and satisfies the audit obje

• Establish comprehensive timeline and key milestone chart that clearly delineates th

OIG and the due date. 

• Provide Departmental oversight of the quality control processes established by com

compliance with Departmental Quality Assurance Program to include sample review- A key component of oversight occurs at our monthly CFO Council meetings. Qua

of the agenda and there is a review of conditions in focus areas of emphasis, e.gances, etc. 

- Develop a data quality scorecard that will be presented and discussed at monthly - Develop monthly management report of key indicators of performance for the Co- Utilize quality assurance process and tools provided in the Financial Managemen

In FY 2003, USDA completed the implementation and conversion of all USDA agencieadministrative financial management system. USDA is using data warehousing technoporting to meet the integrated financial system for USDA, both administrative and progUser Fees: During FY 2002, USDA began a Department-wide Managerial Cost Accourent cost accounting capabilities at various agencies. The July 29, 2002 report “USDA Acounting Capabilities and Recommended Actions” held that training be conducted at eaensure full compliance with OMB Circular A-25 - - User charges and USDA Departmen

Biennial Review of Charges for Things of Value. The report further recommended a proUSDA agencies to include imputed costs in user fee full cost analysis and in the BienniOCFO completed user fee training for all applicable agencies. Further, the user fee age

cost in the next biennial review of fees for April 2003. Per OCFO’s agreement with OIGfull cost but will not charge for imputed retirement and associated benefits – which is in the remainder of the government. Debt Collection Improvement Act: OCFO and OGC have completed the draft of new Dwhich contain provisions for the optional DCIA tool of administrative wage garnishment

tions are in clearance for publication in the Federal Register. Upon completion of the finimplement administrative wage garnishment. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

97 

Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks 

Planned Actions/Performance Measures 

for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 

Information Resources Management (OIG) The Department’s FY 2002 Government Information Security Reform Act Report and a

Milestones identify program and system level vulnerabilities and the steps necessary to 

Department will: improve the quality and process for managing USDA information secu(4th Qtr.); complete vulnerability assessments of all mission-critical systems. (4th Qtr.); a

strengthen their program and system security plans, which were reviewed in FY 2002. 

In addition, the Department is improving the protection of its information assets by: estavivability program to guide agencies in the development and testing of disaster recoverplans for USDA’s highest priority mission critical systems; installing additional network 

work intrusion detection scanning and incident response; establishing Certification and evaluate the security features of new and existing information systems to ensure that ththe use and delivery of programs; and enhancing Security Awareness Program to provployees and contractors.
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

98 

APPENDIX D: CROSS-CUTTING PROGRAMS With priorities that span from Homeland Security, food safety, forestry, to fighting hunger, the work of USDA often cu

lines–both within USDA and among Federal agencies. The following table identifies programs or activities that USDA with other organizations to achieve a common purpose or objective. 

Cross-cutting Programs 

Objective 

USDA 

Agency 

Assigned Lead 

Agency/Organization Describe How the Activities Affect the Department’s Eff

1.1 FAS 

NASS 

FAS FAS, AMS, FSA, APHIS, GIPSA, CSREES and OSEC – Expand international marketi

NASS provides timely and accurate statistical information on U.S. agriculture, which is gence that enables producers and policy makers to make well-informed decisions. 

1.2 FAS FAS FAS, AMS, FSA, APHIS, GIPSA, CSREES, OSEC – International economic developm1.3 OCE OEPNU Develop guidelines to implement statute is done in consultation with the General Serv

NIST and OMB. A 60-day public comment period elicits comments on draft regulations from public stak

regulations. 

 Develop model procurement plan within USDA’s Office of Administration. Work with G

Logistics Agency and every other Federal Agency in developing and helping to implemConsult with NIST, EPA, OFPP and in USDA OCIO, OC, OGC, OA and OMB in devel

program. 

 Research and develop products in five categories by working with trade associations a

and individual manufacturers/vendors in encouraging participation in preferred procure

USDA’s OA and all other Federal Agencies in outreach and education aimed at full co

ment preference in FSRIA. 

 Work with NIST, EPA in establishing standards for label. Work with industry associatio

ISO/ASTM/Mil.SPEC. qualified product testing facilities are identified and available for meet requirements for placement on DBPL and for eligibility to use label. Also, USDA sistance provided for in FSRIA to write down the cost of product testing in instances wmanufacturers/vendors. 

 GIPSA, 

AMS, ARS 

GIPSA USDA is coordinating an effort through the American Society of Testing Materials (AST

industry standards on existing and developing livestock, meat and poultry evaluation slivestock, meat and poultry quality characteristics. The other USDA agencies along wit

livestock producers, meat packers, researchers and manufacturers are advising and ament of industry standards. 

 OCE, ARS, 

CSREES, 

FS, DA, 

CCC, 

NRCS, RD 

REE & OCE Bioenergy and biobased products contribute to the President’s National Energy Plan. 

joint biomass projects and coordinating efforts in this area. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

99 

Cross-cutting Programs 

Objective 

USDA 

Agency 

Assigned Lead 

Agency/Organization Describe How the Activities Affect the Department’s Eff

1.4 FSA FSA Guaranteed Farm Loan Program. FSA partners with commercial banks, Farm Credit S

to provide guaranteed farm ownership and farm operating loans to eligible applicants. erty and responsibility of the lender – lenders make the loans and service them to con

typically for 90%. The guaranteed lending program, which represents approximately 4

portfolio, is an effective tool for providing financial assistance to farmers that would oth

 FSA, RD, 

NRCS 

N/A The eForms project is one component of the overall effort by USDA’s county based ag

expand and streamline customer access to service. The new business model requires agency initiatives to collaborative ventures with the principal service providers that sup

prises. The principal service providers include USDA agencies and Service Center pament entities and private enterprises. The business model conveys a seamless workinbetween offices and customers is irrelevant. 

 NASS NASS NASS provides timely and accurate statistical information on U.S. agriculture, which is 

needs in other USDA programs, as needed. 

 RMA RMA Interactions with the cooperating entities supports the Department’s efforts by allowing 

are responsive to the needs of America’s farmers and ranchers, while minimizing cost minimal redundancy. USDA Primary Agencies are FAS, FSA, AMS, APHIS, GIPSA, ERS and NASS and thpartment of the Treasury (DOJ), private industry trade groups, cooperators, State DepAgency for International Development, land grant colleges and universities, commerciassociations and private sector insurance companies. 

 GIPSA, 

OCE, ERS, 

AMS, 

NASS, 

OBPA 

GIPSA USDA is directing a major study of supply-chain arrangements used in the livestock an

broad concerns about policy implications of structural changes in the industries and to ministration of USDA programs. The other USDA agencies along with the Department 

mission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission are advising and assisting GIPS

2.1 NASS NASS The census of agriculture provides periodic detailed information on America’s rural ag

in supporting basic data needs in other USDA programs, as needed. 

2.2 RHS HUD RHS concentrates its efforts on homeownership in rural areas and HUD is primarily in 

 RUS EPA RUS works with EPA to fund water and sewer systems in rural areas. 

3.1 FSIS HHS 

CDC 

FSIS contributes to CDC’s Emerging Infections Program Foodborne Diseases Active S

that collects data about foodborne diseases in nine U.S. sites to quantify and monitor ftributes to CDC’s PulseNet, the National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne 

provides critical data for the early recognition and timely investigation of foodborne dis

DNA fingerprinting on foodborne bacteria. 

 FSIS 

CSREES 

Joint ventures with HHS 

and Partnership for Food 

Safety Education 

USDA participates in numerous joint activities with HHS, industry, government and co

safety educational programs dedicated to sharing information about safe food handling ness. Examples include the Fight Bac campaign, the Foodborne Illness Education Infoconferences for extension and health department educators, food safety professionals 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

100 

Cross-cutting Programs 

Objective 

USDA 

Agency 

Assigned Lead 

Agency/Organization Describe How the Activities Affect the Department’s Eff

3.1 

(cont.) 

FSIS, 

APHIS 

FSIS, FDA USDA is working closely with other agencies including EPA, CDC and Department of 

Threat Preparedness Network or PrepNet. The focus of this group is on prevention anemergency response, laboratory capability and efforts aimed at prevention of illness. 

 FS, FSIS, 

AMS, FNS, 

GIPSA, 

FAS, 

APHIS, 

ARS 

USDA The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the major international mechanism for encour

food while promoting the health and economic interests of consumers. As an active m

opportunity to improve the international food safety standard setting process. USDA h

dex and participates on various committees. Currently USDA chairs the Codex Alimen

dex Steering Committees and the Food Hygiene and Processed Fruits and Vegetable

partments that carry out U.S. Codex activities include EPA, Department of State (DOS

(DOC), HHS and The Office of U.S. Trade Representative. Executive direction comes 

dex, supported by the U.S. Codex Office in USDA. 

 NASS NASS Science-based information on chemical usage during the production and processing o

data needs in other USDA programs, as needed. 

 ARS, 

CSREES 

REE Research is supported that provides basic scientific information and methods to enhan

post-harvest environment. 

3.2 APHIS DHS, Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection 

 In March 2003, the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program at ports of entry Customs and Border Protection. The AQI workforce is working alongside colleagues frAPHIS’ former head of Plant Health Programs moved to DHS along with several dozepersonnel to supervise the AQI workforce in their new organizational location. There hand communications between the two agencies. 

 APHIS The National Animal Health Emergency Management Steering Committee, a Federal 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is moving to the DHS. Twill produce a coordinated and effective emergency management system, which fully allow a quicker response and minimize the negative impact of disease outbreaks. 

 MRP Invasive species threaten agricultural and natural resources. USDA participates in the 

cil with the Department of Commerce and the DOI. 

 APHIS APHIS will join with CSREES and ARS to develop the Animal and Plant Disease and 

Network. This joint effort to provide certified laboratory services at the State level will eeffective access to diagnoses of samples in the event of an emergency. 

APHIS, 

ARS, FS, 

CSREES, 

ERS, OCE 

NRCS 

CSREES APHIS will join with CSREES and ARS to develop the Animal and Plant Disease and 

Network. USDA will partner with the National Agricultural Pest Information System, Staand Regional Pest Management Centers. State and APHIS Diagnostic Laboratories wthe general public and law enforcement officials. 

 NASS NASS Science-based information on chemical usage used to fight pests and disease is used 

other USDA programs, as needed. 

4.1 FNS FNS State, territorial, Tribal and local agencies involved in nutrition assistance program del

organizations, private non-profit voluntary organizations, professional organizations, h

tions. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

101 

Cross-cutting Programs 

Objective 

USDA 

Agency 

Assigned Lead 

Agency/Organization Describe How the Activities Affect the Department’s Eff

4.2 FNS FNS FNS, CSREES, ERS, ARS, CNPP – State, territorial, Tribal and local agencies involve

delivery, private sector firms and organizations, Department of Health and Human Ser

ance, professional organizations, health and public interest organizations, State Depainstitutions. 

4.3 FNS FNS State and local agencies involved in Food Stamp Program delivery, private sector firm

State and local public and private entities involved in National School Lunch Program Education. 

5.1 FS FS DOI bureaus provide cooperative technical assistance with the Department of Agricult

management on Interior and Agricultural lands and on private lands. 

 HMMG HMMG To varying degrees, many USDA agencies including APHIS, ARS, FS, CCC, FSA, FS

in the Hazard Material Management Program (HMMP) within USDA. In executing the 

projects, there is often interaction/cooperation with and participation by a number of exthe EPA, other Federal and State agencies, Tribal governments and a variety of privat

organizations. 

5.2 NRCS, 

FSA, FS 

NRCS NRCS provides technical and financial assistance in cooperation with local conservati

tion agencies. State and local employees help to implement NRCS programs. Some Sthat help achieve NRCS conservation objectives. In the West, where public and private land are intermingled, NRCS cooperates with laing FS and Bureau of Land Management in coordinated efforts to plan conservation at 

 NRCS EPA State governments have primary responsibility for water quality regulations. NRCS pro

to EPA in developing initiatives such as the joint national strategy for animal feeding omoney to States, which States use to provide assistance to land users. NRCS provide

tance to implement such programs as well as providing technical and financial assistaIn the West, State water rights law governs water allocation. NRCS provides assistancservation districts, irrigation districts, river basin commissions and RC&D councils in p

the watershed level. The Bureau of Reclamation works with irrigation districts to improNRCS helps individual producers improve water management on-farm. NRCS provides: 

• technical and financial assistance to local sponsors of watershed protection projec

ter supply, water quality and wildlife habitat. 

• emergency disaster recovery assistance to help communities and land users repai

disasters. These activities may involve cooperation with FEMA as well as local and 

• information about agency-assisted structures to the Corps of Engineers for the dam 

 NRCS, 

FSA, FS 

NRCS Several Federal agencies—NRCS, FSA, Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Se

and enhance wetlands. Some State and private sector entities also conduct programs 

implement wetlands activities under several programs, including the WRP and provide

menting FSA’s CRP. 
FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003 

102 

Cross-cutting Programs 

Objective 

USDA 

Agency 

Assigned Lead 

Agency/Organization Describe How the Activities Affect the Department’s Eff

5.2 

(cont.) 

FSA FSA The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program allows the USDA to partner with S

zations to use Federal incentives to address State-specific conservation goals. 

 NASS NASS Information on cropping practices employed on U.S. cropland is used in supporting ba

programs, as needed. 

 FS FS DOI bureaus help provide technical assistance for the management of natural resourc

FS and NRCS work with State, local and Tribal governments, in the delivery of technicral resources.