The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. The Secretary of Agriculture is required to submit an annual report to Congress on Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program agreements that, among other things, reports on the progress made towards fulfilling commitments outlined in the agreements. The U.S. Geological Survey developed an online reporting form designed to ensure that consistent information is submitted to the Farm Service Agency from Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program State partners. Combined with the automated importation of text from partner-provided forms to word-processing documents, individual State reports and annual reports to Congress can now be produced efficiently and in a standardized format. Use of a standardized reporting format will also assist the Farm Service Agency in collecting information needed to support ecosystem service quantifications that go beyond the quantifications required from partners to document progress towards meeting the specific purposes and objectives identified in each agreement. Addition of these overarching conservation effect quantifications builds upon past ecosystem services modeling efforts based on the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs suite of open-source software models; these offer a spatially explicit means to quantify additional ecosystem services across diverse partners in a consistent manner. Data sources are currently available to provide much of the information needed to run these models and complete simulations that would facilitate the quantification and reporting of the societal values of conservation actions taken under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. It is the aim of this report to provide the information needed to move towards widescale monitoring of the Nation’s ecosystem services in a natural accounting framework, similar to the framework used to value financial and human capital.
For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit
For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
We thank the Economic and Policy Analysis staff of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Production and Conservation Business Center for providing their timely assistance and funding needed to produce this report. We also thank Farm Service Agency staff for providing reviews and suggestions that greatly improved online forms and the format of Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program partner and congressional reports.
Multiply | By | To obtain |
Length | ||
---|---|---|
mile (mi) | 1.609 | kilometer (km) |
Area | ||
acre | 4,047 | square meter (m2) |
acre | 0.4047 | hectare (ha) |
Mass | ||
ton, short (2,000 lb) | 0.9072 | metric ton (t) |
A water year is the period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated by the year in which it ends; for example, water year 2020 was from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Conservation Reserve Program
Farm Production and Conservation Business Center
Farm Service Agency
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Forms
Microsoft Word
National Agriculture Statistics Service
National Biogeographic Map
National Land Cover Database
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geological Survey
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA). The CREP is part of the larger Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a national program that provides annual rental payments to farmers in exchange for establishing permanent conservation cover on environmentally sensitive lands, effectively removing these lands from crop production. The CRP is the United States’ largest conservation program in terms of acres affected and dollars expended. The size and scope of the CRP necessitate broad goals that align with the Nation’s core conservation priorities. The CREP brings a more targeted approach to the CRP by leveraging Federal and non-Federal dollars to address specific conservation concerns and priorities at a more local, often State or regional, scale. Although agreements under the CREP also align with national priorities, the more specific and localized nature of the program results in a multitude of goals and objectives across agreements enacted between the USDA and its numerous CREP partners.
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334; also known as the 2018 Farm Bill) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to submit an annual report to Congress that, among other things, reports on progress made towards fulfilling commitments outlined in the CREP agreements. Staff from the Economic and Policy Analysis office of the USDA’s Farm Production and Conservation Business Center (FPAC–BC) requested assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in developing a reporting template and online submission mechanism that would assist CREP partners in providing the information needed by the FSA to comply with this congressional mandate. The statutory language in the 2018 Farm Bill states that the annual report to Congress must include information on (1) status of agreements, (2) purposes and objectives of agreements, (3) Federal and eligible partner commitments made under the agreements, and (4) progress made towards fulfilling those commitments.
Reflecting the diverse goals and objectives of individual agreements, annual reports from partnering States have been provided in a wide variety of formats and often did not provide sufficient information needed to meet congressional reporting requirements. Thus, the FSA asked that the USGS also evaluate the information being collected from partners to identify deficiencies that prevent the accurate reporting of progress towards meeting commitments. Additionally, the FSA sought to identify ways to quantify progress in terms of benefits related to water quantity, water quality, and habitat that are not consistently identified in the purposes and objectives of agreements. The hopes were that these quantifications would bridge across most or all agreements and allow for a more national view of program effects in addition to reporting progress made towards meeting the localized goals specific to each agreement. Adding these overarching conservation effect quantifications to annual CREP reports builds upon past ecosystem services modeling efforts completed through the Integrated Landscape Modeling Partnership that the USGS began with the FSA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Commodity Credit Corporation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an effort that has been ongoing since 2007 (
The online reporting form is designed to ensure that consistent information is submitted to the FSA from each of its CREP State partners. Providing information to the FSA in a consistent manner will assist CREP partners in meeting reporting requirements and the FSA in providing timely reports to Congress of progress made towards meeting the objectives of each CREP agreement. Additionally, a standardized reporting format will assist the FSA in collecting information needed to support ecosystem service quantifications beyond the specific quantifications required from CREP partners to document progress towards meeting the purposes and objectives listed in individual agreements.
Microsoft Forms (MS-Forms) was used to create an online reporting form to be used by CREP State partners when providing annual reports of progress. The form was designed to collect information required to generate individual partner reports and an annual summary report to Congress. After reviewing CREP annual reports from previous years, the USGS created a preliminary draft of the reporting form in early July 2020 to be used by State partners to meet 2020 reporting requirements. A demonstration of the reporting form was provided to key FPAC–BC and FSA staff on July 10, 2020. A revised version of the form addressing concerns identified in the July 10 meeting was created and provided to the FPAC–BC on July 31, 2020. The reporting form was then recreated by the FPAC–BC on USDA computer systems to address issues that prevented the sharing of forms between the USGS and USDA, which also ensured that information collected would go directly to and be stored on USDA computer systems rather than being routed through the USGS network. On September 3, 2020, the online reporting form passed compliance tests under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 798) completed by the FPAC–BC. On September 4, 2020, a demonstration of the reporting form was provided to the director of the FSA’s Conservation Division, and the reporting form was updated based on feedback received from the director during the meeting.
On September 11, 2020, a notice requiring the use of the online reporting form for 2020 partner reporting of agreement progress was sent to each FSA State office with CREP agreements by the Acting Deputy Administrator of Farm Programs (
After a review of the information provided by CREP State partners in their 2020 submissions, the reporting form was revised based on knowledge gained. The primary change made was related to how information on Federal commitments was handled. In 2020, information on Federal commitments was provided to FSA State offices by the FSA national office. State offices then provided this quantitative information directly to the CREP partners within their respective State for entry into the online reporting form; however, review of data submitted by the CREP partners in 2020 revealed that the numbers reported by partners often did not match those originally provided by the FSA national office. To avoid this inconsistency in the data received, all Federal commitment questions were removed from the online reporting form in 2021. After State level information was received from CREP partners, information on Federal commitments was then directly added to the report input data file using data provided directly from the FSA national office, thus eliminating errors or inconsistencies generated by having the data pass through the State offices, to the CREP partners for entry into the online reporting form, and then back to the national level.
In 2021, the character limit in MS-Forms was increased from 16,000 to 200,000 characters. Along with the elimination of Federal commitment fields from the form, this would have allowed use of a single-section form; however, it was decided to retain the five-section format used in 2020 because it allowed partners to work on individual sections of the form one at a time without the need to complete the entire form in one sitting. A current (2022) limitation of MS-Forms is that forms in progress cannot be saved and returned to for completion at a later time. The ability to work on the report in sections was highlighted as being appreciated in feedback received from CREP State partners after completing the online reporting process in 2020.
In concert with developing the online reporting form, a guide was prepared to be used by CREP State partners as an aid for completing the online reporting process (
After the online reporting form and guide used in 2020 were updated and modified, a webinar was held on October 18, 2021, for the FSA State offices in which detailed instructions were again provided on how to complete the online reporting process using the online reporting form and guide. The webinar was followed by a question-and-answer session with USGS and FPAC–BC developers of the online reporting process.
After information is collected from the CREP State partners using the online reporting form, MS-Word is used to generate individual State reports. The first step to producing the completed State reports is to export the data collected in MS-Forms as five separate Microsoft Excel (MS-Excel) files, one for each of the five sections of the reporting form. The five files are then merged into a single MS-Excel spreadsheet, and additional columns are added to accommodate Federal commitment data. These columns are then populated with the Federal commitment data provided directly from the FSA national office. The final MS-Excel spreadsheet should have 136 columns that match the columns and column headings depicted in
Once the combined MS-Excel file has been created and Federal commitment data have been added, creating a summary report for Congress is a straightforward matter of updating acreage, commitment, and progress information provided in the previous year’s report. Summaries of acreages, financial commitments (Federal and non-Federal), and other commitments are obtained by adding sum formulas to the appropriate columns in the combined MS-Excel spreadsheet. Partner progress text is added to the appropriate objectives statement in the report using the cut and paste tool in MS-Word. Drafts of 2020 and 2021 reports generated for Congress are provided in
One of the key takeaways from an evaluation of the reporting information provided by CREP State partners in 2020 and 2021 is the diversity of purposes and objectives among agreements; however, given the specific and localized nature of the CREP, this is not surprising. Most of the agreement purposes were fairly generalized, and some contained water quality, water quantity, and habitat components. For example, the stated purpose of the Colorado Republican River CREP agreement is to “reduce the amount of irrigation water consumptive use, conserve energy, and reduce agricultural chemicals and sediment from entering waters of the State from agricultural lands” and to “enhance aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat through establishment of permanent vegetative cover.” By contrast, other agreements have more specific stated purposes and may only contain a single water quality, water quantity, or habitat purpose. For example, the stated purpose of the Washington CREP agreement is to “assist in the recovery of salmon species that have been listed as threatened or endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act [Public Law 93–205, 87 Stat. 884].”
Similarly, the objectives stated in CREP agreements varied greatly and ranged in number from a single objective (Louisiana Lower Ouachita River CREP agreement, New Jersey CREP agreement) to 12 objectives (Kansas Upper Arkansas River CREP agreement). Although some objectives were specific and quantifiable (for example, “reduce soil erosion from 751,633 tons per year to 259,395 tons per year, a total reduction of 492,238 tons per year” [Colorado Republican River CREP agreement]), others were too general to allow for a quantification of progress towards meeting the objective (for example, “conserve and improve wildlife habitat” [Idaho Eastern Snake River Plain CREP agreement]) or did not set a specific measurable criterion of success (for example, “increase the acres of wetlands in the watersheds for erosion control, sediment reduction, stormwater retention, and nutrient uptake” [Indiana CREP agreement]). In future agreements, care should be taken to ensure that objectives are specific and include a measurable criterion of success if subsequent quantitative information on a CREP partner’s progress towards meeting that objective is required. Also, when forming objectives, thought should be placed into methods that will be used to measure progress. In many CREP agreements that list specific objectives with quantified targets, quantification of progress towards meeting those objectives was not possible by the CREP partner because methods were not in place to measure progress or methods used did not allow for the separation of effects because of CREP conservation actions from other anthropogenic or environmental effects affecting the variable being measured.
From the progress information reported by CREP partners in 2020 and 2021, it was apparent that the partners that were most successful in reporting progress towards meeting specific objectives had objectives in which targets were expressed in terms of acreage of specific conservation cover types to be established that would meet conservation goals under the CREP agreement. Thus, if a partner had a goal to reduce sediment loss by X tons and was able to relate an acre or linear mile of a certain conservation cover type or types to sediment losses, then an objective to establish a certain number of acres or linear miles of a specific conservation cover type would provide for an easily quantifiable measure of progress. Additionally, that measure could be related back to the original environmental goal in terms of a reduction in tons of sediment lost. A wide variety of water quality, water quantity, and habitat variables can be related to land cover types in this way, as described in the “Bringing an Ecosystem Services Approach to Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Reports” section.
Although CREP agreements current in 2020 and 2021 typically have a single overarching purpose and more specific objectives, breaking the purpose down into environmental goals and then listing objectives that would be needed to reach those goals would facilitate linking environmental effects to more readily obtained information on the establishment of conservation practices. Using this format, a goal would be the specific environmental benefit desired, such as reducing nitrate runoff from fields by 100 tons annually in a target drainage basin. The objective would then be the specific conservation action needed to meet the identified goal (for example, establish 1,000 linear miles of conservation practice X along field edges in a target drainage basin). By listing goals describing desired environmental outcomes and objectives that directly relate to on-the-ground and measurable actions taken by partners, the ability to report on progress towards meeting the purpose and goals of an agreement would be greatly improved.
One of the reasons the FPAC–BC teamed with the USGS was due to the long history of the USDA and USGS working together to develop ecosystem services modeling and quantification techniques through their Integrated Landscape Modeling partnership (
The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) is a suite of open-source software models developed by the Natural Capital Project (
InVEST models rely on spatially explicit maps of a landscape to map and quantify services such as carbon storage, the provisioning of floral resources for pollinators, the provisioning of habitat for wildlife, storage of flood waters, sediment attenuation, and others. Incorporating a set of these services into evaluations of CREP conservation efforts would greatly expand the set of quantified benefits received by society from the presence of these conservation lands on the landscape. The primary products that are needed to include a set of ecosystem services are a land cover map that identifies the various land-use and conservation practices of an area of interest and information that can relate the effect of the conservation lands to service outputs. For example, wetland restoration can be a conservation action. If the wetlands restored under a conservation program are mapped and information is available on the role of those wetlands in storing carbon or providing habitat for a species or set of species, then these services can be mapped and quantified.
The best sources of data to use as model inputs are those that have been measured locally and provide information specific to each location and management action; however, lacking such data does not prevent the use of the models and the quantification of services at a coarser level until site-specific data become available. In the following sections, examples of data sources that can be used to quantify ecosystem services using the InVEST suite of models are provided. Other data sources are available in the InVEST User’s Guide at
The two main national-scale datasets used to identify various land cover types across the United States are the National Land Cover Database (NLCD;
One limitation of all currently available land cover data is that cover types are not identified down to the level of specific conservation practices; thus, other spatial information will be needed to identify the conservation cover types used by CREP partners in a region. However, once these data resources are obtained or developed, quantification of changes in ecosystem services derived from the establishment of these cover types from the implementation of conservation practices can be regularly quantified. A straightforward way to complete these quantifications is by running two sets of scenarios within the InVEST modeling framework, one with the conservation practices in place (typically called the “baseline scenario”) and a second with the practices removed; that is, changed to cropland or another cover type that represents the landscape without the practices in place (typically called the “no-practice” scenario). This methodology is used by the USDA Conservation Effects and Assessment Project to quantify conservation effects (
InVEST modeling of wildlife habitat requires spatial information on habitats for the species or group of species of interest in addition to spatial information identifying threats to those habitats. As with cover types, these data are most accurate if generated for a specific area using detailed knowledge of species-specific requirements and local threats to habitats. For some species and areas, this information is available (for example, grassland birds in the Prairie Pothole Region [
Details on using the InVEST model to quantify habitat and other ecosystem services are not provided in this report because the modeling system is constantly being improved, and such details would quickly become outdated if they were provided in this report. The best source for information on using InVEST, or other modeling systems, typically comes from the sources of the model. These details for using InVEST to quantify habitat and other ecosystem services are provided in the InVEST User’s Guide, which is available at
Floral resources that support native pollinators and honeybees are quantifiable using InVEST. Land cover maps typically used in these assessments are the maps provided by the NASS Cropland Data Layer; however, like habitats, coefficients relating the value of various land cover types in terms of providing flowering plants are regionally specific and will likely need to be developed for most areas with CREP agreements using input from regional experts. Despite this limitation, the development of coefficients for use in reporting the effect of the CREP on floral resources is straightforward using methodologies described by
Local, directly measured field estimates of carbon stocks by management type provide the most accurate quantifications of management effects. Ideally, these data would be stratified into age classes to allow for estimates of gains or losses without a change in land-use type, just age; however, as with most other ecosystem services, these local data are typically not available. To aid with the quantification of carbon stores in the absence of local, directly measured field data, information is provided on several general data sources that can be used until more specific data become available. This generalized information is not definitive and should only serve as a starting point until more accurate data are obtained. Localized data are typically obtained from State, university, literature, nongovernmental, or other sources; however, more generalized global data can be used if nothing specific to the local area or management action is available.
When localized data are absent, estimates of aboveground vegetation, belowground vegetation, dead vegetation, and soil carbon pools by broad land cover types are provided by the
Water quality and quantity variables are diverse, and the effect of various land cover types on each vary greatly across landscapes and conservation actions. For water quality and quantity services, the Integrated Landscape Modeling partnership determined that a process-based model was most useful in determining the effects of conservation actions (
In order for the FSA to better prepare national summaries for their reports to Congress, a broader view of ecosystem services is needed than that provided at the localized scale through individual CREP agreements. It is the nature of the CREP that agreements focus on specific conservation concerns at a more local scale than was possible through the CRP. CREP brought the ability to target localized needs and concerns of local and regional partners to the CRP, but the localized, specific nature of the resultant CREP agreements does not translate well to national reporting requirements. A national-scale quantification of ecosystem services is therefore needed. One potential opportunity to develop such a national assessment of ecosystem services is available in the form of the USGS’s National Biogeographic Map (NBM). The NBM already contains detailed mapping data of land use, species habitat, and species ranges (see
Development of such a national-scale mechanism to quantify ecosystem services has been a long-term goal of the Integrated Landscape Modeling partnership since its development (
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334; also known as the 2018 Farm Bill) requires that the Secretary of Agriculture submit an annual report to Congress on Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program agreements that, among other things, reports on the progress made towards fulfilling commitments outlined in the agreements. The U.S. Geological Survey developed an online reporting form designed to ensure that consistent information is submitted to the Farm Service Agency from Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program State partners. Combined with the automated importation of text from partner-provided forms to word-processing documents, individual State reports and annual reports to Congress can now be produced efficiently and in a standardized format. Additionally, use of a standardized reporting format will assist the Farm Service Agency in collecting information needed to support ecosystem service quantifications that go beyond the quantifications required from partners to document progress towards meeting the specific purposes and objectives identified in each agreement. The models within the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs suite of open-source software models offer a spatially explicit means to quantify additional ecosystem services across diverse partners in a consistent manner. Data sources are currently available to provide much of the information needed to run these models and complete simulations that would facilitate the quantification and reporting of the societal values of conservation actions taken under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The U.S. Geological Survey has the capabilities needed in the form of cloud storage and cloud computing abilities to surpass obstacles that previously limited widescale quantification of ecosystem services across the varied landscapes and the multitude of conservation practices affected and implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is the aim of this report to provide the information needed to move towards widescale monitoring of the Nation’s ecosystem services in a natural accounting framework, similar to the framework used to value financial and human capital.
On September 11, 2020, a notice requiring the use of the online reporting form for 2020 partner reporting of agreement progress was sent to each Farm Service Agency State office with Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program agreements by the Acting Deputy Administrator of Farm Programs. A copy of this notice is available for download at
In concert with developing the online reporting form, a guide was prepared to be used by Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program State partners as an aid for completing the online reporting process. This reporting guide contains computer screenshots of each page of the online form that a partner would complete, along with details of the information to be entered into each field of the form. The guide also contains hotlinks to the five sections of the report form (parts 1–5 in the guide) to assist partners as they navigate the online form submission process. The reporting guide is available for download at
After information is collected from the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program State partners using the online reporting form, Microsoft Word is used to generate individual State reports. The first step to producing the completed State reports is to export the data collected in Microsoft Forms as five separate Microsoft Excel (MS-Excel) files, one for each of the five sections of the reporting form. The five files are then merged into a single MS-Excel spreadsheet, and additional columns are added to accommodate Federal commitment data. These columns are then populated with the Federal commitment data provided directly from the Farm Service Agency national office. The final MS-Excel spreadsheet should have 136 columns that match the columns and column headings depicted in
[CREP, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program; CRP, Conservation Reserve Program; FSA, Farm Service Agency]
Column letter | Column heading |
Column A | State |
Column B | CREP name |
Column C | CREP agreement name |
Column D | Reporting year |
Column E | Summary of CREP agreement |
Column F | Acreage cap |
Column G | Reenrolled acres |
Column H | New acres |
Column I | Total acres currently enrolled |
Column J | Federal CRP rental payments |
Column K | Federal signup incentive payments |
Column L | Federal practice incentive payments |
Column M | Federal cost-share payments |
Column N | Other Federal incentive payments |
Column O | Total Federal commitments |
Column P | Non-Federal financial commitments 2 |
Column Q | Non-Federal financial commitments 3 |
Column R | Non-Federal financial commitments directly to CRP participants |
Column S | Non-Federal in-kind support 2 |
Column T | Non-Federal in-kind support directly to CRP participants |
Column U | Total non-Federal commitments |
Column V | Non-Federal in-kind support 1 |
Column W | Non-Federal in-kind support 12 |
Column X | Were there other types of non-Federal in-kind support provided during the reporting year? |
Column Y | Non-Federal in-kind support 20 |
Column Z | Non-Federal in-kind support 22 |
Column AA | Were there other types of non-Federal in-kind support provided during the reporting year? 2 |
Column AB | Non-Federal in-kind support 3 |
Column AC | Non-Federal in-kind support 32 |
Column AD | Were there other types of non-Federal in-kind support provided during the reporting year? 3 |
Column AE | Non-Federal in-kind support 4 |
Column AF | Non-Federal in-kind support 42 |
Column AG | Were there other types of non-Federal in-kind support provided during the reporting year? 4 |
Column AH | Non-Federal in-kind support 5 |
Column AI | Non-Federal in-kind support 52 |
Column AJ | Other non-Federal commitments or support 2 |
Column AK | Other non-Federal commitments or support 3 |
Column AL | Other non-Federal commitments or support directly to CRP participants |
Column AM | Goal 1 |
Column AN | Goal type |
Column AO | Progress towards meeting goal 1 |
Column AP | Difficulties - Goal 1 |
Column AQ | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? |
Column AR | Goal 2 |
Column AS | Goal type2 |
Column AT | Progress towards meeting goal 2 |
Column AU | Difficulties - Goal 2 |
Column AV | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 2 |
Column AW | Goal 3 |
Column AX | Goal type3 |
Column AY | Progress towards meeting goal 3 |
Column AZ | Difficulties - Goal 3 |
Column BA | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 3 |
Column BB | Goal 4 |
Column BC | Goal type4 |
Column BD | Progress towards meeting goal 4 |
Column BE | Difficulties - Goal 4 |
Column BF | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 4 |
Column BG | Goal 5 |
Column BH | Goal type5 |
Column BI | Progress towards meeting goal 5 |
Column BJ | Difficulties - Goal 5 |
Column BK | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 5 |
Column BL | Goal 6 |
Column BM | Goal type11 |
Column BN | Progress towards meeting goal 6 |
Column BO | Difficulties - Goal 6 |
Column BP | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 12 |
Column BQ | Goal 7 |
Column BR | Goal type 213 |
Column BS | Progress towards meeting goal 7 |
Column BT | Difficulties - Goal 7 |
Column BU | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 214 |
Column BV | Goal 8 |
Column BW | Goal type 315 |
Column BX | Progress towards meeting goal 8 |
Column BY | Difficulties - Goal 8 |
Column BZ | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 316 |
Column CA | Goal 9 |
Column CB | Goal type 417 |
Column CC | Progress towards meeting goal 9 |
Column CD | Difficulties - Goal 9 |
Column CE | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 418 |
Column CF | Goal 10 |
Column CG | Goal type 519 |
Column CH | Progress towards meeting goal 10 |
Column CI | Difficulties - Goal 10 |
Column CJ | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 520 |
Column CK | Goal 11 |
Column CL | Goal type 6 |
Column CM | Progress towards meeting goal 11 |
Column CN | Difficulties - Goal 11 |
Column CO | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 6 |
Column CP | Goal 12 |
Column CQ | Goal type 7 |
Column CR | Progress towards meeting goal 12 |
Column CS | Difficulties - Goal 12 |
Column CT | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 7 |
Column CU | Goal 13 |
Column CV | Goal type 8 |
Column CW | Progress towards meeting goal 13 |
Column CX | Difficulties - Goal 13 |
Column CY | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 8 |
Column CZ | Goal 14 |
Column DA | Goal type 9 |
Column DB | Progress towards meeting goal 14 |
Column DC | Difficulties - Goal 14 |
Column DD | Are there additional goals associated with this agreement? 9 |
Column DE | Goal 15 |
Column DF | Goal type 10 |
Column DG | Progress towards meeting goal 15 |
Column DH | Difficulties - Goal 15 |
Column DI | Were field reviews of specific acreages completed during the reporting year? |
Column DJ | Field review description |
Column DK | Field review findings |
Column DL | Were field review findings reported to FSA? |
Column DM | Outreach activity 1 |
Column DN | Do you have additional outreach activities? |
Column DO | Outreach activity 2 |
Column DP | Do you have additional outreach activities? 2 |
Column DQ | Outreach activity 3 |
Column DR | Do you have additional outreach activities? 3 |
Column DS | Outreach activity 4 |
Column DT | Do you have additional outreach activities? 4 |
Column DU | Outreach activity 5 |
Column DV | Do you have additional outreach activities? 5 |
Column DW | Outreach activity 6 |
Column DX | Success stories |
Column DY | Challenges |
Column DZ | Future actions |
Column EA | Suggestions for improvement |
Column EB | Additional information 2 |
Column EC | Photographs 2 |
Column ED | Date report completed |
Column EE | Contact |
Column EF | Contact email |
Once the combined Microsoft Excel data file is created, the “Mail Merge” feature of Microsoft Word is used to harvest data from the combined data file for direct input into State reports. A Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program State report mail merge template was created and provided to the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center for this purpose. The mail merge template is available for download at
A draft of the 2020 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program report generated for Congress is available for download at
A draft of the 2021 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program report generated for Congress is available for download at
Director, USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center
8711 37th Street Southeast
Jamestown, ND 58401
701–253–5500
For additional information, visit:
Publishing support provided by the
Rolla and Reston Publishing Service Centers