Detailed Information on the
On-going Pest and Disease Management Program Assessment

Continuing to seek and incorporate stakeholder input and review of programs.

Reorganizing brucellosis surveillance activities to better prioritize and standardize brucellosis surveillance operations in the field.

Continuing to seek and incorporate stakeholder input and review of programs.

Continuing to implement a measure of damage mitigated and prevented, as well as measuring program efficiency, based on the value of damage prevented per program dollar spent.

Requesting full funding for these ongoing programs in the annual budget, in order to reduce the need for emergency transfers.

Avoiding unrequested add-ons (earmarks).

Measure: Value of damage prevented/mitigated as a result of the ongoing control and eradication programs

Explanation:The ongoing control and eradication programs long-term goal is to prevent or mitigate damage caused by foreign plant and animal pests and disease. The measure estimates the value of agricultural products and commerce protected by having these programs in place. (Targets assume benefits from 2005 on are cumulative.)

Measure: Value of damage prevented/mitigated per program dollar spent

Explanation:The measure shows the return on investment and demonstrates how much the value of agricultural products and commerce exceeds the cost of the programs.

Measure: Percentage of cotton that is boll weevil free

Explanation:The measure tracks our success in eradicating the boll weevil, and directly feeds into the value of damage prevented/mitigated.

Measure: Percentage of cotton acreage reinfested with boll weevil

Explanation:The measure tracks the effectiveness of our boll weevil program and directly supports the long-term goal of eradicating the pest.

Measure: Percentage of cotton acreage from which the pink bollworm has been eradicated

Explanation:The measure tracks our success in meeting the program goal of controlling and eradicating the pink bollworm, and directly feeds into the value of damage prevented/mitigated.

Measure: Percentage of pink bollworm infested acreage involved in eradication

Explanation:The measure tracks the progress of moving from a control program to an eradication program and directly supports the long-term goal of eradicating the pest.

Measure: Number of brucellosis class free States and Territories

Explanation:The measure tracks our success in eradicating brucellosis and directly feeds into the value of damage prevented/mitigated

Measure: Percent of test eligible domestic cattle sampled at slaughter for brucellosis

Explanation:The number of samples is used to support the disease class status in each State and provides a confidence internal for the prevalence of the disease to our trading partners

Measure: Cost per 1,000 sterile moths produced for the cotton programs

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Federal legislation supports APHIS' ongoing control and eradication programs. Under the auspices of the legislation, the goal of the programs is to minimize risks to agricultural production, natural resources, and human health and safety by effectively managing existing agricultural pests and diseases in the U.S. In cooperation with the States, APHIS works to improve the general health of our Nation's multi-billion dollar agriculture industry through management techniques designed to eradicate harmful pests and diseases, or, if eradication is not feasible, minimize their economic impact. Individual programs considered for this PART include Aquaculture, Biological Control, Boll Weevil, Brucellosis Gypsy Moth, Golden Nematode, Imported Fire Ant, Noxious Weeds, Pink Bollworm, and Witchweed.

Evidence: The Agency's legislative authority supports a variety of ongoing control and eradication programs. For example, the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S. Code section 8301) authorizes the Agency to prevent, detect, control, and eradicate diseases and pests of animals; thereby, permitting Agency activities to eradicate brucellosis and aquatic diseases. The Act of March 2, 1931 (7 U.S. Code section 426) authorizes the Agency to conduct a program of wildlife services with respect to damaging animal species; thereby permitting the Agency to conduct wildlife management activities to protect aquaculture. The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S. Code section 7701- 7772) authorizes the Agency to detect, control, eradicate, suppress, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds. In addition, the Act identifies biological control as a desirable, low-risk means of ridding crops and plants of plant pests and noxious weeds. With such objectives, the Act permits the Agency to conduct activities to prevent golden nematode, gypsy moth, and imported fire ants from spreading and to control and eradicate cotton pests, witchweed, and other noxious weeds.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: APHIS has designed the ongoing control and eradication programs to limit the damage caused by pests and diseases established in the United States, eradicate established or domestic pests and disease, and manage wildlife depredation. By doing so, the Agency supports several sectors of the U.S. agricultural industry. The Agency's Cotton Pests Program focuses on boll weevil and pink bollworm, which have plagued cotton producers for many years, costing growers tens of millions of dollars annually in lost crop yield and control costs in 16 states. The Imported Fire Ant program is designed to prevent artificial spread of this stinging and destructive insect, which already infests 13 continental States as well as Puerto Rico, and protect the nursery industry, agricultural resources, and human health and safety in unifested areas. Although the pest spreads naturally each year, the Agency's Imported Fire Ant program prevents the pest from moving into new areas by regulating the movement of nursery stock, soil moving equipments, and other articles. The Agency's Aquaculture Program safeguards the health of domestic aquaculture by resolving conflicts caused by wildlife and eradicating diseases such as spring viremia of carp.

Evidence: APHIS' ongoing control and eradication programs target existing problems that cause substantial losses to U.S. agriculture. For over 100 years, the boll weevil has seriously affected all 16 of the cotton-producing States. The Agency's Cotton Pests Program is progressively eliminating this key pest from all cotton-producing areas of the United States and northern Mexico. The Biological Control program targets pink hibiscus mealybug, a pest of many plants, trees, and shrubs such as hibiscus, citrus, coffee, sugar cane, peanut, maize, asparagus, beans, cotton, soybean, cocoa, and many others. As the mealybug spread from the Caribbean to mainland United States, the Program developed successful biological control technology that introduced specific natural enemies. This development has been instrumental in dramatic mealybug population reductions. By resolving wildlife conflicts and eradicating disease, the Agency's Aquaculture Program supports the growth of the U.S. aquaculture industry. Aquaculture is a growing industry worth nearly $1 billion in the United States. This industry faces many challenges including wildlife damage. For example, USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Service surveyed producers from 13 States dominating the catfish industry in 2003. Nearly 70 percent of the producers reported losses due to the fish-eating bird population, which totaled $13.3 million. The Program assists and equips aquaculture producers in meeting these challenges. The imported fire ant is an aggressive, stinging insect that, in large numbers, can seriously injure and even kill livestock, pets, and even people. The ant feeds on crops and builds large, hard mounds that damage farm and field machinery, causing an estimated $1 billion in damages to U.S. agriculture each year. APHIS stakeholders in State governments strongly support continued enforcement of the Federal quarantine because the imported fire ant could easily infest areas without preventive action. Each year, the National Plant Board urges the United States Department of Agriculture to continue to support the quarantine.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: : APHIS is the Federal regulatory agency charged with regulating materials capable of spreading certain plant and animal pests and diseases. Most agricultural threats exist in more than one State, and APHIS coordinates Nation-wide activities across all affected States. Under its regulatory authority, APHIS works with State and local agencies to enforce regulatory requirements to prevent pest and disease spread and to implement eradication or control programs for economically significant pests and diseases. In partnership with other Federal, State, and local entities - APHIS has designed unique programs to minimize agricultural risks by effectively managing agricultural pests and diseases and wildlife damage on an interstate level. The Agency creates strategic alliances with stakeholders to accomplish program goals. Industry cooperation is cultivated through effective partnership agreements and open communication with stakeholders. APHIS uses cooperation and partnership strategies to encourage informed compliance with regulations and statutes, but recognizes the need to address non-compliance vigorously when cooperative efforts falter. In national programs involving several States, APHIS coordinates the efforts of State cooperators and facilitates the flow of information. The Agency's regulatory authority plays a major role in collaborative efforts. For instance, APHIS coordinates enforcement of the quarantine for areas infested by imported fire ant, gypsy moth, and witchweed, all of which cross State borders. In the case of the golden nematode, which infests only a portion of New York State, APHIS' quarantine regulations have kept the pest confined to a small area. APHIS also works with States to eradicate brucellosis, boll weevil, and pink bollworm. The Program works with State agencies and local organizations to eliminate these pests. In addition to effective partnerships, APHIS conducts activities that no other Federal, State, or local government conduct. For instance, to minimize any chance of redundancy, APHIS and USDA's Forest Service have divided responsibilities for conducting gypsy moth control activities. APHIS focuses on private lands or State lands occupying less than 640 acres. USDA's Forest Service is responsible for gypsy moth activities on larger areas and Federal lands.

Evidence: APHIS is authorized and required to safeguard U.S. agriculture and natural resources by the following legislation: The Act of March 2, 1931, (46 Stat. 1468) that addresses Animal Damage Control; the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 USC sec. 8301); and the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 USC sec. 147). These statutes delegate sole authority to APHIS for regulation and control of importation and interstate movement of plants and animals. Under its authority, APHIS coordinates program-wide activities across all affected States. Most agricultural threats exist in more than one State, and Federal quarantine enforcement and coordination is necessary because regulated items??whether live animals or plant or animal products--can be shipped through interstate commerce. For example, the Agency States and local entities to prevent the spread of Brucellosis and ultimately eradicate it from domestic cattle and swine populations. In addition, APHIS is the Federal agency charged with maintaining the European gypsy moth quarantine and preventing human assisted movement of moths out of the quarantine area. The Agency deploys approximately 250,000 pheromone-baited traps in the non-quarantine area to detect movements outside the quarantine zone. APHIS' Imported Fire Ant Program coordinates enforcement of the quarantine throughout the United States because the infested areas cross State borders and regulated businesses ship products that could serve as host materials (if not properly treated) all over the country. The Imported Fire Ant Program also coordinates regulatory blitzes among States to check on regulatory compliance. Likewise, APHIS' Cotton Pests Program coordinates efforts in the United States and northern Mexico to map cotton fields, detect key pests, and eradicate them with cultural practices, mating disruption techniques, sterile moth releases, and carefully timed and monitored insecticide applications.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: APHIS' ongoing control and eradication programs are designed effectively and efficiently and without major flaws. The Agency continually assesses each program for effectiveness and efficiency to ensure that we are not imposing unnecessary requirements. For example, many of the control and eradication programs use quarantine regulations to help prevent the artificial spread of the pests and diseases they target. We believe that quarantine regulations are the most efficient way of preventing the artificial spread of these pests because the regulations specify exactly what items pose a risk of disease spread and how they are restricted, while, in most cases, allowing regulated entities to move these items if they meet certain risk-reduction requirements. We also use cooperative agreements with State departments of agriculture to accomplish program activities efficiently. In addition, APHIS' program designs are internationally accepted. For example, Mexico has adopted the Agency's strategy for eradicating boll weevil and pink bollworm and is developing a brucellosis program based on APHIS' program design.

Evidence: APHIS often uses cooperative agreements to help accomplish program goals efficiently and effectively. In a vast majority of cases, we prefer to use cooperative agreements rather than grants because the agreements enable us to delegate certain activities while still maintaining ultimate control of these activities. We delegate activities to entities that have a local infrastructure, and local expertise and contacts. State regulations sometimes make it easier and quicker to accomplish certain tasks. For example, the Imported Fire Ant program sets regulatory policy, which includes establishing the boundaries of the Federal quarantine; determining what articles pose a risk of spreading the pest and hence should be regulated; and determining what treatments are effective in mitigating the risk of imported fire ant spread. To minimize the number of Federal staff years required and maximize efficiency, the program cooperates with State departments of agriculture to enforce the regulations and conduct surveys. An example is Agreement #06-8328-0176-CA with the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce. The agreement states that the purpose is to provide financial assistance for the State to conduct regulatory and survey activities that will provide specific information to APHIS to help prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant. The agreement lists the responsibilities of the cooperator, which include furnishing personnel to accomplish activities outlined in the work plan and submitting quarterly accomplishment reports that describe progress toward meeting goals outlined in the workplan. To improve the Cotton programs' efficiency, APHIS is combining the boll weevil and pink bollworm program to form the Cotton Pest Program. The Cotton Pest Program will conduct boll weevil and pink bollworm activities using the same resources, where previously the programs may have conducted activities in the same area but for two different pests. This will allow both the individual programs to expand areas where activities are conducted and eliminate any redundancies. This program also uses cooperative agreements to accomplish program activities. For example, Agreement #06-8412-0090-CA with the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation and the Texas Department of Agriculture states that the purpose of the agreement is to establish the cooperative relationship between the two entities mentioned above and APHIS to continue boll weevil program activities and incorporate pink bollworm activities into the program. The agreement also states that APHIS is providing assistance for survey activities in support of these programs and that the provisions of the agreement will not replace functions being conducted by the State and/or Foundation but will supplement the activities and increase program benefits to all parties. Several foreign governments have requested assistance to mirror the Agency's Brucellosis Eradication Program. In response, the Program has provided operational standards and technical training to countries such as Brazil, Chile, Egypt, and Mexico. Furthermore, through the Department of Defense, the Program has been instrumental in the establishment of Brucellosis Eradication Programs in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: APHIS assesses each individual threat affecting U.S. agriculture to determine and target the primary beneficiaries. The Agency directs resources to program areas based on these scientifically based risk assessments. For example, APHIS uses survey data and works with the National Plant Board and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture to help target resources effectively.

Evidence: APHIS communicates regularly with State and industry cooperators to ensure funding reaches intended beneficiaries. APHIS also regularly works with States and the agriculture industry to address all concerns regarding pests and diseases. For example, as the boll weevil is eradicated from certain areas, most of the funding used in those areas can be applied to areas with active eradication programs. A small portion is used to conduct surveys in free areas to ensure they remain free of the pest. The Cotton Pests Program also works closely with the National Cotton Council of America. The Council worked with APHIS on a proposed Environmental Impact Statement in connection with the potential changes to the regulation of the importation, movement and release of transgenic organisms. Furthermore, the Agency works with the Weed Science Society of America, a group of voluntary experts who participate on committees. Through this collaboration, the Agency publishes and maintains a list of noxious weeds. The Agency's findings of the golden nematode in several counties in the State of New York (Cayuga, Orleans, Steuben, and Wayne) support the Golden Nematode Program's concentration on that area. APHIS' Brucellosis Program utilizes monthly data from States to determine where allocations should be distributed. For example, the Program changed the State of Idaho's classification from Class Free to Class A after two herds were disclosed as brucellosis-affected. By changing the classification, interstate movement of cattle in the State of Idaho is minimized. The Agency's Imported Fire Ant Program provides funding to States based on the amount of work conducted in the State. States with the largest number of regulated entities receive the most funding for quarantine enforcement; States on the leading edge of the infestation receive the most funding for survey so that the program can ensure that it is regulating infested areas.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The goal of the ongoing control and eradication programs is to manage and reduce the damage caused by agricultural pests, diseases, and wildlife damage. APHIS is measuring its success in meeting this goal by tracking its progress in eradicating boll weevil, brucellosis, and pink bollworm (three of the significant pests/diseases addressed by this set of programs). By eliminating boll weevil and pink bollworm from the United States, APHIS will help save cotton producers the money spent on pesticide application and increase cotton crop yields. By eradicating brucellosis, APHIS will help U.S. producers reduce production losses and export additional products to other countries. APHIS has also developed a standardized measure that estimates the value of damage prevented and mitigated as a result of ongoing control and eradication programs. Included in these estimates are Aquaculture, Biological Control, Boll Weevil, Brucellosis, Gypsy Moth, Golden Nematode, Imported Fire Ant, Noxious Weeds, Pink Bollworm, and Witchweed.

Evidence: The long-term measure for the Boll weevil program is "The Percentage of cotton that is boll-weevil free." Increasing the percentage of acres free and decreasing the number of acres infested of these pests at the end of each season shows the progress that is being made toward the goal of complete eradication. The Pink Bollworm program's long-term measure is "Percentage of cotton acreage from which the pink bollworm has been eradicated." Like the Boll weevil measure, this measure demonstrates progress to toward complete eradication. The Brucellosis program's long term measure is the number of States and Territories that are certified as class free states. This measure allows the program to evaluate its progress toward the successful eradication of this specific disease. The new long-term measure for the ongoing control and eradication programs is the value of damage prevented/mitigated as a result of the ongoing control and eradication programs. The measure estimates the value of agricultural products and commerce protected by having these programs in place. To implement this new measure, APHIS conducted a workshop for program managers in November 2005. Analysts continue to work closely with programs to develop and analyze data to measure the value of damage prevented and mitigated.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Boll Weevil program's long-term goal is to eradicate this pest from the United States by the end of FY 2009, with a target for 90 percent of cotton acreage to be boll-weevil free at the end of FY 2006. This represents significant progress over FY 2002, when only 41 percent of cotton acreage was boll weevil free. Similarly, the pink bollworm program's target of increasing the acreage from which the pest has been eradicated from 11 percent in FY 2004 to 22 percent in FY 2006 and achieving full eradication by FY 2013 is ambitious and represents significant progress over FY 2004, when the program changed its goal from management of the pest to eradication. The long-term target for Brucellosis is for all 50 States to achieve class-free status for the disease by FY 2009, with a target for FY 2006 of having 48 States and 3 territories maintain class free status, This represents progress over FY 2002, when only 45 States had reached class-free status. APHIS began collecting data in fall 2005 to measure the value of damage prevented and mitigated as a result of the ongoing control and eradication programs and has baseline data for FY 2005; in FY 2005, the programs prevented or mitigated $79 million worth of damages.

Evidence: The brucellosis program goal is ambitious because the program expects to continue making progress toward eradication even though the presence of the disease in wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) poses a continual threat to area States ability to maintain their class-free status. The last free-ranging bison herd in the United States, considered a national treasure by many, is infected with brucellosis. Our standard practice of depopulating infected herds is not possible in this case. Accordingly, APHIS and the Department of Interior's National Park Service worked closely to develop a plan to manage the bison herd and prevent disease transmission to domestic cattle. However, the presence of the disease in wildlife is a challenge for the program; for example, Idaho and Wyoming each recently had their status downgraded due to disease transmission from wildlife. The program anticipates that Wyoming will be able to regain its Class Free Status by the end of FY 2006, with Idaho following in FY 2007. The program is moving as quickly as possible, given that it takes 12 months of negative testing to regain class-free status. The program aims to have all States and Territories in class free status by FY 2009. Back in 1990, only 29 States and 3 territories had achieved class free status for Brucellosis. By FY 2001, 45 States and 3 territories had reached class free status. The Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm program goals are also ambitious in that the programs are aiming to achieve full eradication of the pests by the end of FY 2009 and FY 2013 respectively. The program is increasing treatments in order to eliminate the remaining remnants of this pest and meet its long-term target for FY 2006 of 90 percent of cotton acreage to be boll weevil free. The program's progress in achieving its goals is evidenced by the significant improvement over FY 2002, when only 41 percent of cotton acreage was boll weevil free. Since changing the goal of the Pink Bollworm program from a suppression program to an eradication program in FY 2004, the program has eradicated the bollworm from 11 percent of affected acreage in FY 2004 and met its target of increasing the pink bollworm-free acreage to 16 percent in FY 2005. The program goal in FY 2006 is to increase the percentage to 22 percent, and is looking at double digit increases for fiscal years 2007 to 2010. The value of damage prevented depends on the current size of the problem, the rate at which the pest or disease can spread, and the price of the affected resource. We estimate the value of the benefit mitigation and prevention services performed of our ongoing control and eradication programs to be worth $472 million in FY 2006, a significant increase over the $79 million in benefit provided in FY 2005. By 2008, the programs approach $900 million in prevention and mitigation benefits.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: APHIS has established annual performance measures that track activities necessary to achieving the programs long-term goals. For example, the boll weevil programs annual performance measure tracks the results of its efforts to prevent the pest from reinfesting areas where eradication has been achieved. Preventing reinfestation is necessary for complete eradication of the pest from the United States and requires continued surveillance in free areas. The pink bollworm programs annual goal is to increase the acreage involved in the program. This program changed its goal in FY 2004 from protecting Californias San Joaquin Valley from pink bollworm to eradicating the pest from cotton-producing areas in the United States and northern Mexico. The program must convince cotton producers to join the program in order to succeed at eradication. The brucellosis programs annual goal is to sample the optimal number of cattle at slaughter to ensure that the disease is not present. .. APHIS is also establishing an efficiency measure for the ongoing control and eradication programs: the value of damage prevented and mitigated per dollar spent.

Evidence: In conjunction with the long term measure established measuring the value of damage prevented and mitigated, APHIS is establishing an annual efficiency measure to support the long term measure. The measure established is the value of damage prevented/mitigated per program dollar spent, which shows the return on investment and demonstrates the cost savings achieved by preventing or minimizing outbreaks. The Brucellosis program supports its long term measure by testing the optimal number of cattle at slaughter (at least 95 percent of eligible domestic cattle) to ensure that the disease is not present. This annual measures reduces the possibility that there are positive cases of Brucellosis in the area, and is necessary for States to maintain their class free status. Also, by testing 95 percent of all animals, the program is able to detect any positive cases of Brucellosis quickly, depopulate the herd, and ensure that this disease does not spread to other animals. By meeting these measures on an annual basis, the program is increasing the probability that eradication efforts will be completed. The Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm programs are supporting their long term initiatives by reducing to zero the percentage of cotton acreage reinfested with Boll Weevil, and increasing the percentage of Pink Bollworm infested acreage involved in eradication.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Each program assesses its work load and establishes the maximum amount of effort that can be accomplished with the available funding. If performance targets are achieved, the program reassesses future targets, and when applicable, adjusts that target. Upon initial discovery, significant reductions toward the control or eradication of a pest or disease are possible. As a program matures and there are fewer occurrences, more effort is required to find the remaining areas of infestations or infection. At this stage, where unit costs would logically increase, the goal of minimizing the increase or preventing an increase can be seen as ambitious.

Evidence: The Brucellosis program aims to maintain optimal testing rates as its annual measure. For example, at least 95% of all test eligible cattle (at least 2 years of age and capable of reproducing) must be sampled at slaughter each year. Because the program has continued to maintain high standards of testing eligible cattle, the program increased the number of States that are Class Free from 29 in 1990 to 47 States currently (with the goal of reach 48 free States next year) and reduced the number of newly infected herds from 49 to 2 in the same period of time. This testing process allowed the program to detect the recent positive herd in Idaho and allowed them to quickly depopulate the herd, thus reducing the risk of spread. This also allows the State to take the necessary actions in order to regain their Class Free status provided that they no additional positive herds are found after 12 consecutive months. The program has baseline data for this measure; it has achieved the optimal testing level in FYs 2001-2005. The Pink Bollworm program has ambitious annual targets to support the eradication of the pest by FY 2013 by increasing the percentage of Pink Bollworm infested acreage involved in eradication from 22 percent in FY 2005 to a targeted 61 percent in FY 2007. The program has baseline data for this measure. By increasing the targets each year until 100 percent is achieved, the program is that much closer to achieving eradication. The bollweevil program also has baseline data for its annual measure that tracks the free areas that become reinfested with the pest. In FY 2003, the reinfestation rate was just under 2 percent; in FY 2004, the program beat its target of keeping the reinfestation rate at 1.5 percent and actually kept it at 1 percent. The targets for the next several years are to keep the reinfestation rate below 1 percent, ensuring the success of complete eradication.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: APHIS uses cooperative agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to hold program partners accountable for the achievement of annual and long-term goals. State and university partners are committed because in most cases they have the same stakeholder base as APHIS. Furthermore, cooperators cost share on many program activities further committing them to the program goals and measures as they have a vested interest in program success.

Evidence: Cooperative agreements and MOU's have specific work and spending plans that tie to APHIS goals. Many cooperative agreements incorporate performance measures which indicate progress toward the agency goals. The Cotton Pest program works with growers, the Cotton Council, the Mexican government, and universities on actions related to surveys, control, and the eventual eradication of cotton pests. Commitment in the Cotton Pest program can be seen in the boll weevil eradication program where cotton producers vote to join with a two-thirds majority and pay 70 percent of the program's cost (over the lifetime of the program). Once the referendum is held, participation becomes mandatory according to State law. Program partners measure and report successes by measuring the percentage reduction in pest population from year to year; the information program partners submit is used to calculate the program's actual performance in meeting its annual and long-term goals. Each regional area commits to the goal of 70 - 90% reduction annually in pest population levels. If the reduction is less than the agreed-upon target for the year, the managers will question what factors contributed to this change. When cooperators are not committed to the goals of the program there are ramifications. In 2005, one of the 7 non-federal program directors was released after the program manager made a routine quality control field visit and determined deficiencies existed. Traps were not checked in a timely manner and treatments were not properly applied. Reports on the program's progress are available on APHIS website at www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pdmp/cotton/index.html. The website features a map showing what areas are involved in eradication where eradication is completed utilizing the data supplied by cooperators. Brucellosis program partners are required by law to provide 40 percent of the program's cost. In addition to meeting this cost-share requirement, our cooperators demonstrate their commitment to the program by meeting the program's annual goal of maintaining optimal testing rates (at least 95 percent of all eligible cattle brought to slaughter) and reporting the data as required by the cooperative agreement work plans. APHIS reports progress in eradicating brucellosis on its web site, where each State's disease status and the herd infection rate (derived from testing conducted and reported by States) is available. This information can be found at www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations are conducted to support program improvements, evaluate program effectiveness and ensure relevance to APHIS' interest in safeguarding American agriculture from pest and disease outbreaks. Many of the management and control programs are reviewed annually by review boards made up of industry stakeholders and State department of agriculture officials. For example, The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and the National Plant Board have standing review boards or working groups for many of the ongoing control and eradication program. The groups are independent, non-profit and non-partisan organizations that exist separate from the Federal government. The evaluations conducted by the review boards thoroughly examine all aspects of the program such as control and eradication techniques and methodology, progress in performance and meeting set goals, and regulatory impacts where applicable.

Evidence: Many of the ongoing control and eradication programs have been operating for years and have developed successful long-term strategies. For example, the Cotton Pest programs use tried and true strategies and are on the verge of meeting their goals of eradication. However, to ensure that progress continues, the National Cotton Council provides ongoing oversight and annually reviews the entire program to provide an independent assessment of the progress made year to year. NASDA's Brucellosis Committee meets each year to review the program's progress, provide stakeholder input, and make recommendations for continued improvement. For example, in the FY 2005 program review the Committee recommended that APHIS' National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) take the lead in generating a better serum for brucellosis test validation because the current serum has been inconsistent and therefore produces a higher rate of suspects. APHIS' formal response via a letter and detailed action plan to the Committee stated that NVSL is evaluating alternatives and has taken the lead in conducting inter-laboratory comparisons of each alternative. The National Plant Boards's Imported Fire Ant (IFA) Working Group meets every other year to review the program and provide an independent assessment of the program. It is made up of 6 State regulatory officials, representing both Eastern and Western regions of the United States and States that are fully infested, partially infested, and uninfested to provide a wide variety of perspectives on the program. The group focuses on the content of the IFA regulations as well as enforcement of the regulations and makes recommendations with target dates for completion. For example, the group recommended that the program coordinate inspection blitzes in the states to more effectively target and control infested fire ant areas.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The program budget is aligned with the program goals. The planning and budgeting process specifically identifies program results with changes in funding, policy, or legislative mandates. The program budgets for all costs allocated to and paid for by the agency, and resource needs are presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget.

Evidence: APHIS budgets for all program costs, both direct and indirect, in developing and submitting annual proposals so that the total cost, including administrative and indirect costs, is covered at each funding level. These costs are presented in APHIS' Explanatory Notes each year in the full cost methodology exhibit. For example, on page 15-26 of the FY 2007 Explanatory Notes, APHIS breaks down the full costs to each line item in APHIS' Pest and Disease Management functional area (including both emergency and ongoing pest and disease eradication programs) and shows the program operational and indirect costs for the functional area. The programs' budget plans are also tied to program goals. For example, programs order supplies such as traps at least a year in advance to ensure that they are available when needed. These orders are made in accordance with program plans to accomplish the level of survey called for to meet annual program targets and make progress towards long-term goals. Additionally, cooperative agreements have specific work and spending plans that tie into APHIS goals. Furthermore, in the Explanatory Notes submitted to Congress as the Agency's official budget request, we specifically link funding requests to performance targets. For example, in FY 2007 APHIS proposed a merger of the Pink Bollworm and Boll Weevil programs into the Cotton Pests program at a funding level of $15,951,988. The accompanying increase statement (on pages 15-53 and 15-54 of APHIS' FY 2007 Explanatory Notes) includes our goal of achieving eradication of the targeted pests at this funding level by FY 2009 for boll weevil and FY 2013 for pink bollworm. In FY 2007, we also propose a decrease of $1,498,000 for the brucellosis program to encourage cooperators to assume responsibility for certain activities. The decrease statement (on page 15-53 of the Explanatory Notes)states that this will not impact our ability to continue meeting the annual target of testing at least 95 percent of eligible cattle at slaughter. In the Status of Programs section of the APHIS Explanatory Notes, APHIS describes program performance accomplishments and shows what progress was made during the previous year towards the programs' long-term goals. For example, the Brucellosis entry (pages 15g-18 and 15g-19 of the FY 2007 Explanatory Notes) describes the results of annual testing/annual performance targets and demonstrates progress toward the long-term goal of eradicating the disease. The Imported Fire Ant entry (page 15g-25) notes that APHIS met its performance target of zero infestations outside of regulated areas, and the Biological Control program entry (pages 15g-17 to 15g-18) met its target for the percent of technology transferred to States involved in certain programs. Because APHIS has the resources to meet performance goals for these programs, increases have not been requested. The Pink Bollworm entry (page 15g-27) also notes the program met its performance target for FY 2005. Because additional resources are needed to meet the Pink Bollworm program's long-term goal of eradicating this pest and because the program is operating closely with the boll weevil program, APHIS is merging the two programs.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The programs regularly review their progress toward meeting their goals in conjunction with strategic plans to address any deficiencies. If a program is not meeting its targets, program officials review all aspects of the program, including its strategy and operational management.

Evidence: One step that APHIS has taken to improve strategic planning for the ongoing control and eradication programs is to implement a new standardized long-term measure incorporating the value of damage prevented or mitigated by each individual program. By preventing and reducing damage caused by these pests and diseases, APHIS saves money for agricultural producers and U.S. taxpayers and supports U.S. producers ability to export their products. In the process of implementing this measure, APHIS held a workshop for its program managers on performances measurement, data needed for the new measure, and program logic modeling. We have made significant progress in gathering data to establish a baseline for the new measure. The individual eradication and control programs regularly review their progress towards meeting strategic goals. For example, the boll weevil program fell short of meeting its performance target for FY 2005. In response, the national program manager evaluated operations from each of the seven operational regions to determine if any strategic planning problems existed. While the mild winter temperatures were largely to blame for program's performance, the program manager concluded that in at least one area, poor management was also responsible and the regional manager's contract was terminated. The program also adjusted it performance targets for FY 2006 and 2007. The brucellosis program is also taking steps to ensure that the remaining states and territories continue to test at the required testing levels ensuring that no additional herds are found so that each State and territory can maintain Class Free Status. APHIS and Wyoming have established the Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination Team (WBCT) to develop action plans for elk herd units and cattle herds in the Wyoming portion of the GYA to continue efforts to eliminate Brucellosis from livestock and wildlife. APHIS continues to work closely with the National Park Service to maintain a viable bison population and eradicate Brucella in the wildlife, with the ultimate goal of preventing transmission to domestic livestock herds and eliminating Brucella from GYA.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: The ongoing control and eradication programs that use regulations to accomplish their goals include Brucellosis, Imported Fire Ant, Golden Nematode, Gypsy Moth, Noxious Weeds, and Witchweed. Regulations are necessary for these programs to achieve their goal of preventing pest or disease spread. These programs address pests or diseases that can be moved to new areas through articles of trade or commerce, such nursery stock or live cattle. Without regulations, infested materials could be routinely shipped around the country. As the Boll Weevil program nears eradication, it is in the process of publishing a proposed rule to establish boll weevil quarantine regulations and uniform standards and guidelines for surveillance in weevil-free areas. When the program initially began, quarantine regulations were not necessary because the pest was already established throughout cotton-producing areas. As areas achieved eradication, individual States established quarantine regulations to prevent the pest from being moved back into newly weevil-free areas on farm equipment and with cotton seed. APHIS's new boll weevil quarantine regulations will be used on an emergency basis if boll weevil is detected, but will not impose unnecessary restrictions. All regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to the achievement of the goals. USDA regulations have a preamble stating the goal of the program to justify the need for the regulation.

Evidence: All regulations appear in the Federal Register and are reviewed by APHIS regularly. Regulations for the Brucellosis program state that the purpose of the program is to eradicate the disease from cattle, bison, and swine herds. The regulations are scrutinized by program managers, States and industry, and are amended as necessary to ensure the guidelines are as clear and up to date as possible. The most recent update to the brucellosis regulations appeared in the Federal Register on August 12, 2005, and added Florida to the list of validated brucellosis-free States for swine (removing restrictions and testing requirements on swine being shipped out of Florida). We included an explanation of the brucellosis program and how the regulations are designed to prevent disease spread. APHIS has also recently published updates to the IFA (August 2005 and July 2004) and golden nematode regulations (February 2005), each of which include background information explaining how the pests can be spread and how our regulatory requirements help prevent pest spread.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: APHIS regularly collects performance information, including data from partners, and utilizes the data to improve program performance, allocate resources, and develop and prioritize future projects. The data is integral to program managers' decision-making abilities for the program. Without accurate survey and other performance data collected by cooperators and reported to APHIS according to the terms set by cooperative agreement, APHIS would not be able to make effective program management decisions, set quarantine boundaries, or plan activities for upcoming periods.

Evidence: Program partners submit data at regular intervals specified by the cooperative agreements, usually on a quarterly basis, as well as annual performance reports. For example, Agreements #06-8328-0176-CA (with Mississippi for Imported Fire Ant) and #06-8412-0090-CA (with Texas for Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm) require the cooperators to submit quarterly reports. Survey data collected by the program and program partners for performance measures is used to gauge the effectiveness of program activities, determine resource allocations, target the next year's activities, and update quarantine boundaries. For example, the Agency provides pink bollworm and boll weevil workers with a hand scanner to take into the field when checking cotton pest traps. The workers enter a code in the scanner to indicate which pest the trap is for (PBW or BW) and enter data about the contents of the trap. The program determines success by measuring the percentage reduction in pest population from year to year. There is a goal of 70 - 90 percent reduction annually in pest population levels. If the reduction is less, the managers will investigate to determine the reason (unusually warm winter, etc.). Survey and treatment data is recorded electronically each day, with regular verbal summaries provided to APHIS by non-federal program managers. The program manager also reviews data reports during annual site visits to the 7 program areas. Program managers provide an annual summary of acres that are weevil-free versus involved in eradication. Survey data is used to determine whether additional treatments are needed to complete eradication in a particular area and whether cooperators are working effectively. One boll weevil field manager's contract was not renewed after FY 2005 because of poor performance and program management. The Brucellosis program's partners conduct the testing required to determine if their States are maintaining their disease-free status and report the data to APHIS. APHIS uses this information to determine the U.S. disease prevalence rate, adjust surveillance priorities and/or take action to address newly detected herds.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program managers are responsible for formulating plans and applying resources to achieve the goals and objectives of the program. Managers are evaluated annually. Federal managers are held accountable for cost and performance results. The Regional and Area Offices submit regular status of funds reports. Cooperators submit work and financial plans, which must be approved by the program to ensure the desired overall program results.. Cooperators are required to provide, at a minimum, quarterly status reports that include budget object class breakouts and documentation, actual performance data, and milestones for the next reporting period. Based on the information provided, the program releases the funding. In addition, the cooperator must submit within 90 days of the expired agreement an accomplishment report. If the cooperator does not produce the desired results, the agreement is not renewed without demonstration of significant improvement.

Evidence: Program managers are responsible for assessing and directing program policies and regulations to assure alignment with program goals and objectives. The successes or failures of program performance are a direct reflection of program management at all levels and are reflected in employee performance evaluations. Cooperators must give APHIS an Accomplishment Report, which indicates the completion of agreed upon work, within 90 days of the end of the agreement. For the Cotton Pests Program, good performance is indicated by a consistent increase in land area that is free of cotton pest infestation and by a lack of re-infestation. For the Brucellosis Program, managers are responsible for ensuring the Brucellosis regulations are being followed by the States. If the States are not abiding by program criteria, program managers are responsible for ensuring deficiencies are addressed appropriately. In 2005, in the Cotton Pests Program, one of the seven non-federal program directors was released after the program manager made a routine quality control field visit and determined deficiencies existed. Traps were not checked in a timely manner and treatments were not properly applied. This problem was quickly solved. In addition, Dr. DeHaven, the Administrator, holds APHIS Deputies accountable by having quarterly performance measure reviews and having the reviews influence each Deputy's performance appraisal.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds appropriated for the Noxious Weeds, Witchweed, Biological Control, Golden Nematode, Gypsy Moth, Brucellosis, Boll Weevil, and Pink Bollworm Programs are obligated so that pests threatening American agriculture can be controlled or eradicated. APHIS monitors spending through its monthly status-of-funds process to ensure that funds are being spent in a timely manner for their intended purpose. Additionally, each program develops allocation and spending plans at the national and regional levels. When activities are conducted with program partners through cooperative agreements, the cooperator is required to submit work and financial plans detailing how and on what schedule the funds will be spent. Cooperators must then submit spending reports and documentation in order to be reimbursed for expenditures.

Evidence: Headquarters and regional program managers estimate spending by budget object class at the beginning of the fiscal year. APHIS' financial managers track spending throughout the year and compare it to initial operating plans. If spending does not match the operating plan, program financial managers investigate the reason and take corrective action if necessary. Alternatively, if adjustments to spending plans need to be made to achieve annual targets, programs may reallocate funding during the year. For example, when newly infected herds are discovered, the Brucellosis program provides additional funds to the affected State to address the find and conduct epidemiological work to ensure that all exposed and infected animals are found. Each month, Program Financial Managers and APHIS' Budget Staff review current spending results and projections to assure funds are being obligated in a timely manner and for their intended purpose. In FY 2005, the ongoing control and eradication programs obligated 99.002 percent of the funds appropriated to them. At the end of April 2005, the 7th month of the fiscal year, the programs had obligated approximately 62 percent of their funds. The Budget staff then briefs the Agency's Administrator each month on spending. APHIS accountants and program financial managers collaborate throughout and at the end of the year close out to ensure that spending data and reports are accurate.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The programs' new efficiency measure demonstrates that the ongoing control and eradication programs are operating efficiently over time. One of the programs, Pink Bollworm, produces sterile moths for release as part of its eradication effort. The program has continuously met its production targets for production of sterile moths. The programs also use IT systems to increase efficiency by reducing the time it takes to collect and analyze data. APHIS has adopted an efficiency measure that shows the value of damage prevented and mitigated per dollar spent. This measure shows outcome per dollar spent. It provides the right incentives to program managers to maximize the amount of prevention and mitigation due to pests and disease, without mandating specific procedures. By using an efficiency measure that provides the correct incentives but does not mandate specific tools, techniques, or procedures, the layers of the management structure are compressed so as to empower front line managers.

Evidence: The program's efficiency measure indicates that the programs provided services worth more than $79 million in FY 2005 with resources going into the programs in the amount of $70 million, for a rate of return of approximately $1.13 for every dollar spent. The Pink Bollworm program produced 4 million sterile moths per day in FY 2004 and met its goal of raising production rates to 10 million per day in FY 2005. The program is currently meeting its target of producing 22 million per day thereby providing additional sterile moths needed as the program expands the area involved in eradication. The program has also consistently reduced the cost to produce sterile moths. In FY 2004, it cost us $3,333 per million. We reduced the costs to $1,389 per million in FY 2005 and an estimated $1,248 per million for FY 2006. APHIS program utilize technology to achieve efficiency. For example, the Generic Disease Database is used to collect and maintain the data gathered through various Agency animal disease surveillance programs. Over time, the database will provide a single data repository for all the active animal disease surveillance programs. The ongoing analysis of State requirements will result in the elimination of numerous redundant local applications, and reduce or eliminate the data transfers needed to aggregate surveillance information to accommodate national reporting requirements. A web interface and a single repository will eliminate the necessity to support multiple combinations of client hardware and software, as well as remove the need to disseminate future software modifications. A common interface will also reduce training issues and improve data integrity. Additionally, during FY 2005, the Brucellosis Program formally adopted the fluorescent polarization assay (FPA) into its cadre of accepted Brucellosis tests. The FPA test is more sensitive and specific than other Brucellosis tests and allows for a higher confidence level in the diagnosis.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: : APHIS' ongoing control and eradication programs work with other Federal agencies, State Departments of Agriculture, Native American tribal communities, and State colleges and universities, and local and private programs. The effectiveness of these relationships enhances our ability to make progress in controlling and eradicating the agricultural pests and diseases as reflected in our performance results. Budget limitations and expanding mission demands require widespread collaboration among stakeholders to build affordable cross-functional networks to accomplish mutual goals. National and worldwide demands require integration and cooperation among external partners and other Federal Agencies, as well as within APHIS. We are committed to network and share strategies at all levels to achieve effective program management.

Evidence: : APHIS, the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI) National Park Service (NPS), the Forest Service, and the State of Montana published a Record of Decisions Interagency Bison Management Plan that finalized a long-term management plan for the Yellowstone bison herd that nomadically move from Yellowstone National Park into Montana. This plan, dealing with brucellosis, ended more than 8 years of public rulemaking, court proceedings, and intense negotiations with Montana officials. The plan relies on spatial and temporal separation of bison from cattle that graze in areas surrounding Yellowstone National Park. APHIS personnel assist with Interagency Bison Management Plan operations, including 116 hazing operations of 2,648 bison in FY 2005. All but 78 of the bison were successfully moved back into the Park, significantly reducing the risk of disease transmission between the bison and domestic cattle. APHIS also works closely with international partners when outbreaks or infestations cross international borders. For example, APHIS and Mexico are working together to eliminate the boll weevil and pink bollworm from cotton producing areas in the southern United States and Northern Mexico. Based on the success of the U.S. Boll Weevil program, Mexico adopted our program strategy and performance measures. The two programs are coordinating efforts, working in contiguous zones to maximize the benefits of the reduction of pest populations. For example, APHIS is expanding the pink bollworm program into Arizona this year and Mexico is expanding its program into the State of Senora, just south of Arizona. The two countries have established a Technical Advisory Committee chaired by an APHIS official to ensure continued cooperation and success. Mexico's pink bollworm and boll weevil programs are showing comparable progress in eradicating the two pests, meaning that contiguous areas in the southern United States and northern Mexico are becoming free of the pests at the same time. This prevents areas close to the Mexican border from becoming reinfested. Without these simultaneous cooperative and collaborative efforts, the United States would likely become reinfested with the pests. APHIS and the Forest Service cooperate in the management of the Gypsy Moth Control program. APHIS is responsible for eradication of all isolated infestations not exceeding 640 acres on State or private land outside the quarantine area. The Forest Service manages the gypsy moth quarantine zone. This allows the two Agencies to cover all affected areas and reduces redundancy.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program uses strong financial management practices. The program receives an annual allocation and is held accountable for keeping its spending within this amount. Program financial managers track financial data through the existing accounting system (FFIS). They also meet regularly with APHIS budget staff to review spending, obligation program status, and to ensure that payments are made properly for the intended purpose. The USDA/Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises audits and investigations to prevent and detect fraud and to improve the effectiveness of USDA programs by recommending changes that will increase efficiency and reduce waste.

Evidence: USDA received a clean audit opinion for FY 2005. OIG noted that USDA had made significant improvements in financial management, but noted two material weaknesses where USDA needs further improvement (financial reporting and IT security and controls). While these issues are being addressed at the Department level, APHIS has taken additional steps to address its IT security issue (monthly scanning of all computers for viruses). APHIS will work with the Department to address any remaining issues; however, the items identified by OIG do not affect day-to-day management of the ongoing control and eradication programs. Procurement for these programs is based on established procedures, controls, and competitive practices. We review spending for these programs on a monthly basis, and our financial management system (the USDA Foundation Financial Information System, or FFIS) meets statutory requirements as well as those established by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. Financial information from FFIS is downloaded nightly into our reporting system for tracking and analysis, and system assurance routines are run to ensure that the data is accurate. USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer reviews APHIS' financial statements on a quarterly basis. Among the areas of concern to the Chief Financial Officer are abnormal general ledger balances (accounting inconsistencies); APHIS has corrected all material abnormal balances identified by the Chief Financial Officer. Any new material abnormal balances that occur are researched and corrected within 30 days. APHIS also reports on a quarterly basis on the Agency's compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act and the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. In order to ensure compliance, APHIS Financial Management Division and Information Technology Division worked together to address overlapping issues. The program ensures that payments are made in accordance with the intended purpose to minimize erroneous payments. APHIS' Review and Analysis Branch recently conducted audits of the APHIS Pest and Disease Management programs under the requirements of the Improper Payments Act. In conducting the audits, APHIS officials assessed the programs' vulnerabilities to improper payment, the internal controls in place to prevent them, and (based on these identified vulnerabilities and controls) the programs' level of risk of making improper payments. The auditors concluded that the programs are at low risk for improper payments because of internal checks and balances within the automated financial systems and in-house investigative reviews and audits of APHIS cooperative agreements and employee misconduct.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Program effectiveness is reviewed by program managers on a regular basis, and improvements to program management are made as needed. Additionally, APHIS' Review and Analysis Branch conducts risk assessments on APHIS programs and cooperative agreements each year to determine which require further review to prevent or address management deficiencies. For agreements, the risk assessments take into account the amount of the agreement, whether APHIS experienced problems with the cooperator in the past, the date of the last review, and any issues raised by program managers, among other things. Those that score highest undergo a formal review. If problems warranting correction are documented during the review, the Review and Analysis Branch makes recommendations and follows up to ensure cooperators are taking corrective action. If problems are found during internal APHIS reviews, the Branch works with the program or office to develop a remediation plan with a schedule for making the corrections.

Evidence: As an example of a regular program review, the Boll Weevil program manager conducts yearly quality control review trips to each area with an active eradication program and visits post-eradication areas every other year. During the quality control visits, the manager randomly selects field areas and evaluates field operations for efficiency and compliance with program protocols. For example, the managers makes sure that the area is mapped correctly; that trap locations are marked, checked at regular intervals, and dates of trap checks are recorded on the trap; and that treatments are conducted properly, among other things. During a summer 2005 visit, the program manager discovered that one field operations manager was not managing the area program according to protocols, and the manager's contract was not renewed. To improve program management, APHIS is combining the Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm programs into one Cotton Pests program. This will allow for a more efficient use of resources, as the areas affected by the two pests overlap. As another example, the brucellosis program is working towards a long-term goal of eradicating brucellosis from cattle, bison, cervid, and swine herds in the United States. If a cooperator loses Class Free status, APHIS will work with the State to identify where the problem might be and allocate additional resources to help address the problem. When Wyoming lost status, APHIS allocated resources to the State for testing and adult vaccinating of high-risk herds. The IFA program is improving its management through revisions to cooperative agreements with States quarterly reporting requirements. States will be required to submit the number of nurseries and other businesses that have compliance agreements to move IFA-host material, the number of compliance inspections, and the uninfested area surveyed every 3 months. These reporting requirements will help APHIS officials monitor States' use of the funds and help ensure that decisions are made on accurate, up-to-date data.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: APHIS consults with State, local, and tribal officials, as well as industry, on an ongoing basis about animal and plant health issues of concern. All APHIS programs are committed to a rulemaking process that provides for full public participation. Additionally, APHIS conducts all necessary analyses, such as those required by the Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction Acts, as well as considers and responds to all comments received when finalizing regulations.

Evidence: In the last several years, APHIS has published two rules amending its compensation regulations to provide for indemnity programs for losses related to two Aquaculture programs. When finalizing the first, "Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA); Payment of Indemnity," published April 28, 2004, APHIS discussed the two comments (which raised a total of 7 issues) received on the initial interim rule. For example, both commenters expressed disappointment in the Federal contribution (60 percent level of indemnification). APHIS responded that Federal compensation is not intended to reimburse producers all disease-related losses but to provide an incentive for the producers to participate in eradication programs. The commenters also focused on the requirement to have an accredited veterinarian perform certain activities in order to be eligible for indemnity, provisions allowing salvageable fish to be sold for rendering, perceived differences between indemnification programs for terrestrial and aquatic animals, and the value to be paid for broodfish. APHIS explained in detail the reasons it was not changing the rule based on the comments, but agreed with the commenter that broodfish should be valued at a higher rate than fish raised for meat only. (However, no broodfish were depopulated as a result of the ISA program). The preamble to the regulation also discusses the results of analyses conducted under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Acts. APHIS has recently published updates to the quarantine regulations for the Gypsy Moth, Imported Fire Ant, Golden Nematode, and Witchweed programs. In each final rule (either finalizing proposed rules or affirming interim rules), we address the comments received. For these small and relatively non-controversial programs, we receive few comments. One objected to Federal funds being used at all to address golden nematode, but the comment did not actually address the action being taken by the rule, i.e. adding one field in New York State to the quarantined area. In the case of the Witchweed program, we received one comment stating that a farm in North Carolina that should not have been included in our quarantine because it had been recently released from quarantine by the State; after confirming the information with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, we removed the farm from the list of quarantined areas when finalizing the rule. The Imported Fire Ant (IFA) program is preparing to publish proposed regulations adding a new product, pine straw, to the list of materials regulated for IFA. The rule is not likely to be economically significant, but the program does take views of affected parties into account. Pine straw (a landscaping product) is a potential pathway for IFA spread. But most pine straw dealers are small businesses that would be impacted by new regulations. APHIS is preparing an Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking to solicit input from the industry to balance the need to prevent IFA spread through the pathway with the ability of pine straw dealers to remain in business.

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: APHIS prepares regulatory impact, regulatory flexibility, and cost-benefit analyses when required by the cited acts and executive order. Most regulations for the ongoing control and eradication programs are not designated significant. However, APHIS prepares regulatory flexibility analyses as required for all regulations. The only recent significant regulation published for the programs evaluated here was "Infectious Salmon Anemia; Payment of Indemnity," published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2002.

Evidence: APHIS published an interim on April 10, 2002, implementing regulations to pay indemnities to producers in the State of Maine whose fish were destroyed due to infectious salmon anemia (ISA). In the interim rule, we published the results of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis done in accordance with 5 U.S.C 603 (Regulatory Flexibility Act). We invited comments and requested data on the number and kind of small entities that might incur benefits or costs from the rule. While no information was submitted in the comments, we conducted a final regulatory analysis as required by Section 604 of the Act for the affirmation of the interim rule published on April 24, 2004. APHIS also prepared other required analyses, including a discussion of options considered other than the use of indemnity payments, a cost-benefit analysis, and an analysis of the potential impacts on small entities.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The regulations are designed to achieve the program's goal of mitigating the damage caused by the pests and diseases addressed and safeguarding U.S. agriculture. Each regulation must undergo regular economic analysis to ensure that its design yields the maximum benefits.

Evidence: In its decisions to implement indemnity programs for aquaculture producers for losses related to infectious salmon anemia and spring viremia of carp, APHIS considered the relative worth of the industries versus the costs associated with paying indemnities. We determined that the benefits of providing indemnities to the few affected producers (thereby providing incentive for them to participate in the program, which also included requirements for future best management practices in the case of spring viremia of carp) far outweighed the costs of the program. Without full participation by producers, the remaining pockets of infection could have led to larger outbreaks. APHIS recently updated its swine brucellosis regulations by adding the State of Florida to the list of validated brucellosis-free States. This action removes certain testing restrictions on the interstate movement of breeding swine from Florida to other States. Breeding stock producers in the State now save an estimated $7.50 to $15.00 per animal when shipping breeding swine to other States. The requirements the State met to demonstrate its brucellosis-free status provide assurance to swine producers in other States that Florida swine will not pose the risk of spreading brucellosis. In a recent update adding 19 counties in two States to the IFA quarantine regulations, APHIS looked at how many businesses (mainly nurseries) would be affected by the expanded quarantine and analyzed the cost of regulatory compliance. For example, the treatment cost for a standard shipment of nursery plants is $200, which represents, between 0.8 and 2 percent of the value of a standard load of plants (between $10,000 and $250,000, depending on the type of plants). Because the program has worked to ensure that there are effective and inexpensive treatment options for moving nursery stock out of quarantined zones, APHIS concluded that the benefits of preventing IFA infestations in new areas substantially outweighed the costs of regulatory compliance.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program's goal is to eradicate and/or control serious agricultural pests and diseases and manage the damage these pests cause, and the program is tracking its success by measuring its progress in eliminating the boll weevil and pink bollworm from cotton-producing areas and in eradicating brucellosis from domestic cattle in the United States. Each pest and disease program has a detailed plan with strategic goals and associated measures. The cotton pests and the brucellosis programs represent the bulk of the funding received for the ongoing control and eradication programs. The program and its State and industry partners have made significant progress toward the goals of eradicating boll weevil, pink bollworm and brucellosis. The program is also implementing a new measure designed to quantify the value of the damage prevented or mitigated through its activities. While we have not set targets in previous years, the data evaluated for the measure indicates that the ongoing control and eradication programs are meeting their goal of managing the damage caused by the pests and diseases they address.

Evidence: The program increased the amount of cotton acreage that is boll weevil free from 41 percent in 2002 to 56 percent in 2003 to 80 percent in 2004. The program met its targets for FYs 2002 and 2003 and exceeded its FY 2004 target by 10 percent. While falling short of meeting its target for FY 2005 (the program increased the amount of weevil-free acreage to 81 percent instead of 85 percent as intended), the program still made progress (despite the mild winter temperatures that allowed a higher than average percentage of boll weevils to survive the winter). But since 1995, the program has reduced the number of infested cotton acres from more than 15 million to approximately 1.5 million and is on track to eradicate the pest by the end of FY 2009. The program's main partners are the seven regional boll weevil organizations that conduct the eradication work using funds provided through APHIS agreements and grower referendums. Cotton growers vote to join the eradication program and pay for a large portion of it, thereby demonstrating their commitment to the program. APHIS and the regional organizations agree on how much can be achieved each year and work together to accomplish the goals; the regional organizations provide yearly reports that APHIS uses to report the boll weevil program's performance achievements. In 2005, the cotton programs (boll weevil and pink bollworm combined) provided an estimated $62 million dollars in eradication services with a budget of $49.2 million, or approximately $1.26 worth of services for every dollar invested (as determined through analysis conducted for the new APHIS long-term measures). The value does not include the program's prevention and mitigation services. Since changing the goal of the Pink Bollworm program from a suppression program to an eradication program in FY 2004, the program has eradicated the bollworm from 11 percent of affected acreage in FY 2004 and met its target of increasing the pink bollworm-free acreage to 16 percent in FY 2005. The program is on track to achieve eradication in 2013.The brucellosis program has also demonstrated continual progress towards achieving the long-term goal of eradicating brucellosis. In FY 1990, 29 States had reached class-free status; in FY 1995, 34 States had reached class-free status; in FY 2000, there were 45 States in class-free status; and in FY 2005, the program met its goal for 48 States to have reached class-free status. The States are strong partners in the brucellosis program; they conduct and report the testing that APHIS uses to determine whether they are free of brucellosis or not. Since 1984, the brucellosis program has reduced the estimated number of positive herds from 8,482 to 2 (as of February 28, 2006).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program and its partners have met their annual targets for the pink bollworm, boll weevil, and brucellosis programs in areas such as increasing the acres involved in pink bollworm eradication, preventing areas from which the boll weevil has been eradicated from becoming reinfested, and testing cattle at slaughter for brucellosis

Evidence: The pink bollworm program began as a suppression program and changed its goal to eradication in FY 2004. The program has made an impressive start eradicating the bollworm from 11 percent of affected acreage in FY 2004 and meeting its target of increasing the pink bollworm-free acreage to 16 percent in FY 2005. The boll weevil program exceeded its annual target of preventing the reinfestation of acreage from which the pest had been eradicated in FY 2004. Some reinfestation is unpreventable, but the program aimed to allow less than 1.5 percent of weevil-free areas to be reinfested in FY 2004 and was actually able to keep the figure at 1 percent. The program met its FY 2005 target to keep the reinfestation rate below 1 percent. Preventing reinfestation requires the program partners to carefully check surveillance traps and retreat areas if necessary. The brucellosis program has met its target to test 95 percent of test eligible domestic cattle sampled at slaughter from FY 2001 through FY 2005 The program s State partners collect this information and report it to APHIS in order to retain their class-free status.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program's new efficiency measure demonstrates that the ongoing control and eradication programs are operating efficiently over time. The programs also use IT systems to increase efficiency and reduce the time it takes to collect and analyze data. One of the programs, Pink Bollworm, produces sterile moths for release as part of its eradication effort. The program meets its production targets for production of sterile moths.

Evidence: The program's efficiency measure indicates that the programs provided services worth more than $212 million in FY 2005 with resources going into the programs in the amount of $70 million, for a rate of return of approximately $3 dollars for every dollar spent. APHIS also uses information technology to gain efficiency. The program's Generic Database (GDB) provides a single data repository for the Brucellosis program with a web-based interface accessed by both APHIS officials and State partners. It eliminates the need for numerous local systems and reduced the need for data transfers needed to aggregate surveillance data at the national level. The GDB's business case (OMB 300) received a score of 33 out of 50 and was rated well managed by OMB. The GDB also consistently meets its earned-value management (EVM) targets on schedule. OMB's Chief Information Officer rated the GDB "green" based on its EVM scores of 0.94 for cost performance index and 0.99 for schedule performance index (out of possible scores of 1.0). The Pink Bollworm program produced 4 million sterile moths per day in FY 2004 and met its goal of raising production rates to 10 million per day in FY 2005. The program is currently meeting its target of producing 22 million per day thereby providing additional sterile moths needed as the program expands the area involved in eradication. The program has also consistently reduced the cost to produce sterile moths. In FY 2004, it cost us $3,333 per million. We reduced the costs to $1,389 per million in FY 2005 and an estimated $1,248 per million for FY 2006.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: APHIS is the lead Federal Agency in eradicating agricultural pests and diseases in the United States. The ongoing control and eradication programs coordinate national agricultural pest and disease eradication programs in the United States and work cooperatively with State and other Federal agencies (such as USDA's Forest Service and the Department of the Interior) involved in these efforts, but there are no other comparable Federal or non-federal programs on the same scale in the United States. Because APHIS coordinates eradication efforts with State and Federal partners, often working through cooperative agreements in the case of State partners, we cannot objectively compare APHIS' performance with those programs. However, the ongoing control and eradication programs are very successful and lead coordination efforts with other programs, both at the State level and internationally.

Evidence: : APHIS' Boll Weevil eradication program is one of the Agency's most successful programs. With continued funding, the program expects to eradicate the pest from the United States by the end of FY 2009. Full eradication of plant pests is extremely difficult to achieve because of many factors (including the ease with which they can be spread through the movement of host materials and weather-related events), but the Boll Weevil program is on track to accomplish this goal, saving producers the money spent on control costs and significantly reducing the need for future pesticide application. For example, after the boll weevil was eradicated from Georgia, average gross crop revenues increased from $70 million per year to $400 million per year. After eradication is accomplished in a particular area, local producers experience a 40 to 90 percent reduction in their overall use of insecticides. APHIS and its Mexican counterpart are using the same strategies against boll weevil; the Mexican program is based on APHIS' program design. Using this program design, the two programs are making excellent progress and are on the verge of eradication. Some States have used APHIS' Cattle and Bison Brucellosis Uniform Methods and Rules as a model for eradicating brucellosis in other species such as goats. Additionally, Mexico is modeling its brucellosis program on the U.S. program.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The Pest and Disease Management programs receive ongoing oversight from the National Plant Board and the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA). The Cotton Pests programs also receive oversight from the National Cotton Council. The Plant Board and USAHA reviews indicate that the eradication and control programs are effective and achieving results and often result in additional improvements to the programs. Additionally, U.S. trading partners' regulatory agencies regularly review the Brucellosis program in determining whether to allow U.S. meat and dairy products into their countries.

Evidence: Working groups assigned to individual programs ensure that programs are operating effectively and meeting stakeholder expectations regarding results. They also offer avenues for ongoing improvement in order to more effectively control agricultural pests and diseases. For example, the Plant Board's IFA Working Group has recommended that the program hold increased inspection blitzes and improve coordinated timing of the blitzes among affected States. They recommended increased enforcement presence and will increase awareness of the program's requirements among regulated nursery shippers, and APHIS is coordinating additional inspection blitzes as a result. USAHA, a science-based, non-profit, voluntary organization that has existed in some form since 1897, annually reviews the brucellosis program. In FY 2005, the organization found that the program methodologies and techniques continue to be effective in eradicating the disease from the States. However, minor improvements would be needed to completely eradicate the disease by 2009. One such recommendation included updating the eradication plan for the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) where the last remaining infected herds are known to be and where the traditional program strategies are not applicable because the bison are considered a national treasure. As a result, the program is currently working with states and other Federal Agencies to identify potential new ways to update the GYA eradication plan to be on track for eradication by 2009.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: Through regulatory impact analyses of significant rules, APHIS ensures that its goals and benefits are achieved with minimum societal cost and maximum benefit. For example, APHIS regulation implementing indemnity payments for fish destroyed as a result of ISA encouraged participation in the program led to lower overall costs. The IFA and Brucellosis programs in particular implement and enforce quarantine regulations to prevent the spread of each pest/disease. In 2000, APHIS held four public forums to get public input into whether the Agency should continue to enforce the IFA quarantine. Forty-nine States (all but Hawaii) and national and local nursery industry organizations (including those that represent nurseries located within the IFA-quarantined areas) overwhelmingly supported the quarantine. The nursery industry supports the Federal quarantine because it is in the industry's best interest to have to meet a single national standard rather than different standards for each State. APHIS reviews all regulations on a five year basis. However, changes in program quarantine areas or disease status may require more frequent updates. Please refer to the evidence provided for quantified benefits of regulatory changes.

Evidence: APHIS assesses how each additional regulation adds to the current level of regulatory requirements and strives to keep the regulatory compliance burden at a minimum. APHIS paid approximately $4.5 million in indemnities for losses related to ISA and another $1.1 million on disposal and facility disinfection costs from FY 2001-2003. ISA put the entire farmed Atlantic salmon industry in Maine at risk. The benefits of keeping this $100 million dollar per year industry viable outweighed the cost of the program. Additionally, the interim rule implementing the indemnity payments provided salmon owners with a financial incentive to identify and destroy their infected and/or exposed fish, thus arresting the spread of the disease and accelerating eradication efforts. Several benefits flowed from this program. First, it reduced costs to the Maine salmon industry from animal mortality and trade restriction on U.S. salmon exports. Second, an aggressive program early one, while the number of known affected pens was reasonably small prevented the need for higher future costs. As a result of the ISA program, one-half of Maine's salmon industry avoided exposure to ISA. Canada has been battling ISA for several years; from 1998 to 2000, fish farmers in that country lost approximately $70 million (U.S. dollars) due to the disease, and Canada's Provincial and Federal Governments have contributed over $29.5 million to compensate aquaculture producers. APHIS recently updated its swine brucellosis regulations by adding the State of Florida to the list of validated brucellosis-free States. This action removes certain testing restrictions on the interstate movement of breeding swine from Florida to other States. Breeding stock producers in the State now save an estimated $7.50 to $15.00 per animal when shipping breeding swine to other States. The requirements the State met to demonstrate its brucellosis-free status provide assurance to swine producers in other States that Florida swine will not pose the risk of spreading brucellosis. Thus the rule is maximizing benefits by reducing costs to producers in Florida while protecting producers in other States. In a recent update to the IFA quarantine regulations, APHIS added 19 counties in two States to the quarantined area. Although regulated entities in those counties experience additional costs when shipping products out of the area, the benefits of preventing new IFA infestation outweigh the costs to regulated entities. For example, IFA-infested urban areas in Texas experience annual average costs of $116 million (based on data from 1998). Although nursery producers spend an average of $200 per shipment to treat regulated articles, these treatments prevent additional areas from becoming infested. APHIS detected approximately 20 potential violations of the IFA quarantine regulations in FY 2005 (regulated nursery stock was moved out of the quarantined area without having been treated in accordance with the regulations). We estimate that there is a 50 percent chance that infested nursery stock planted in an uninfested area will result in a new infestation. Accordingly, we believe that the benefits of the regulations outweigh the costs to the nursery industry.