1. Tie conservation payments to quantitative measures or estimates of environmental performance, where possible. Currently, many environmental outcomes can be routinely and consistently estimated, including changes in soil erosion, nutrient losses, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and water usage. Using quantitative measures and estimates of these outcomes improves the allocation of funding and accountability of conservation programs. A transition to quantitative measures or estimates of environmental performance can be achieved through pilot programs that examine and refine a process for the larger scale implementation of these methods and technologies.

2. Allocate funds based on biggest environmental ‘bang for the buck’ in ALL conservation programs. Incorporate and apply cost-effectiveness criteria in conservation program ranking systems (including any state ranking systems) to ensure that conservation programs achieve the greatest potential environmental outcomes for the available funds.

3. Standardize the mechanics of conservation program ranking criteria at the national level, while leaving the identification of the environmental concerns largely to state and county technicians and stakeholders.