This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-418
entitled 'Agriculture Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure
Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands' which was released
on May 21, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
April 2003:
Agricultural Conservation:
USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and
Wetlands:
GAO-03-418:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-418, a report to Ranking Democratic Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Annually, over a billion tons of soil erodes from the nation’s
cropland, and thousands of other acres, including wetlands, are
converted to new cropland. Soil erosion reduces the land’s
productivity and impairs water quality; drained wetlands reduce flood
control. Under the 1985 Food Security Act, farmers risk losing federal
farm payments if they do not apply conservation practices to reduce
erosion or if they drain wetlands. Concerns about soil erosion and
wetlands conversions continue, however, as do concerns about the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service’s implementation of these provisions. GAO reviewed field
offices’ and headquarters’ implementation and enforcement of the 1985
act’s conservation compliance provisions.
What GAO Found:
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service has not consistently
implemented the 1985 Food Security Act’s conservation provisions.
Inconsistent implementation increases the possibility that some
farmers receive federal farm payments although their soil erodes at
higher rates than allowed or they convert wetlands to cropland.
According to GAO’s nationwide survey, almost half of the Conservation
Service’s field offices do not implement the conservation provisions
as required because they lack staff, management does not emphasize
these provisions, or they are uncomfortable with their enforcement
role. For example, field offices do not always find a farmer in
violation for failing to implement an important practice, such as crop
rotation, and do not always see whether a farmer has corrected the
problem; they also do not always check for wetlands violations.
The Conservation Service’s weak oversight of its field offices further
impairs implementation of the provisions. In the process of selecting
samples of cropland tracts to assess farmers’ compliance, the
Conservation Service disproportionately emphasizes tracts with little
potential for noncompliance, such as permanent rangelands. This
selection process leads to inflated compliance rates. The Conservation
Service also has no automated system to promptly inform its field
offices of the tracts selected for compliance reviews or to enable the
offices to efficiently report their review results. Therefore, the
field offices cannot conduct timely reviews—during critical erosion
periods—and provide headquarters with up-to-date information.
Finally, the Farm Service Agency, the USDA agency responsible for
withholding benefits for violations identified by the Conservation
Service, often waives these noncompliance determinations without
adequate justification. Without support from the Farm Service Agency,
the Conservation Service’s field staff have less incentive to issue
violations.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that USDA
* increase oversight of field offices’ compliance reviews to improve
their accuracy and completeness,
* develop a more representative sample of tracts for review,
* develop an automated system to manage the data needed for reviews,
and
* ensure that noncompliance waivers are supported.
USDA reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with the
recommendations.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Many NRCS Field Offices Are Not Implementing the Conservation
Provisions As Required:
Weak Oversight Raises Doubts about NRCS's Assertion of a High Rate of
Compliance:
Farm Service Agency Frequently Waives NRCS Noncompliance Decisions
without Adequate Justification:
Conservation Provisions and Other Factors Have Significantly Reduced
Soil Erosion and Wetlands Conversions, but Progress Has Slowed in
Recent Years:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Compliance
Review Process:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews, by State,
Crop Years 2000 and 2001:
Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of
Conservation Compliance Violations, Crop Years
1993-2001:
Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness
of the Conservation Provisions:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Farm Service Agency:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews for Selected States for
Combined Crop Years 2000-2001:
Table 2: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for
Violations of Conservation Provisions, Crop Years 1993-2001:
Table 3: Number of Field Offices Participating in Our Survey That
Regularly Conduct Compliance Reviews and the Response Rate:
Table 4: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews Showing Violations and
Waivers by State, Crop Year 2000:
Table 5: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews Showing Violations and
Waivers by State, Crop Year 2001:
Table 6: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for
Violations of Conservation Provisions, Nationwide, Crop Years 1993-
2001:
Table 7: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for
Violations of Conservation Provisions by State, Crop Years 1993-2001:
Table 8: Reasons for Reinstating USDA Benefits by State, Crop Years
1993-2001:
Figures:
Figure 1: Tons of Erosion Due to Water and Wind on Cropland, 1997:
Figure 2: Wetlands Acres on Cropland, 1992:
Figure 3: Percentage of NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not
Always Review Tracts the Year After Granting Compliance Waivers,
Nationwide and Selected States:
Figure 4: Percentage of NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not
Always Issue a Violation When a Farmer Fails to Implement an Important
Conservation Practice, Nationwide and Selected States:
Figure 5: Percentage of NRCS Field Offices Indicating Primary
Hindrances in Carrying Out Conservation Compliance Provisions:
Abbreviations:
FSA: Farm Service Agency:
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 21, 2003:
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Harkin:
Every year more than a billion tons of soil erodes from the nation's
cropland while thousands of other acres, including wetlands, are
converted into new cropland.[Footnote 1] Soil erosion gradually reduces
the productivity of the land and impairs water quality by depositing
sediment and other substances, such as pesticides and excess nutrients,
into the nation's waters. When wetlands are drained, the ability to
control floods and water quality can decrease, fish and wildlife
habitat can be harmed, and recreational opportunities can be lost. To
address these problems, the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, (the
1985 act) requires farmers who participate in federal farm programs to
reduce erosion on highly erodible cropland and, with certain
exceptions, prohibits the conversion of wetlands to croplands.
The 1985 act requires farmers to conserve highly erodible land and
wetlands by linking their conservation activities with eligibility for
federal farm program benefits. These benefits total over $20 billion
annually from a number of commodity price support and loan programs. To
be eligible, farmers must (1) have developed and implemented plans to
apply approved conservation systems by 1995 to reduce erosion on highly
erodible land they farmed in any year from 1981 through 1985 and (2)
not have converted and farmed certain wetlands. Furthermore, farmers
who plant on highly erodible land that they did not farm prior to the
act's passage must apply a conservation system before planting (under
the act's sodbuster provision). In general, farmers cannot plant on
naturally occurring wetlands that were converted to cropland after the
act's passage (under the act's swampbuster provision). The 1985 act's
conservation provisions directed at controlling soil erosion cover
about 104 million, or 28 percent, of the nation's 377 million acres of
cropland in production.[Footnote 2]
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for
administering these conservation provisions, enforcing farmers'
compliance, providing them with technical assistance, and assisting
them with funding to implement conservation measures. Most of these
activities fall to the Department's Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), although another USDA agency, the Farm Service Agency,
is responsible for withholding farm program benefits for noncompliance.
To determine farmers' compliance, each year NRCS draws a random sample
of cropland units, known as tracts, for compliance reviews. These
tracts vary in size from a few acres to several thousand acres.
Nationally, 4.5 million tracts are potentially subject to the act's
conservation provisions.
To conduct a compliance review, NRCS field staff visit a tract to
determine whether the farmer who owns it is applying approved
conservation practices and whether these practices are effectively
reducing soil erosion. The staff also determine whether that tract had
any wetlands and if it did, whether the farmer drained them. When NRCS
officials find noncompliance, they can either waive or recommend
penalties. NRCS may grant a waiver if the violation occurred because of
personal hardship or adverse weather, or if it was minor or technical.
A waiver continues a farmer's eligibility for farm program benefits for
12 months; the farmer is to take corrective measures during this time.
If a waiver is not justified, NRCS staff are to find the farmer in
noncompliance and notify the local Farm Service Agency office. This
office then determines the amount of farm program benefits to be
withheld. However, a farmer that NRCS finds in noncompliance can appeal
this determination to the Farm Service Agency's field office. In
response, that office may grant its own waiver if it believes the
farmer acted in good faith--that is, the farmer did not intend to
violate the conservation provisions.[Footnote 3] Appendix I provides
further information on USDA's compliance review process.
You asked us to evaluate USDA's implementation of the conservation
compliance provisions of the 1985 act. Specifically, you asked us to
determine (1) how well NRCS's field offices are carrying out these
provisions, (2) how effectively NRCS oversees its field offices'
efforts to carry out these provisions, (3) how often the Farm Service
Agency waives NRCS's noncompliance determinations, and (4) to what
extent these conservation provisions have helped to reduce soil erosion
and the loss of wetlands.
To conduct this work, we examined NRCS's national database on the
results of compliance reviews for 1998 through 2001 to identify unusual
patterns in compliance enforcement. Automated data for these reviews
were not available for prior years. We also surveyed the official--
usually the district conservationist--responsible for compliance
reviews in each of NRCS's approximately 2,500 field offices to obtain
information on that official's understanding and implementation of the
conservation provisions, as well as the official's views on the
effectiveness of these provisions. In addition to responding to our
survey questions, many of these officials also provided us with written
comments. We received responses from almost 80 percent of the officials
surveyed. We also conducted work in 20 NRCS field offices located in 19
counties in 5 states (Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, and
Texas) to review documentation of compliance decisions, including
waivers, to determine the basis for these decisions. We selected these
field offices on the basis of such criteria as the relative amount of
land covered by the office that is subject to the 1985 act's
conservation provisions; geographic dispersion; and apparent anomalies
in USDA's data related to compliance checks, waivers, and penalties
assessed. In addition, we examined the Farm Service Agency's database
on violations and benefits withheld or waivers granted for crop years
1993 through 2001 to determine trends in assessing penalties for
noncompliance, and we spoke with Farm Service Agency field and
headquarters staff regarding the reasons for waiving NRCS noncompliance
determinations.[Footnote 4] Finally, regarding the environmental
impacts of the conservation provisions, we reviewed the results of
USDA's National Resources Inventory and other relevant studies and
spoke with officials of various farm and conservation groups.
We conducted our review from April 2002 through February 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II provides additional information on our scope and
methodology. Appendix V summarizes the results of our survey. In
addition, survey results stratified by state are included in a special
publication entitled Agricultural Conservation: Survey Results on
USDA's Implementation of Food Security Act Compliance Provisions (GAO-
03-492SP), which is available on the Internet at http://www.gao.gov/
cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-03-492SP.
Results in Brief:
Almost half of NRCS's field offices are not implementing one or more
aspects of the conservation provisions of the 1985 act as required.
Inconsistent implementation increases the likelihood that some farmers
are still receiving federal farm payments even though they let soil
erode at higher rates than allowed or convert wetlands to cropland.
Specifically, according to our survey, field offices do not always
follow all required procedures, such as (1) checking for wetlands
violations during a compliance review (36 percent), (2) revisiting
farms granted a waiver the previous year to determine whether the owner
has taken measures to achieve compliance (16 percent), or (3) finding a
farmer in violation for failing to implement an important conservation
practice (19 percent). Our field office visits revealed a similar
pattern. For example, in 14 of the 20 offices we visited, NRCS staff
did not always conduct compliance reviews when cropland was most
vulnerable to erosion, as agency guidelines require, such as when
spring planting occurs; at this time, crop residue is at its lowest
level and rains may be heavy. A number of factors--such as resource
constraints, a de-emphasis on the conservation compliance provisions
relative to other work, and a reluctance to assume the enforcement
role--may be contributing to the implementation problems identified.
These problems are compounded by a lack of training and unclear policy
guidance concerning the implementation of the provisions. Finally, our
analysis of NRCS's database on the results of compliance reviews
underscores the variation in field offices' enforcement among the
states: the number of waivers and violations issued as a percentage of
total compliance reviews ranged from none to as much as 15 percent
during crop years 2000 and 2001. Most reported violations occurred in a
relatively few states.
NRCS does not effectively oversee its field offices' implementation of
the conservation provisions, among other things, calling into doubt its
claim that 98 percent of the tracts reviewed are in compliance with the
act's conservation provisions. First, NRCS's process for selecting
tracts for compliance reviews disproportionately emphasizes tracts with
little or no potential for noncompliance, such as permanent rangelands.
Such tracts account for about 20 percent of the tracts selected
annually. Second, NRCS does not have an automated system for promptly
informing its field offices of the tracts selected for compliance
reviews and for enabling the field offices to efficiently report the
results of these reviews. As a consequence, in many cases the field
offices do not have the information on the tracts to be reviewed until
after the critical erosion control period has passed; the reviews
should have been done during this period. Furthermore, without such a
system, NRCS lacks accurate, up-to-date information for oversight to
evaluate the field offices' implementation of the conservation
compliance provisions. Third, NRCS does not consistently collect and
analyze the results of the field offices' compliance reviews to
identify unusual enforcement patterns across regions and states and
over time. For example, until our review NRCS was not aware that 30 of
the 50 "good faith" waivers granted nationally in 2000 occurred in just
one state. Similarly, NRCS has not questioned the wide variation in
other nationwide data on noncompliance determinations and waivers
granted, which also suggests inconsistencies across the states and
field offices in how the conservation provisions are being implemented.
These inconsistencies are borne out by our survey results. Finally,
USDA's Office of Inspector General has recently reported that
improvements in NRCS's implementation of the conservation provisions
are needed to strengthen the agency's ability to provide accurate and
reliable assessments of farmers' compliance. Importantly, these
improvements include the need for NRCS to refrain from issuing waivers
that are not warranted.
In response to farmers' appeals, the Farm Service Agency waived NRCS's
noncompliance determinations in 4,948 of 8,118 cases in which farmers
were cited with violations, or about 61 percent, from 1993 through
2001. Furthermore, because of these waivers, the Farm Service Agency
reinstated about $40.4 million of the $59.6 million that was to be
withheld for noncompliance determinations. These appeals were
considered and ruled upon by local Farm Service Agency county
committees. Because committees generally consist of farmers elected by
other farmers in the county, some NRCS staff and conservation groups
believe that the committee members are predisposed to approve farmers'
appeals so as not to penalize a neighbor's eligibility for farm program
benefits. In this regard, about one-third of NRCS's field offices
indicated that the Farm Service Agency did not adequately justify its
waiver decisions. Our field office visits generally reinforced this
assertion. In the five offices we visited that had found farmers in
violation of the conservation provisions, NRCS staff indicated that the
Farm Service Agency's waivers were not adequately justified.
Furthermore, the minutes of the Farm Service Agency's county committee
meetings and other relevant records did not clearly describe the basis
for waiving NRCS's noncompliance determinations in these cases. Without
support from the Farm Service Agency, NRCS field office staff said that
they have less incentive to find farmers out of compliance when
warranted.
According to USDA, conservation groups, and farm organizations, in the
17 years since the 1985 act, its conservation provisions have
contributed to substantial reductions in soil erosion and wetlands
conversions. For example, according to USDA data, soil erosion on land
subject to these provisions declined by about 35 percent from 1982
through 1997. Wetlands conversions for agricultural uses declined even
more sharply, from 235,000 acres per year before 1985 to 27,000 acres
per year from 1992 through 1997. However, because other factors have
also influenced farmers' behavior, quantifying the impact of the
conservation provisions is difficult. These other factors include
economic incentives for agricultural producers to use new farming
techniques and equipment that are more conserving of land and water
resources. Despite the improvements made, concerns remain about
continued high rates of soil erosion and wetlands losses in some
regions. Specifically, although annual soil erosion on all cropland has
declined to 5 tons per acre, annual soil erosion on about 27 percent of
the land subject to the conservation compliance provisions still
averages 24 tons per acre. Furthermore, USDA and other agricultural
experts indicate that reductions in soil erosion have leveled off in
recent years and that in some areas of the country soil erosion has
even increased. In this regard, over 80 percent of NRCS field offices
we surveyed reported that further reductions in soil erosion are
feasible. Finally, the conservation provisions may be only marginally
effective in protecting seasonal wetlands because USDA generally
identifies these wetlands during the summer months when these lands are
less likely to be saturated or exhibit other wetlands characteristics.
In light of the problems we have noted with NRCS's implementation of
the 1985 act's conservation provisions, as well as continuing concerns
related to soil erosion and wetlands conversion, we are making
recommendations to USDA to improve the quality of NRCS's compliance
reviews and the Farm Service Agency's documentation of its decisions
regarding farmers' appeals of noncompliance determinations. In
commenting on a draft of this report, NRCS and the Farm Service Agency
concurred with the recommendations. The agencies also generally agreed
with the report's findings, although NRCS stated that the report
focuses too much on problems with the agency's implementation of the
conservation compliance provisions and not enough on the provisions'
positive accomplishments in reducing soil erosion and wetlands
conversions. NRCS provided oral comments; the Farm Service Agency
provided written comments, which are presented in appendix VI. The
agencies also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
as appropriate.
Background:
Legislative Requirements:
The Food Security Act of 1985 introduced three conservation provisions
to address environmental problems associated with highly erodible land
and wetlands.[Footnote 5] Under the act, farmers must apply
conservation systems to these lands or risk losing benefits.[Footnote
6] First, under the "conservation compliance" provision, farmers must
apply conservation systems to lands cropped in any year from 1981
through 1985 to substantially reduce soil erosion. Second, the
"sodbuster" provision applies to highly erodible land not farmed prior
to the act's passage. For these lands, farmers must apply a
conservation system before planting and must control soil erosion to a
higher level than required under conservation compliance. Third, under
the "swampbuster" provision, farmers are generally prohibited from
converting wetlands to cropland. For the purpose of this report, we use
the term "conservation compliance" to include all three conservation
provisions of the 1985 act.
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 modified the
conservation compliance provisions, giving USDA discretion to determine
that a farmer, although in violation, acted in good faith--that is,
without intending to violate the provisions.[Footnote 7] In such cases,
USDA may reduce the farmer's benefits but the farmer would remain
eligible to participate in federal farm programs if the farmer corrects
the violation.[Footnote 8] In addition, the act revised the swampbuster
provision to allow a farmer to retain eligibility for farm program
benefits if the farmer mitigates a violation by restoring a wetland
converted prior to the 1985 act.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 mandated a
variety of changes to help farmers comply with the provisions.[Footnote
9] Among other things, the act allowed flexibility in developing and
implementing conservation systems, and it allowed farmers to self-
certify compliance with their conservation systems.[Footnote 10] The
act also required USDA field staff who provide technical assistance to
a farmer and observe a potential compliance deficiency on the farmer's
tract to, within 45 days, provide the farmer with specific information
on how to correct the deficiency. If the farmer agrees to correct the
deficiency and signs an approved conservation plan, the farmer is given
a waiver. However, if the farmer does not implement corrective action
within 12 months after the waiver, USDA will schedule the tract for a
compliance review. In addition, the act provided farmers with more
flexibility to offset wetlands losses through mitigation, including the
enhancement of an existing wetland or the creation of a new wetland. At
the same time, the act made easier the "good faith" provisions that the
1990 act had previously added to the Food Security Act of 1985.
Finally, the 1996 act removed crop insurance from the list of benefits
that can be denied to farmers who violate the conservation
provisions.[Footnote 11]
The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act did not change the
conservation compliance provisions.[Footnote 12] However, the act
provides that the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to make
noncompliance determinations may not be delegated to any private person
or entity.
Implementation of the Conservation Compliance Provisions:
NRCS monitors farmers' implementation of the conservation compliance
provisions largely through compliance reviews.[Footnote 13] In addition
to the random sample of tracts that NRCS draws annually for these
reviews, field offices select other tracts based on referrals from
other agencies, farmers who receive farm loans, whistleblower
complaints, potential violations observed by NRCS employees when
providing technical assistance, and tracts that maintained eligibility
due to prior year waivers. In conducting these reviews, NRCS staff
visit a land tract to determine if the relevant farmer is following the
conservation system, including specific conservation practices,
developed and approved for that tract. As discussed, the 1985 act
requires farmers to develop these systems in order to remain eligible
for farm program benefits.
In general, conservation systems are designed to be economically viable
for a farmer while achieving substantial reductions in soil erosion.
These systems are composed of one or more conservation practices. Some
commonly used conservation practices include:
* conservation crop rotation--planting low-residue crops such as
soybeans in one year, followed by a high residue crop, such as corn in
the following year on the same field, in order to generate an average
layer of residue from year to year (used on 81 percent of highly
erodible cropland);
* conservation tillage--allowing the crop residue to stay on top of the
field, rather than being plowed under when planting begins (used on 33
percent of highly erodible cropland);
* terraces--creating an embankment or ridge (a terrace) at a right
angle to sloping land in order to allow water to soak into the soil
rather than to move down the slope, taking the soil with it (used on 13
percent of highly erodible cropland); and:
* grassed waterways--creating a broad and shallow depression, usually
below a terraced area, that is planted with grasses to mitigate erosion
by slowing the flow of runoff, holding a bank, and filtering out soil
particles (used on 9 percent of highly erodible cropland).
:
Regional Erosion Concerns:
The adoption of a particular conservation practice varies with climate,
topography, soils, predominant crops, and preexisting production
practices. For example, local environmental conditions in eastern
Nebraska, and western Texas require different conservation practices.
Eastern Nebraska primarily produces corn and soybeans and has a higher
average rainfall and a more varied topography than western Texas. Thus,
to control soil erosion from water, farmers in eastern Nebraska use a
larger number of conservation practices--most frequently conservation
crop rotation, conservation tillage, terraces, and grassed waterways.
In western Texas, wheat and cotton are the predominant crops. In this
area, where soil erosion from wind is the primary concern, most
conservation practices consist of either applying conservation tillage
or creating ridges on the field (roughening the surface) to prevent the
soil from blowing away. Figure 1 shows areas of the country with
cropland that has a high propensity for soil erosion due to water and
wind.
Figure 1: Tons of Erosion Due to Water and Wind on Cropland, 1997:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Map includes land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
[End of figure]
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, soil erosion is
a leading cause of water pollution. Soil deposits in streams, rivers,
drainageways, and lakes degrade water quality by increasing turbidity
and transporting attached nutrients, pesticides, pathogens, and toxic
substances. In addition, soil erosion due to wind contributes to
particulate matter in the air, which can cause respiratory illness and
property damage.
Wetlands Conversion Concerns:
Of the estimated 220 million acres of marshes, bogs, swamps, and other
wetlands in the contiguous United States during colonial times, over
half have disappeared, and some remaining wetlands have been degraded.
This decrease is due, primarily, to agricultural activities and
development; wetlands were once regarded as unimportant areas to be
filled or drained for these purposes. Pressure to use wetlands for such
purposes continues, but in recent times, wetlands have become valued
for a variety of ecological functions that they perform, including:
* providing vital habitat for wildlife and waterfowl, including about
half of the threatened and endangered species;
* providing spawning grounds for commercially and recreationally
valuable fish and shellfish;
* providing flood control by slowing down and absorbing excess water
during storms;
* maintaining water quality by filtering out pollutants before they
enter streams, lakes, and oceans; and:
* protecting coastal and upland areas from erosion.
Recognizing the value of wetlands, in 1989, the administration set a
national goal to protect against additional loss. Specifically, the
first Bush administration established the national goal of "no net
loss" of wetlands. Subsequently, the Clinton administration expanded
the goal to achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands per
year by 2005.
In January 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) has no authority under the Clean Water Act to
regulate certain isolated, intrastate, nonnavigable waters, including
some wetlands.[Footnote 14] However, even if a wetland is no longer
within federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, it may still be
protected under other federal or state laws. For example, in a January
2003 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Corps stated that the federal government
remains committed to wetlands protection through the Food Security
Act's swampbuster requirements, among other programs.[Footnote 15] In
this regard, NRCS officials indicated to us that they do not anticipate
any change in how they implement the swampbuster provisions; in part,
these provisions are directed at the protection of isolated, intrastate
wetlands that occur on cropland, including "prairie potholes" in the
upper Midwest.[Footnote 16]
Figure 2 shows areas of the country with wetlands on cropland,
including permanent, seasonal, and prior-converted wetlands (cropped
wetlands drained or filled prior to the 1985 act's conservation
compliance provisions).
Figure 2: Wetlands Acres on Cropland, 1992:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Many NRCS Field Offices Are Not Implementing the Conservation
Provisions As Required:
According to our survey, almost half of NRCS field offices do not
follow all required procedures in implementing the conservation
compliance provisions, including, for example, checking for wetlands
violations during a compliance review and finding a farmer in violation
when the farmer fails to implement an important conservation practice.
The inconsistent implementation of the conservation provisions
increases the likelihood that some farmers are still receiving federal
farm payments even though they let soil erode at higher rates than
allowed or convert wetlands to cropland. Our field office visits
revealed similar problems. Furthermore, the field offices may not be
consistently enforcing the provisions, according to our analysis of
NRCS's database on the results of compliance reviews: the number of
waivers and violations issued as a percentage of total compliance
reviews varied widely from state to state. Problems in the field
offices' implementation of the conservation compliance provisions occur
for a number of reasons, such as the lack of periodic training on how
to conduct these reviews.
Many NRCS Field Offices Do Not Follow All Required Steps in Assessing
Compliance:
Our survey results indicate that 48 percent, or 903, of the field
offices, are not implementing one or more provisions for conducting
compliance reviews included in NRCS's National Food Security Act Manual
or other related guidance, as shown below:
* Nationwide, more than one-third, or 670, of the field offices, on
average, do not check for wetlands violations when conducting
compliance reviews. The lack of attention to potential wetlands
violations varied by state, ranging from 15 percent to 63 percent of
the field offices in each state; 18 states exceeded the national
average of 36 percent.
* Nationwide, 16 percent, or 250, of the field offices do not always
review tracts during the year after granting a compliance waiver to
determine whether the farmer had taken measures to achieve compliance.
The extent to which field offices do not follow this procedure varied
considerably from state to state.
Figure 3 shows that the range varied from 4 to 39 percent for the
selected states.[Footnote 17]
Figure 3: Percentage of NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not
Always Review Tracts the Year After Granting Compliance Waivers,
Nationwide and Selected States:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO's survey results.
[End of figure]
* Nationwide, about 19 percent, or 324, of the NRCS field offices do
not always find a farmer in violation when the farmer fails to
implement an important conservation practice, as required by NRCS
guidance. Figure 4 shows that from 4 percent to 38 percent of the field
offices in selected states failed to cite farmers for a major
violation.
Figure 4: Percentage of NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not
Always Issue a Violation When a Farmer Fails to Implement an Important
Conservation Practice, Nationwide and Selected States:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO's survey results.
[End of figure]
Our field office visits revealed similar problems as shown below:
* In 14 of the 20 offices, staff did not always conduct compliance
reviews during critical soil erosion periods as required by NRCS's
guidance; during these periods, the soil is most susceptible to water
or wind erosion. Critical periods may include, for example, April, May,
and June--when planting occurs, crop residue is at its lowest level,
and rainfalls may be heavy. For example, in one office in Texas, none
of the 25 compliance reviews done during the 4-year period we examined
were conducted during the spring--the critical water erosion period. In
another office in Texas, none of the 11 compliance reviews done in 2001
that we reviewed were conducted during the critical wind erosion
period--January through April. According to staff in the 14 offices,
NRCS headquarters and state office delays in providing the lists of
randomly selected tracts for compliance reviews generally prohibited
field office staff from conducting the reviews within critical erosion
periods.[Footnote 18]
* In five Nebraska field offices, staff improperly granted waivers in
28 of the 60 minor or technical waiver cases we reviewed. According to
NRCS guidance, staff may grant minor or technical waivers for
conservation deficiencies if these deficiencies have little impact on
erosion control. However, these 28 waivers were granted to farmers who
had failed to implement a major soil-conserving practice, such as
maintaining terraces or sufficient crop residue, thereby potentially
allowing severe water-related soil erosion to occur.[Footnote 19]
* In one Texas field office, NRCS staff did not properly conduct a
compliance review on a 9,878-acre tract in 2000. After the owner sold
166 acres of the tract for a commercial cattle-feeding operation in
1999, the Farm Service Agency assigned new tract numbers to both the
166 acres and the remaining 9,712 acres of the original tract in order
to ensure proper accounting for farm benefits. Nevertheless, NRCS
requires that a compliance review be conducted on all land included
under the original tract number. However, staff in the field office
reviewed the 166-acre tract only, not the other 9,712 acres, and yet
reported the original tract as being in compliance.
* Staff in one Colorado field office--responsible for conducting
compliance reviews on about 40 tracts from 1998 through 2001--could
find no evidence that these reviews had been done after a thorough
search of their physical and electronic records. In contrast, these
officials were able to produce documentation for reviews conducted in
the years prior to 1998. Officials in this office indicated that it is
doubtful that the reviews for 1998 through 2001 were done.
Nevertheless, this office had reported that all the tracts were in
compliance during these years.
We also identified other types of situations in which field staff
missed opportunities to identify and correct noncompliance. First,
according to NRCS guidance, the agency's field staff are required to
report potential instances of noncompliance identified when they visit
a farm to provide conservation technical assistance. In these cases,
the guidance requires that the staff issue a 12-month waiver to allow
the farmer time to take corrective measures, while continuing the
farmer's eligibility for farm program benefits.[Footnote 20] However,
fewer than 40 percent of NRCS field offices reported that supervisors
either generally or strongly encouraged them to identify tracts in
noncompliance when providing technical assistance. During crop years
2000 and 2001, of the approximately 2.1 million technical assistance
visits NRCS made, it identified deficiencies and issued waivers in only
22 instances. According to NRCS headquarters and field staff, the
agency's field staff are reluctant to identify deficiencies and issue
waivers because they believe doing so would deter farmers from seeking
technical assistance in the future; others cited NRCS guidance as
unclear on when and how to issue a waiver for a deficiency discovered
during technical assistance visits.
Second, NRCS field offices do not always include a sample of tracts
related to farmers who participate in the Farm Service Agency's Farm
Loan Program in their annual compliance reviews, as NRCS guidance
requires.[Footnote 21] According to NRCS, in addition to the
headquarters list of tracts selected for compliance reviews that
includes farmers who receive farm program benefits and produce crops on
highly erodible land, the field offices are to conduct compliance
reviews on a 5 percent sample of the loan program participants who are
producing crops on highly erodible land. This 5 percent sample is taken
to ensure oversight over farmers who participate in the loan program
but do not otherwise receive farm program benefits. However, we found
that in half of the 20 NRCS offices we visited, NRCS and Farm Service
Agency field staff did not ensure that they included this sample of
borrowers in each of the years we examined.
Finally, NRCS field staff do not always maintain documentation
supporting their decisions and do not always correctly report the
results of their compliance reviews as required by the National Food
Security Act Manual. For example, in 7 of the 20 offices we visited,
the compliance review case file contained a worksheet documenting the
decision but no evidence to show when the review was conducted, whether
crop residue measurements were taken, or what on-site conditions were
observed.
Significant Variation in the Number of Waivers and Violations May
Indicate Inconsistent Enforcement among States:
During crop years 2000 and 2001, 5 percent of all compliance reviews
resulted in waivers or violations, according to NRCS's database on the
results of compliance reviews.[Footnote 22] However, as table 1 shows,
this percentage varied significantly from state to state. For example,
four states--Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma--experienced
significantly more waivers and violations as a percentage of reviews
conducted than the national average, while 10 states--Alabama,
Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Virginia--experienced fewer. This variation suggests
that NRCS's field offices are not consistently enforcing the
conservation compliance provisions. Similarly, of the 1,810 waivers and
violations issued during crop years 2000 and 2001, more than 80 percent
occurred in only 10 states--Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin;
these 10 states represent only 36 percent of all reviews, suggesting
again a lack of enforcement consistency across states.
Table 1: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews for Selected States for
Combined Crop Years 2000-2001:
State: Alabama; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 559; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 1; Tracts with violations: 6; Total waivers and violations: 7;
Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 1.3.
State: Arkansas; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 588; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 2; Tracts with violations: 5; Total waivers and violations: 7;
Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 1.2.
State: Colorado; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 883; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 15; Tracts with violations: 4; Total waivers and violations:
19; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 2.2.
State: Georgia; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 691; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 7; Tracts with violations: 2; Total waivers and violations: 9;
Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 1.3.
State: Iowa; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 2,942; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 283; Tracts with violations: 130; Total waivers and
violations: 413; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 14.0.
State: Maryland; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 235; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 1; Tracts with violations: 0; Total waivers and violations: 1;
Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 0.4.
State: Michigan; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 409; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 1; Tracts with violations: 2; Total waivers and violations: 3;
Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 0.7.
State: Mississippi; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 849; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 33; Tracts with violations: 0; Total waivers and
violations: 33; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 3.9.
State: Nebraska; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 1,907; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 158; Tracts with violations: 115; Total waivers and
violations: 273; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 14.3.
State: North Carolina; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 1,229; Tracts
with NRCS waivers: 14; Tracts with violations: 5; Total waivers and
violations: 19; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 1.5.
State: North Dakota; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 1,659; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 11; Tracts with violations: 246; Total waivers and
violations: 257; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 15.5.
State: Oklahoma; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 706; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 74; Tracts with violations: 2; Total waivers and violations:
76; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 10.8.
State: Pennsylvania; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 374; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 14; Tracts with violations: 7; Total waivers and
violations: 21; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 5.6.
State: South Dakota; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 906; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 2; Tracts with violations: 2; Total waivers and
violations: 4; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 0.4.
State: Texas; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 1,923; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 17; Tracts with violations: 3; Total waivers and violations:
20; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 1.0.
State: Virginia; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 376; Tracts with NRCS
waivers: 5; Tracts with violations: 1; Total waivers and violations: 6;
Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed: 1.6.
State: Washington; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 400; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 5; Tracts with violations: 14; Total waivers and
violations: 19; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 4.8.
State: Wisconsin; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 1,460; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 59; Tracts with violations: 30; Total waivers and
violations: 89; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 6.1.
State: Remaining 32 states; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 16,871;
Tracts with NRCS waivers: 306; Tracts with violations: 228; Total
waivers and violations: 534; Waivers and violations as a percentage of
tracts reviewed: 3.2.
State: Total; Tracts reviewed for compliance: 34,967[A]; Tracts with
NRCS waivers: 1,008[B]; Tracts with violations: 802[C]; Total waivers
and violations: 1,810; Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts
reviewed: 5.2.
Source: NRCS.
Note: GAO's analysis of NRCS's data.
[A] Total compliance reviews include tracts of 13,025 and 13,544 in
2000 and 2001, respectively, that were randomly selected by NRCS
headquarters. The total also includes tracts added by NRCS field
offices based on referrals from other agencies (e.g., tracts owned by
employees of other USDA agencies), whistleblower complaints, tracts
owned by Farm Loan Program participants, and tracts that maintained
eligibility for farm benefits because of prior year waivers. These
additional tracts numbered 4,234 and 4,164 in 2000 and 2001,
respectively.
[B] "Waivers" refers to NRCS variances and exemptions. An NRCS waiver
does not change the fact that the agency has made a noncompliance
determination. The farmer receiving the waiver is still considered to
have committed a violation that must be corrected, unless the waiver
was given for severe or unusual conditions related to weather, disease
or pests.
[C] Total tracts with violations largely reflect NRCS's preliminary
noncompliance determinations, as of the date these data were compiled.
Many of these determinations were subsequently reversed by NRCS--
through granting variances or exemptions--on appeal from the affected
farmers. Because NRCS's data on tracts with violations reflect a number
of preliminary determinations that were subsequently reversed by NRCS,
the total number of violations reported for crop years 2000-2001 in
this table is greater than the total number shown for these years in
Table 2. This latter table, based on Farm Service Agency data, shows
the actual number of tracts with violations referred by NRCS to the
Farm Service Agency for action.
[End of table]
The Soil and Water Conservation Society and the Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition--two conservation groups--maintain that the wide state-to-
state differences may indicate inconsistent application or differing
interpretations of conservation compliance procedures. We also hold
this view. These groups also noted that some of these differences may
be explained by the differences in topography, local weather
conditions, and farmers' ability to comply with the conservation
provisions. More detailed information on the results of NRCS's
compliance reviews is contained in appendix III.
Several Factors, Including Lack of Training, Contribute to Problems in
Implementing Conservation Compliance:
Our survey and field office visits identified key reasons for the
problems in implementing the conservation compliance provisions. As
figure 5 shows, on the basis of our survey results, field offices
reported lack of staff, reversal of noncompliance decisions, and
unwillingness to assume an enforcement role as the primary hindrances
in carrying out the provisions.
Figure 5: Percentage of NRCS Field Offices Indicating Primary
Hindrances in Carrying Out Conservation Compliance Provisions:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: GAO's survey results.
[End of figure]
"Other" includes lack of NRCS guidance; lack of appropriate
information, such as maps; compliance reviews that are not a priority
with supervisor; sample tracts that are received at inconvenient times;
and, external influences.
"Reversal of noncompliance decisions" includes decisions overturned by
NRCS or USDA's National Appeals Division and waivers issued by the Farm
Service Agency. However, Farm Service Agency officials noted that the
issuance of a "good faith" waiver by their agency does not, technically
speaking, represent a reversal of the noncompliance determination. They
explained that although the farmer involved remains eligible for farm
program benefits, the farmer has committed a violation and must
undertake corrective measures within 12 months or risk losing these
benefits at that time. Nevertheless, for the purpose of our work, we
made a distinction: a compliance review either results in a violation,
leading to the loss of a farmer's eligibility for farm program
benefits, or a waiver, allowing a farmer to continue his/her
eligibility.
In addition, 244 field staff elaborated on one of these hindrances--the
undesirability of the enforcement role--in their written comments to
our survey. For example, some wrote that it is difficult to provide
assistance to farmers most of the year in the small communities where
the field staff live and work and then have to cite some of the same
farmers for noncompliance, which may result in the loss of their farm
program benefits.
In this regard, our past work has noted this cultural conflict in NRCS
between its regulatory role under the 1985 act and its traditional role
of advising and helping farmers.[Footnote 23] Specifically, for the
past 70 years, NRCS's role, including that of its predecessor
organization, the Soil Conservation Service, has largely been to work
cooperatively with farmers to provide technical assistance and foster
voluntary conservation. With the addition of the 1985 conservation
compliance provisions, NRCS is often in the conflicting position of
acting as advisor to and regulator of farmers. Our past evaluation and
many of the studies we reviewed found that this internal conflict
contributes to the reluctance of the agency's field office staff, with
whom most contacts with farmers take place, to cite farmers with
violations in their conservation plans because such violations could
cause farmers to lose their farm program benefits.
In addition to the primary hindrances noted by the survey respondents,
36 percent of respondents reported that since the mid-1990s, the
agency's management has de-emphasized the conservation compliance
provisions. Instead, NRCS has shifted its emphasis to providing
technical assistance and to enrolling farmers in incentive-based
conservation programs that provide cost-share and other financial
assistance. For example, in January 2003, NRCS headquarters officials
indicated that over the past 20 years, the number of conservation
programs that the agency is responsible for implementing has doubled
from 6 to 12. Furthermore, the funding for many of these programs has
increased markedly in recent years, with a corresponding increase in
workload for the agency's staff. However, according to these officials,
NRCS staff level has declined by about 25 percent in the last 20
years.[Footnote 24]
These problems, which may be difficult to address, are exacerbated by a
lack of training on the conservation compliance provisions and a need
for further clarification of NRCS's written guidance. Periodic training
has generally not been available since the mid-1990s, which has led to
errors in assessing and reporting on compliance. For example, in 11 of
the 20 field offices we visited, staff had not received periodic
training on how to conduct these reviews and, as a result, these field
staff did not always correctly report the results of their compliance
reviews.
Similarly, nearly 80 percent of the 114 survey respondents who provided
written comments on training issues noted the lack of recent training
on highly erodible land and wetlands conservation provisions, including
conducting compliance reviews. For example, one respondent commented
that he received excellent training in the conservation compliance
provisions when they were first implemented in the early 1990s but that
many of the younger employees have not received such training. Another
respondent, who had transferred from one state to another noted
differences in how the compliance reviews were conducted and suggested
that staff needed training to ensure that reviews are conducted
uniformly. In discussing this issue with NRCS headquarters officials in
January 2003, they acknowledged that periodic training has not been
provided in recent years and agreed that this lack of training is a
problem.
Moreover, more than 50 percent of survey respondents reported that
NRCS's National Food Security Act Manual (the guidance manual) needs
clarification in key areas of conservation compliance--highly erodible
cropland, sodbuster, swampbuster, compliance reviews, and appeals of
noncompliance decisions. USDA's Office of Inspector General has also
reported on the need for clarification in NRCS's written guidance for
implementing the conservation compliance provisions. For example, in a
September 2002 report, the Inspector General noted that weaknesses in
guidance manual procedures had reduced the effectiveness of NRCS
administration of the highly erodible land provisions and the agency's
ability to accurately evaluate producers' compliance with these
provisions.[Footnote 25] The weaknesses noted include incorrect
procedural cross-references, inconsistent guidelines for applying the
provisions, and inconsistent instructions for executing the provisions.
For example, the Inspector General noted that the guidance manual does
not provide specific guidance on the action required if a farmer and
field office personnel disagree over the conservation practices to be
included in the farmer's conservation plan. In reviewing these types of
cases in Kansas, the Inspector General found that farmers were
generally granted a special problem waiver in lieu of a noncompliance
determination, although the guidance manual provides that this type of
waiver is authorized only when a farmer is actively applying an
approved conservation plan. In another case, the Inspector General
found that although the guidance manual allows "properly trained
personnel" to make visual estimates of crop residue during on-site
compliance reviews, the manual does not specify the training necessary
or who will determine whether the person doing a review is qualified to
make the estimate.
The Inspector General also noted a need for NRCS to better coordinate
with the Farm Service Agency to ensure consistency among their
respective policies and procedures concerning the compliance
provisions. For example, the Inspector General found that although the
NRCS guidance manual states that the Farm Service Agency rules
applicable to the agency's Farm Loan Program require annual compliance
reviews for 5 percent of borrowers producing commodity crops on highly
erodible cropland, the manual does not explain how this sample should
be drawn. Similarly, relevant Farm Service Agency handbooks do not
provide this guidance either. As a consequence, the Inspector General
found that sample selection methods were inconsistent across the field
offices examined, leading to inefficiencies such as the inclusion of
farmers whose loans are not affected by the compliance provisions. The
Inspector General also found that farmers are not subject to a
mandatory compliance review at the time a loan is requested, yet once a
loan is closed, it is unlikely the loan will be called because of a
conservation compliance violation.
In light of these findings, the Inspector General recommended that NRCS
undertake certain actions to clarify its written guidance and to better
coordinate its guidance with guidance issued by the Farm Service
Agency. In a letter signed by its Acting Deputy Chief for Programs,
NRCS accepted these recommendations and promised corrective actions by
August 2003.
Weak Oversight Raises Doubts about NRCS's Assertion of a High Rate of
Compliance:
NRCS does not effectively oversee its field offices' implementation of
the conservation provisions, among other things, calling into doubt its
claim that 98 percent of the tracts reviewed are in compliance with the
act's conservation provisions. First, NRCS's process for selecting
tracts for compliance reviews disproportionately emphasizes tracts with
little or no potential for noncompliance, such as permanent rangelands.
Such tracts account for about 20 percent of the tracts selected
annually. Second, NRCS does not have an automated system for promptly
informing its field offices of the tracts selected for compliance
reviews and for enabling the field offices to efficiently report the
results of these reviews. As a consequence, in many cases, the field
offices do not have the information on the tracts to be reviewed until
after the critical erosion control period has passed; the reviews
should be done during these periods. Third, NRCS does not consistently
collect and analyze the results of the field offices' compliance
reviews to identify unusual enforcement patterns across regions and
states and over time. For example, NRCS was not aware, until our
review, that 30 of the 50 "good faith" waivers granted nationally in
2000 occurred in just one state. Finally, USDA's Office of Inspector
General has noted that improvements in NRCS's implementation of the
conservation provisions are needed to strengthen the agency's ability
to provide accurate and reliable assessments of farmers' compliance.
Importantly, these improvements include the need for NRCS to refrain
from issuing waivers that are not warranted.
NRCS's Compliance Sample Includes Tracts with Little Potential for
Noncompliance:
NRCS's process for selecting land tracts for compliance reviews gives a
disproportionate emphasis to tracts that have little potential for
noncompliance, potentially inflating the farmers' compliance rate
reported by the agency. To conduct the compliance reviews, NRCS
randomly selects about 13,000 tracts of land from a Farm Service Agency
database containing more than 4.5 million tracts of land owned or
leased by farmers receiving USDA program benefits. Of the 4.5 million
tracts, 1.7 million are designated as highly erodible land, and the
remaining 2.8 million are designated as potential wetlands.
Of the 13,000 sample tracts, about 60 percent are selected for highly
erodible land. The remaining 40 percent are selected from tracts that
have the potential to contain wetlands. This latter group of tracts is
separated into two groups--hydric and nonhydric. The hydric group
includes tracts located in counties where more than 20 percent of the
soil is classified as hydric--that is, the land is flooded long enough
during a growing season to support plants that can grow in water or in
soil too waterlogged for most plants to survive. The remaining tracts
are placed in the nonhydric group. In general, tracts placed in this
group have a very low potential to be subject to the conservation
compliance provisions concerning wetlands. For example, many of these
tracts are located in arid parts of the country and include permanent
rangelands. Nevertheless, NRCS draws a relatively large sample from the
nonhydric group--amounting to about 20 percent of the 13,000 sample
tracts overall--even though the applicability of the conservation
compliance provisions to these tracts is very unlikely.
The inclusion of nonhydric tracts for which the conservation compliance
provisions have little applicability tends to inflate the farmer
compliance rate reported by NRCS. In 2001, this rate was reported as 98
percent compliance. For example, 73 field offices providing written
comments to our survey reported that many tracts selected for
compliance reviews were not subject to the conservation provisions
because the tracts did not contain wetlands or highly erodible land or
because the tracts contained rangeland, timber, or permanent cover
grass. The results of our field office work tended to reinforce this
conclusion. For example, we found that 36 tracts selected for the
wetlands compliance review contained no wetlands. Moreover, some of
these tracts consisted of permanent rangeland, which is not subject to
the conservation provisions. Nevertheless, the field offices involved
reported these tracts as being in compliance, even though the
conservation provisions were not applicable to them. A number of NRCS
officials told us that it would be more appropriate for the agency to
reduce the number of nonhydric tracts reviewed in favor of increasing
the number of highly erodible land and hydric tracts reviewed.
Another potential issue concerning the sample of tracts selected by
NRCS for review concerns the size of that sample. For example, two
groups with whom we spoke, the Wildlife Management Institute and the
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, assert that the sample size is too
small to serve as a deterrent to farmers who may be violating the
conservation compliance provisions. They note that this sample size has
dropped from 42,000 in 1997 to about 13,000 annually beginning in 1998;
the latter number represents about one-quarter of 1 percent of the 4.5
million tracts potentially subject to the conservation provisions
nationwide.[Footnote 26] However, these groups have not questioned the
statistical validity of the sample drawn for projecting to the universe
of all farmers associated with these 4.5 million tracts. In response,
NRCS officials told us that they reduced the sample size because of
resource constraints; higher-priority work related to its other
programs; and the absence of demonstrated, widespread noncompliance in
past reviews. In addition, they maintain that this lower number of
reviews is adequate and statistically valid for projecting nationally.
However, at the same time, they note that the sample is not large
enough to project on a state-by-state basis.
NRCS Lacks an Automated System to Promptly Inform Its Field Offices of
Tracts Selected for Compliance Reviews:
NRCS does not have a nationwide, automated system, such as a web-based
system, for promptly informing its field offices of the tracts selected
for compliance reviews and for enabling the field offices to
efficiently report the results of these reviews. As a consequence, in
many cases, the field offices do not have the information on the tracts
to be reviewed until after the critical erosion control period during
which the reviews should have been done. As a result, NRCS does not
have a comprehensive picture of erosion during critical periods.
Furthermore, without such a system, NRCS lacks accurate, up-to-date
information for oversight to evaluate the field offices' implementation
of the conservation compliance provisions.
According to NRCS officials, the agency had a nationwide, automated
system in the mid-1990s that it used to promptly inform its field
offices of tracts selected for review and to receive the results of
these reviews. However, NRCS discontinued using this system in 1998
because it was unsatisfactory for other agency operations, such as
developing conservation plans for farmers or taking applications for
USDA's various incentive-based conservation programs. In place of the
original system, NRCS implemented a new system that more efficiently
collects information related to these other operations.[Footnote 27]
However, the new system does not provide a means to efficiently
disseminate and collect information on compliance reviews.
At present, NRCS uses a cumbersome, multi-step process to disseminate
and collect information on compliance reviews that does not allow for
the efficient sharing of information. Specifically, in order to
disseminate information on tracts selected for review, NRCS
headquarters must first provide its state offices with the list of
selected tracts. The state offices then sort and transmit this
information to supervisory area field offices, which, in turn, sort and
transmit the information to individual field offices.[Footnote 28] This
process generally tends to delay the transmittal of information on
tracts selected for reviews to the field offices that must do these
reviews until after the critical erosion control periods in which the
reviews should be done have passed, such as during the spring planting
period when the residue (ground cover) from previous crops is low,
rains may be heavy, and the soil is being disturbed for planting. For
example, in 2000, NRCS's Texas state office received information from
NRCS headquarters on the tracts selected for review on March 31, but
did not transmit this information to area offices until April 26, 2000.
The area office for west Texas did not transmit the selected tracts to
its field offices until May 2, 2000. As a result of the delays at each
step in this process, the west Texas field offices did not receive the
list of tracts for compliance reviews until well after the critical
erosion control period, which ended in early April.
The current process for disseminating and collecting information on
compliance reviews also interferes with timely compliance checks that
should be done in the fall, such as at the time when winter wheat is
sown. For example, NRCS requires its field offices to complete
compliance reviews no later than the early fall, which is before the
critical erosion period in some areas of the country associated with
crops planted in late fall. NRCS requires reporting by early fall in
order to allow time for it to enter the information on the results of
these reviews into its compliance review database before the end of the
calendar year.[Footnote 29] As with the dissemination of information
from headquarters to the field offices on the tracts to be reviewed,
the roll up of the results of these compliance reviews must repeat the
multi-step process in reverse: field office to supervisory area office;
area office to state office; and state office to headquarters. In some
cases, the results of the reviews are provided in electronic files
attached to emails; in others, the field offices provide the results in
paper documents that the receiving office must enter into an electronic
file before it can be passed on to the next level.
USDA's Office of Inspector General has also reported on the need for
more timely compliance reviews to strengthen the agency's ability to
provide accurate and reliable assessments of farmers' compliance. In
its September 2002 report, the Inspector General concluded that
compliance reviews are not always performed during critical erosion
control periods because of the untimely distribution of compliance
review tract selection lists to NRCS state and field office personnel.
For example, in Kansas, where the critical wind erosion control period
is March 1 through April 15, the list of tracts selected for compliance
reviews in 2000 was not received in one field office until April 19 of
that year. Moreover, guidance from the NRCS's Kansas state office on
how to download and use the 2000 compliance review list was not issued
to its field offices until April 27. As a consequence, it was
impossible for these field offices to perform the required compliance
reviews during the critical erosion control period.
NRCS headquarters and field staff acknowledge the need for a
nationwide, automated system, such as a web-based system, for promptly
informing the agency's field offices of the tracts selected for
compliance reviews and for enabling these offices to report the results
of their reviews as they are completed. In general, these staff
referred to the current process for disseminating and collecting this
information as piecemeal and inefficient. Furthermore, in a letter
responding to the Inspector General's September 2002 report, the
agency's Acting Deputy Chief for Programs stated that NRCS would
reengineer its compliance review process, including the development of
new software, to provide for a more timely distribution of the status
review lists. This official stated that this action would be taken by
August 2003. However, in January 2003, NRCS headquarters officials
indicated that uncertainties regarding the agency's appropriation for
fiscal year 2003 would preclude NRCS from taking this action by August
2003.[Footnote 30] In addition, these officials said that the
reengineering of the agency's compliance review process must be weighed
against other agency priorities for available funding. At present, NRCS
officials said the timeframe for completing this reengineering is
uncertain, although they indicated that the agency's plan is, at some
point, to web-base the data entry for compliance reviews.[Footnote 31]
NRCS Does Not Consistently Collect and Analyze Monitoring Data:
NRCS has not established and maintained a consistent methodology for
collecting and summarizing compliance review data so that it can (1)
reliably compare farmers' compliance with conservation provisions from
year to year and (2) assess its field offices' conduct of compliance
reviews. According to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123,
agencies are required to implement management controls such as policies
and procedures to reasonably ensure that programs achieve their
intended results; laws and regulations are followed; and reliable and
timely information is obtained, maintained, reported, and used for
decision making. From 1993 through 1997, NRCS collected detailed
information about the results of its compliance reviews to identify
trends and anomalies in monitoring farmers' compliance with the
conservation provisions. NRCS analyzed data at the state level and
reported information such as the percentage of farmers in
noncompliance, the types of waivers granted, and the soil erosion rates
both before and after the application of conservation practices.
However, in January 2003, NRCS headquarters officials said that
beginning in 1998 the agency significantly reduced the information it
gathers because staff reductions and an increasing workload associated
with its other programs made the collection of this information
burdensome. In addition, these officials noted that after the
conservation systems required under the compliance provisions were in
place by the mid-1990s, NRCS placed less emphasis on collecting data
related to compliance reviews. For example, NRCS no longer collects
soil erosion rates before and after conservation practices have been
applied and has only periodically collected information on the types of
waivers granted. Furthermore, although NRCS still collects the results
of the field offices' compliance reviews, it no longer analyzes these
results to determine consistency across regions and states and over
time.
As a result of these changes, NRCS is no longer able to determine
whether the conservation provisions are being consistently applied
across states and over time. For example, until we brought it to their
attention, NRCS headquarters staff were unaware that 30 of the 50 good
faith waivers granted nationally in crop year 2000 occurred in just one
state. In another case, NRCS was unaware that of the approximately 2.1
million technical assistance visits that its staff made to farms during
crop years 2000 and 2001, as discussed, these staff identified
deficiencies and issued waivers in only 22 instances.
USDA's Office of Inspector General Has Also Noted the Need to Improve
the Reliability of NRCS's Assessments of Farmers' Compliance:
In addition to improving the timeliness of compliance reviews, as
discussed, USDA's Office of Inspector General has noted other areas in
need of improvement regarding NRCS's implementation of the conservation
provisions. For example, in reports issued in August and September
2002, the Inspector General cited specific examples in Kansas where
special problem waivers were approved for circumstances that did not
appear to meet the established criteria.[Footnote 32] NRCS may grant
this type of waiver to a farmer if a violation occurred because of
personal hardship or adverse weather, or if the violation was minor, or
if it was technical. The Inspector General also noted cases where
potential compliance deficiencies, identified by NRCS field staff when
providing conservation technical assistance to a farmer, were not
subject to follow up status reviews.
Regarding the use of special problem waivers, the Inspector General
found cases where NRCS area and state office personnel authorized these
waivers because of agency procedural errors even though the farmers
involved were not actively applying approved conservation plans or
systems, as required by the conservation provisions and the agency's
guidance manual. For example, in one case, the Inspector General found
that a farmer received a waiver for 2 consecutive years on the basis of
a minor procedural issue although the district conservationist found
the farmer to be in noncompliance with the sodbuster provision. The
waiver was recommended by the area office on the basis of the local
field office's failure to complete in-office paperwork related to the
compliance reviews within prescribed time frames although this missed
internal deadline had no bearing on the district conservationist's
noncompliance determination. The Inspector General concluded that
special problem waivers were being used inappropriately to prevent
farmers from being found to be noncompliant with the conservation
compliance provisions. As a result, according to the Inspector General,
the farmers involved were allowed to continue to receive USDA farm
program benefits even though they were violating the conservation
provisions.
Concerning compliance deficiencies noted during the on-farm provision
of conservation technical assistance, the Inspector General found cases
in one field office where, although the NRCS staff had seen violations
during the provision of this assistance, these staff did not include
the farmers involved on a list of producers who would be determined to
be noncompliant if all noted deficiencies were not corrected. In
general, this occurred in cases where a farmer requested, but did not
receive, cost-share assistance for planned conservation practices under
other USDA programs. Specifically, the Inspector General found that
this office's philosophy was that the farmer should not be penalized,
despite the existence of compliance violations, for voluntary efforts
to apply conservation measures. However, NRCS's national guidance
manual is clear in these cases: (1) NRCS should inform the farmer of
actions or practices needed when potential compliance deficiencies are
noted while providing routine technical assistance. (2) The farmer is
then required to agree to correct the deficiency, sign a conservation
plan within 45 days, and implement the necessary conservation system
within 1 year to remain compliant and eligible for farm program
benefits. (3) NRCS should conduct a compliance review after a year to
determine if the farmer took the necessary actions. Again, because of
the problems noted, the Inspector General concluded that farmers who
were potentially noncompliant with the conservation compliance
provisions remained eligible for USDA farm program benefits.
In response to the Inspector General's findings, NRCS agreed to take
corrective actions. For example, the NRCS Kansas state office indicated
that it will review all special problem waiver requests on an ongoing
basis and approve waivers only for those situations that meet the
criteria for special problems established in national guidance. The
state office also concurred that potential compliance deficiencies
observed while providing routine technical assistance are subject to a
follow-up compliance review, regardless of the presence or absence of
cost-share assistance; the state office promised a clarifying directive
to all of its field offices by January 1, 2003, if it found that this
problem was occurring in other offices.
Farm Service Agency Frequently Waives NRCS Noncompliance Decisions
without Adequate Justification:
The Farm Service Agency frequently waives NRCS's noncompliance
determinations but does not always adequately support its decisions.
From 1993 through 2001, the Farm Service Agency waived NRCS's
noncompliance determinations in 4,948 of 8,118 cases in which farmers
were cited with violations, or about 61 percent, in response to
farmers' appeals. Of the 4,948 appeals leading to waivers, 3,966, or 80
percent, were considered by the Farm Service Agency's local county
committees, which found that the farmers had acted in good faith--that
is, they did not intend to violate the conservation
provisions.[Footnote 33] Regarding the role of the county committees,
41 NRCS field offices providing written comments in response to our
survey noted that because the committee members are fellow farmers,
they are predisposed to approve farmers' appeals so as not to penalize
a neighbor's eligibility for farm program benefits. In addition, about
one-third of our NRCS survey respondents indicated that the Farm
Service Agency does not adequately justify its waiver decisions. In
Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa, half of the survey respondents shared this
view. Without support from the Farm Service Agency, some NRCS field
office staff said that they have less incentive to conduct compliance
reviews and issue violations when warranted. In addition, in discussing
this issue with NRCS headquarters officials in January 2003, they
expressed surprise when informed of the frequency with which the Farm
Service Agency waives NRCS's noncompliance determinations.
Our field office visits reinforced the assertion that the Farm Service
Agency does not adequately justify its waiver decisions. In the five
offices we visited that had found farmers in violation of the
conservation provisions, NRCS officials indicated that the Farm Service
Agency's waivers were not adequately justified. Furthermore, our review
of the minutes of the Farm Service Agency's county committee meetings
and other relevant records revealed that these documents did not
clearly explain the basis for waiving NRCS's noncompliance
determinations in 34 of the 48 waivers we examined. For example, in
2001, in one office in Nebraska, we found that the county committee
waived 8 NRCS noncompliance determinations for a single farmer, even
though NRCS had already waived 16 violations for this farmer from 1999
through 2001. However, the committee's minutes and other documentation
did not clearly state the reason for these waivers.
Because of the waivers granted by its county committees, the Farm
Service Agency reinstates most benefits that farmers would otherwise be
ineligible to receive. As shown in table 2, for crop years 1993 through
2001, of the $59.6 million in benefits that were to be denied because
of compliance violations, about $40.4 million was reinstated after the
Farm Service Agency considered farmers' appeals and made its final
ruling. The table also shows that the benefits actually denied as a
percentage of benefits to be denied has generally declined over time.
More detailed information on the benefits denied farmers for
conservation compliance violations is contained in appendix IV.
Table 2: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for
Violations of Conservation Provisions, Crop Years 1993-2001:
Crop year: 1993; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 53,878; Tracts with
violations: 2,085; Farmers with violations:
2,860; Benefits to be denied before appeals:
$17,211; Benefits reinstated by Farm Service
Agency[B]: $10,416; Benefits reinstated by
others[C]: $2,067; Benefits denied: $4,483;
Percentage of benefits denied: 26.0.
Crop year: 1994; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 49,314; Tracts with
violations: 1,639; Farmers with violations:
2,483; Benefits to be denied before appeals:
14,845; Benefits reinstated by Farm Service
Agency[B]: 9,415; Benefits reinstated by
others[C]: 1,803; Benefits denied: 3,625;
Percentage of benefits denied: 24.4.
Crop year: 1995; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 44,983; Tracts with
violations: 633; Farmers with violations: 940;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 2,838;
Benefits reinstated by Farm Service Agency[B]:
1,639; Benefits reinstated by others[C]: 224;
Benefits denied: 975;
Percentage of benefits denied: 34.4.
Crop year: 1996; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 49,986; Tracts with
violations: 498; Farmers with violations: 632;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 2,302;
Benefits reinstated by Farm Service Agency[B]:
967; Benefits reinstated by others[C]: 405;
Benefits denied: 930;
Percentage of benefits denied: 40.4.
Crop year: 1997; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 49,636; Tracts with
violations: 183; Farmers with violations: 277;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 2,305;
Benefits reinstated by Farm Service Agency[B]:
1,622; Benefits reinstated by others[C]: 279;
Benefits denied: 403;
Percentage of benefits denied: 17.5.
Crop year: 1998; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 15,385; Tracts with
violations: 205; Farmers with violations: 268;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 3,895;
Benefits reinstated by Farm Service Agency[B]:
1,988; Benefits reinstated by others[C]: 1,175;
Benefits denied: 731;
Percentage of benefits denied: 18.8.
Crop year: 1999; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 14,136; Tracts with
violations: 180; Farmers with violations: 245;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 4,959;
Benefits reinstated by Farm Service Agency[B]:
4,241; Benefits reinstated by others[C]: 355;
Benefits denied: 362;
Percentage of benefits denied: 7.3.
Crop year: 2000; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 17,259; Tracts with
violations: 153; Farmers with violations: 197;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 4,870;
Benefits reinstated by Farm Service Agency[B]:
4,168; Benefits reinstated by others[C]: 39;
Benefits denied: 634;
Percentage of benefits denied: 13.0.
Crop year: 2001; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 17,708; Tracts with
violations: 118; Farmers with violations: 170;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 6,385;
Benefits reinstated by Farm Service Agency[B]:
5,941; Benefits reinstated by others[C]: 155;
Benefits denied: 289;
Percentage of benefits denied: 4.5.
Crop year: Total; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[A]: 312,285; Tracts with
violations: 5,694; Farmers with violations:
8,072; Benefits to be denied before appeals:
$59,610; Benefits reinstated by Farm Service
Agency[B]: $40,397; Benefits reinstated by
others[C]: $6,502; Benefits denied: $12,432;
Percentage of benefits denied: 20.9.
Source: GAO.
Notes: GAO's analysis of the Farm Service Agency's data.
Benefits denied include price and income support payments, conservation
payments, disaster payments, guaranteed loans, and crop insurance
(through 1996). Benefits denied do not include $361,441 that could not
be directly associated with specific tracts.
Data in table do not include benefits denied participants in the
peanut-marketing quota program or tobacco-marketing quota program,
which are reported in pounds. The benefits denied total 2.1 million
pounds for peanuts and 3.6 million pounds for tobacco.
The decline in the number of tracts and farmers with violations over
time is attributable, in part, to the reduction in the number of
compliance reviews being performed each year. Other factors, as noted
in the results of our survey and field office visits, as well as in
reports issued by USDA's Inspector General, likely include a misuse of
waivers, decreasing management emphasis on conservation compliance
relative to NRCS's other responsibilities, and a continuing reluctance
to assume the enforcement role called for by the compliance provisions.
[A] Compliance reviews are conducted by NRCS.
[B] Includes $33.9 million reinstated because of good faith waivers and
$6.5 million reinstated because of tenant and landlord waivers.
[C] Includes benefits reinstated by NRCS State Conservationists, USDA's
National Appeals Division, and judicial courts after considering
related farmers' appeals.
[End of table]
In discussing the waiver issue with Farm Service Agency officials in
January 2003, they noted that the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 eliminated graduated payment reductions as a penalty
for conservation compliance violations, except for sodbuster. Thus, the
agency's county committees currently have few options when considering
a farmer's appeal of a noncompliance determination. According to these
officials, the committees are faced with an "all or nothing" decision:
either the committee must grant a good faith waiver, continuing the
farmer's eligibility for benefits and giving the farmer 12 months to
get back into compliance, or deny the appeal, making the farmer
ineligible for farm program benefits. These officials added that the
decision to grant a good faith waiver is, by its nature, subjective,
not technical; despite the violation, the committee must decide whether
the farmer acted in good faith and without intent to violate the
conservation provisions. However, as discussed, one-third of our NRCS
survey respondents indicated that the Farm Service Agency's waivers are
not adequately justified, and some field staff commented that the
granting of these waivers acts as a disincentive to them to make future
noncompliance determinations when warranted.
Conservation Provisions and Other Factors Have Significantly Reduced
Soil Erosion and Wetlands Conversions, but Progress Has Slowed in
Recent Years:
According to USDA, conservation groups, and farm organizations, in the
17 years since the 1985 act, its conservation provisions have
contributed to substantial reductions in soil erosion and wetlands
conversions. However, other factors, such as economic incentives for
farmers to use new farming techniques and equipment that are more
conserving of land and water resources, have also contributed. In
addition, reductions in soil erosion and wetlands conversions have
leveled off in recent years, and in some areas of the country, soil
erosion has even increased.
According to NRCS's National Resources Inventory, substantial
reductions in soil erosion occurred during the 1980s and 1990s as the
conservation provisions were being implemented.[Footnote 34] The
nation's soil erosion on all cropland--both highly erodible and
nonhighly erodible cropland--fell from 3.1 billion tons, or about 7
tons per acre, in 1982 to 1.9 billion tons, or about 5 tons per acre,
in 1997, the most recent year for which data are available.[Footnote
35] The soil erosion rate on highly erodible cropland--land that is
subject to the conservation provisions--declined by 35 percent from
1982 through 1997. In 1982, the average annual soil erosion rate
attributable to water on these lands was about 8 tons per acre, but by
1997, the rate was about 5 tons per acre.
Less soil erosion helps maintain soil productivity.[Footnote 36]
According to NRCS, from 1982 through 1997, the percentage of cropland
on which long-term soil productivity is being depleted declined from 67
percent to 55 percent. Similarly, for the same period, the percentage
of highly erodible cropland on which long-term soil productivity is
being depleted declined from 45 percent to 33 percent. Furthermore,
reducing soil erosion on cropland has benefits for the general public
that may be substantial, such as improving water and air quality. For
example, according to a 2001 USDA study, the societal benefits of
reducing erosion through conservation compliance exceed $1.4 billion
per year.[Footnote 37]
However, the proportion of this soil erosion reduction that can be
attributed to conservation compliance provisions is difficult to assess
because other factors have affected farmers' decisions. For example,
some farmers adopted erosion-reducing conservation tillage practices
over this period because these practices can reduce their crop
production costs, resulting in increased profits. During this time, new
machinery and technology allowed farmers to plant their crops with less
tillage, thereby saving time and money, while also keeping soil-
conserving crop residue on the field. In addition, conservation
programs, such as USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
provided farmers with financial assistance to encourage them to adopt
conservation practices. Finally, federal, state, and local laws
addressing other environmental concerns might have also encouraged the
adoption of conservation practices. Thus, even in the absence of the
conservation compliance provisions, some farmers would have employed
conservation practices, and some of this soil erosion reduction would
have been achieved.[Footnote 38]
Nevertheless, while conservation progress has been substantial, USDA
considers soil erosion a continuing problem and believes that progress
in reducing soil erosion has slowed in recent years. In this regard,
soil erosion on about 27 percent, or 28 million acres, of the cropland
subject to the 1985 act's provisions is still much higher than on
cropland generally--an average of 24 tons per acre annually compared
with the national average of about 5 tons per acre. In addition, about
50 million of the nearly 273 million acres of the nation's cropland
that is not subject to conservation compliance is experiencing a high
rate of erosion and loss in long-term soil productivity, according to
USDA. Regarding the slowing in progress noted, the Conservation
Technology Information Center, a nonprofit conservation organization
that reports biennially on farmers' use of conservation tillage
practices, found in 2002 that this usage continued a slight decline
that began in 1998 after increasing during the period 1990 through
1997. The center also reported that farmers slightly increased their
use of intensive tillage practices--which result in higher soil erosion
levels than when conservation tillage is used.
NRCS field offices believe that further reductions in soil erosion are
possible. Over 80 percent of our survey respondents reported that
further declines in soil erosion are economically feasible for farmers
to achieve. In addition, in counties where high levels of soil erosion
are permitted by alternative conservation systems, 74 percent of the
field offices reported that further reductions in erosion are
feasible.[Footnote 39]
With respect to wetlands, wetlands conversions due to agriculture fell
sharply from an average of 235,000 acres per year before the 1985
provisions (from 1974 through 1983) to an average of 27,000 acres per
year after the provisions (from 1992 through 1997), according to USDA.
However, as with provisions to reduce soil erosion, factors other than
the wetlands conservation provisions may be responsible, in part, for
the reductions. According to a USDA study, about half of the original,
naturally occurring wetlands in the continental United States had been
drained by 1985 and many of the remaining wetlands might not have been
converted because these wetlands were not economically feasible to
convert.[Footnote 40] Furthermore, according to the American Farm
Bureau Federation's Senior Director of Government Relations, the
positive effects of the wetlands conservation provisions cannot be
determined without knowing how other federal, state, and local
regulations affect wetlands conversions. However, a 2001 USDA report
cites the large decline in wetlands conversions and credits the
conservation compliance provisions with discouraging the conversion of
as much as 3.3 million acres of wetlands.[Footnote 41] In addition, the
Director of the Wildlife Management Institute stated that the wetlands
provisions have been very effective in protecting permanent and
semipermanent wetlands. However, this official said that the provisions
are only marginally effective in protecting temporary and seasonal
wetlands because USDA generally identifies these wetlands during the
summer months when the wetlands are often smaller or completely dry and
less likely to exhibit other wetlands characteristics. Officials in the
Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service also noted that
the wetlands provisions are less effective for temporary or seasonal
wetlands for this reason.[Footnote 42]
Conclusions:
The compliance review process serves as NRCS's principal tool for
monitoring farmers' adherence to the 1985 act's conservation compliance
provisions. In field offices and in headquarters, however, NRCS's use
of this tool has fallen short. Improper implementation of the
conservation provisions increases the likelihood that some farmers are
still receiving federal farm payments even though they let soil erode
at higher rates than allowed or convert wetlands to cropland.
As the results of our survey and field office visits indicate, NRCS's
field offices often do not implement one or more of the key
conservation compliance provisions designed to control erosion or
prevent wetlands conversion. Provisions that are often neglected
include checking for wetlands violations, revisiting farms granted
compliance waivers the previous year, and citing farmers with
violations for failing to implement important conservation measures.
Because of these implementation problems, NRCS cannot be assured that
its field offices' reports of farmers' compliance with the conservation
provisions are accurate. A number of conditions contribute to these
implementation problems, such as resource constraints, the lack of
management emphasis, and a reluctance to assume an enforcement role.
Even under these conditions, however, implementation could be improved
if field office staff received clearer guidance and training so that
they better understood their roles and responsibilities in implementing
the compliance provisions, as well as the importance of these
provisions.
Moreover, flaws in NRCS's oversight monitoring make questionable USDA's
claim that 98 percent of the nation's cropland tracts subject to the
conservation provisions are in compliance. First, NRCS's sample of
tracts selected for compliance reviews reduces confidence in this
claim. Twenty percent of the sample reviewed includes tracts that are
not subject to the conservation provisions, such as permanent
rangelands. Nevertheless, NRCS reports these tracts in compliance.
Second, the current system for providing the field with information,
and receiving information from it, does not enable field offices to
visit tracts when the land is most vulnerable to erosion and to observe
the effectiveness of farmers' compliance efforts. Third, NRCS is
collecting less information about the results of the compliance reviews
than it has in the past, making it difficult to compare farmers'
compliance with the conservation provisions from year to year. Finally,
although the information yielded by the compliance reviews may not be
fully credible, it does suggest inconsistent enforcement. For example,
10 states issued most of the waivers and violations in crop years 2000
and 2001. However, NRCS has not used this information to investigate
the enforcement issues raised.
Lastly, the Farm Service Agency waived NRCS's noncompliance
determinations about 61 percent of the time during crop years 1993
through 2001. We found little documentation in the files to support
these waivers. The frequency and questionableness of these waivers
undermines NRCS's enforcement efforts. Without support from the Farm
Service Agency, NRCS's field office staff have less incentive to issue
violations when warranted.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve USDA's implementation of the conservation compliance
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and to better
protect the highly erodible croplands and wetlands covered by those
provisions, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the
Chief of NRCS to:
* increase oversight of field offices' conduct of compliance reviews to
improve the accuracy and completeness of the reviews;
* periodically provide training for field office staff on how
compliance reviews should be conducted;
* develop a more representative sample of tracts selected for
compliance reviews that excludes land that is not subject to the
compliance provisions;
* establish and maintain a consistent methodology for collecting,
analyzing, and summarizing data to identify patterns and trends in
enforcement across regions and states and over time; and:
* develop a nationwide, automated system, such as a web-based system,
for efficiently managing information needed to conduct compliance
reviews and report results.
In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the
Administrator of the Farm Service Agency to ensure that decisions by
the Farm Service Agency's field offices to waive NRCS's findings of
noncompliance are justified and documented.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and
comment. We received oral comments from NRCS officials, including the
Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and Accountability and the Director
for Operations Management and Oversight. We also received written
comments from the Farm Service Agency.
NRCS officials concurred with our recommendations and indicated that
they have begun steps to implement them. These officials also said that
they generally agreed with the report's findings but found the tone of
the report to be overly negative. Specifically, these officials said
that the report focuses too much on problems with the agency's
implementation of the conservation compliance provisions and not enough
on the provisions' positive accomplishments in reducing soil erosion
and wetlands conversions.
We do not believe that the report is overly critical. NRCS's written
guidance sets an expectation that its field staff consistently follow a
set of procedures to determine farmers' compliance with the
conservation provisions. On the basis of our survey responses from over
2,000 NRCS field offices, we found that nearly half of these offices do
not consistently follow one or more of these procedures when conducting
compliance reviews. Moreover, our field office visits revealed a
similar pattern, thus reinforcing the survey results. Regarding the
provisions' positive accomplishments, the report discusses the
substantial reductions in soil erosion and wetlands conversions
attributed to the provisions by USDA and others. The report also
presents data on the extent of these accomplishments.
NRCS officials also objected to our characterization of NRCS's role in
implementing the conservation compliance provisions as having an
"enforcement" component. These officials said that NRCS is not an
enforcement agency. They explained that NRCS makes technical
determinations of farmers' compliance or noncompliance with the
conservation provisions and that the decision to withhold farm program
benefits for noncompliance rests with the Farm Service Agency. While we
understand NRCS's sensitivity to this issue, we nevertheless believe it
is accurate to describe its role in the provisions' implementation as
including an enforcement component.
The conservation compliance provisions require that farmers who receive
federal assistance meet standards for environmental quality. By setting
such standards for agricultural activity, the provisions represent a
departure from USDA's traditional role of implementing soil and water
conservation programs that are voluntary and incentive based. NRCS is
the lead agency for administering the conservation compliance
provisions. Its responsibilities include the performance of compliance
reviews to verify farmers' implementation of the conservation systems
required by the provisions. These reviews are an integral step in the
enforcement of the provisions. A determination of noncompliance,
potentially leading to a farmer's loss of eligibility for farm program
benefits, rests with NRCS. This responsibility exists and is intrinsic
to enforcement even if another agency must take action, on the basis of
NRCS's finding and recommendation, to withhold this eligibility.
The Farm Service Agency also agreed with the report's recommendations.
In addition, the agency generally agreed with the report's findings,
but it downplayed the significance of our finding that the agency's
county committees waived 61 percent of the NRCS noncompliance
determinations made during 1993 through 2001. For example, the agency
said that its waivers do not negate or overrule an NRCS determination
that a violation occurred. The agency noted that although a "good
faith" waiver granted by a county committee allows a violating farmer
to continue receiving program benefits, the farmer must still take
corrective action within 1 year, incurring any associated costs. In
addition, the Farm Service Agency noted that the issuance of good faith
waivers has aided the restoration of converted wetlands and the
implementation of conservation systems on highly erodible land tracts
that were brought back into compliance. According to the agency, it
could be argued that many of these tracts would not have been brought
back into compliance if eligibility for benefits had not been
reinstated under the good faith waiver. The agency added that the
overall purpose of the conservation provisions is not to deny benefits,
but rather to achieve conservation compliance.
We agree with the Farm Service Agency's assessment that the purpose of
the conservation provisions is not to deny farmers benefits. However,
the Farm Service Agency's written guidance requires that county office
committees grant good faith waivers judiciously and only when supported
by conclusive evidence indicating that the farmer did not intend to
violate the provisions. In addition, NRCS officials were concerned at
the extent to which the Farm Service Agency waives NRCS's noncompliance
determinations. These officials expressed the view that many of these
waivers are not justified and that the high number of waivers tends to
undermine NRCS's implementation of the conservation compliance
provisions, thus giving its field staff less incentive to issue
violations when warranted.
NRCS and the Farm Service Agency also provided technical corrections,
which we have incorporated into the report as appropriate. The Farm
Service Agency's written comments are presented in appendix VI.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter. We will then send copies to interested
congressional committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will
make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence J. Dyckman
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Lawrence J. Dyckman:
[End of section]
Appendix I: U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Compliance
Review Process:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
compliance review process.
[A] In addition to the random sample of tracts identified, NRCS field
offices select additional tracts for review on the basis of referrals
from other agencies (e.g., tracts owned by employees of other USDA
agencies), tracts associated with farmers who receive farm loans,
whistleblower complaints, tracts with potential violations observed by
NRCS employees when providing technical assistance; and tracts
associated with farmers granted a waiver the prior year.
[B] We use the term "waiver" in this case to refer to variances and
exemptions given by NRCS. A variance continues a farmer's eligibility
for federal farm program benefits when the farmer is unable to apply a
conservation system or practice because of severe or unusual conditions
such as weather, disease, or pests; because the farmer experienced an
extreme personal hardship or unusual occurrence, such as illness or
death; or because the deficiency is minor and technical in nature. An
exemption maintains a farmer's eligibility for benefits when a
violation is identified while NRCS staff are providing on-site
technical assistance. The 1-year period to correct the deficiency does
not apply to the severe or unusual conditions waiver.
[C] Farmer has 30 days to request a field review for reconsideration or
mediation of NRCS's initial noncompliance decision. If the farmer does
not exercise this option within the 30-day period, NRCS's noncompliance
determination becomes final and NRCS refers the matter to FSA for
further action.
[D] The benefits to be withheld from a farmer may include price and
income support payments, conservation payments, disaster payments, and
access to guaranteed loans.
[E] Farmer may appeal FSA's ineligibility determination first to the
local FSA county committee and then, if necessary, to USDA's National
Appeals Division. If the farmer disagrees with the National Appeals
Division's decision, the farmer may file suit in federal district
court.
[F] We use the term "waiver" in this instance to refer to variances and
exemptions given by the local FSA county committees. A variance
continues a farmer's eligibility when the farmer is unable to implement
a conservation system because doing so would cause undue economic
hardship. An exemption maintains the farmer's eligibility when the
farmer acted in good faith and without intent to violate the
conservation provisions or when a landlord prevents a tenant farmer
from implementing an approved conservation system. Similarly, in cases
in which the tenant farmer's violation is not attributable to actions
of the landlord, the landlord may receive an exemption that continues
the landlord's eligibility for benefits regarding other tracts. The 1-
year period to correct the deficiency does not apply to the tenant and
landlord waivers.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
At the request of the Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, we reviewed USDA's
implementation of the conservation provisions of the Food Security Act
of 1985. Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) how well NRCS's field
offices are carrying out these provisions; (2) how effectively NRCS
oversees its field offices' efforts to carry out these provisions; (3)
how often FSA waives NRCS's noncompliance determinations; and (4) the
extent to which these conservation provisions have helped to reduce
soil erosion and the loss of wetlands.
To determine how well NRCS's field offices are carrying out the
conservation provisions, and how effectively NRCS's headquarters
oversees its field offices' efforts to carry out these provisions, we
examined NRCS's national database on the results of compliance reviews
for crop years 1998 through 2001 to identify unusual patterns in
compliance enforcement. Automated data for these reviews were not
available for years prior to 1998. We also examined the guidance that
NRCS's field offices use to monitor farmers' compliance with the
conservation provisions, including relevant laws; the Code of Federal
Regulations, title 7, part 12; and agency guidance, including NRCS's
National Food Security Act Manual and related state amendments and
bulletins.
We also surveyed staff--usually the district conservationist--
responsible for compliance reviews in each of NRCS's 2,549 field
offices that conducted compliance reviews during the period 1998
through 2001 to obtain information on that official's understanding and
implementation of the conservation provisions, as well as the
official's views on the effectiveness of these provisions. To obtain
the views of each field office official, we developed an electronic
questionnaire that was posted on GAO's home page on the Internet. In
developing the questionnaire, we met with officials in NRCS's
headquarters to gain a thorough understanding of highly erodible land
and wetlands conservation issues. We also shared a draft copy of the
questionnaire with these officials who provided us comments including
technical corrections. We then pretested the questionnaire with two
NRCS district conservationists in Texas, and one in Maryland and
Virginia. During these visits, we asked the officials to fill out the
survey over the Internet. After completing the survey, we interviewed
the respondents to ensure that (1) the questions were clear and
unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, (3) the questionnaire
did not place an undue burden on the agency officials completing it,
and (4) the questionnaire was independent and unbiased. On the basis of
the feedback from the pretests, we modified the questions as
appropriate.
Information about accessing the questionnaire was provided via E-mail
for those NRCS staff selected to participate in the survey. The survey
was activated, and staff informed of its availability on September 10,
2002; it was available until October 2, 2002. To ensure security and
data integrity, we provided each NRCS field official with a password
that allowed him or her to access and complete a questionnaire for the
local office. No one else could access that questionnaire or edit its
data. We also provided these officials with a pledge of confidentiality
to ensure their candor in completing the survey.
We received responses from 2,015, or 79 percent, of the officials
surveyed. Table 3 shows the number of field offices that participated
in our survey and each state's response rate. The results of our survey
are summarized in appendix V.[Footnote 43] For survey results
stratified by state, see a special publication entitled Agricultural
Conservation: Survey Results on USDA's Implementation of Food Security
Act Compliance Provisions (GAO-03-492SP), which is available on the
Internet at http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-03-492SP.
Table 3: Number of Field Offices Participating in Our Survey That
Regularly Conduct Compliance Reviews and the Response Rate:
State: Alabama; Field offices surveyed: 62; Field offices responding:
50; Percent response rate: 80.6.
State: Alaska; Field offices surveyed: 4; Field offices responding: 4;
Percent response rate: 100.0.
State: Arizona; Field offices surveyed: 14; Field offices responding:
12; Percent response rate: 85.7.
State: Arkansas; Field offices surveyed: 63; Field offices responding:
45; Percent response rate: 71.4.
State: California; Field offices surveyed: 49; Field offices
responding: 33; Percent response rate: 67.3.
State: Colorado; Field offices surveyed: 55; Field offices responding:
44; Percent response rate: 80.0.
State: Connecticut; Field offices surveyed: 1; Field offices
responding: 1; Percent response rate: 100.0.
State: Delaware; Field offices surveyed: 1; Field offices responding:
1; Percent response rate: 100.0.
State: Florida; Field offices surveyed: 42; Field offices responding:
31; Percent response rate: 73.8.
State: Georgia; Field offices surveyed: 84; Field offices responding:
61; Percent response rate: 72.6.
State: Hawaii; Field offices surveyed: 5; Field offices responding: 5;
Percent response rate: 100.0.
State: Idaho; Field offices surveyed: 39; Field offices responding: 28;
Percent response rate: 71.8.
State: Illinois; Field offices surveyed: 97; Field offices responding:
77; Percent response rate: 79.4.
State: Indiana; Field offices surveyed: 79; Field offices responding:
63; Percent response rate: 79.7.
State: Iowa; Field offices surveyed: 108; Field offices responding: 81;
Percent response rate: 75.0.
State: Kansas; Field offices surveyed: 109; Field offices responding:
94; Percent response rate: 86.2.
State: Kentucky; Field offices surveyed: 91; Field offices responding:
73; Percent response rate: 80.2.
State: Louisiana; Field offices surveyed: 49; Field offices responding:
45; Percent response rate: 91.8.
State: Maine; Field offices surveyed: 12; Field offices responding: 11;
Percent response rate: 91.7.
State: Maryland; Field offices surveyed: 22; Field offices responding:
15; Percent response rate: 68.2.
State: Massachusetts; Field offices surveyed: 7; Field offices
responding: 6; Percent response rate: 85.7.
State: Michigan; Field offices surveyed: 60; Field offices responding:
48; Percent response rate: 80.0.
State: Minnesota; Field offices surveyed: 83; Field offices responding:
69; Percent response rate: 83.1.
State: Mississippi; Field offices surveyed: 80; Field offices
responding: 66; Percent response rate: 82.5.
State: Missouri; Field offices surveyed: 104; Field offices responding:
80; Percent response rate: 76.9.
State: Montana; Field offices surveyed: 61; Field offices responding:
45; Percent response rate: 73.8.
State: Nebraska; Field offices surveyed: 82; Field offices responding:
73; Percent response rate: 89.0.
State: Nevada; Field offices surveyed: 7; Field offices responding: 5;
Percent response rate: 71.4.
State: New Hampshire; Field offices surveyed: 6; Field offices
responding: 5; Percent response rate: 83.3.
State: New Jersey; Field offices surveyed: 7; Field offices responding:
4; Percent response rate: 57.1.
State: New Mexico; Field offices surveyed: 35; Field offices
responding: 24; Percent response rate: 68.6.
State: New York; Field offices surveyed: 47; Field offices responding:
39; Percent response rate: 83.0.
State: North Carolina; Field offices surveyed: 86; Field offices
responding: 72; Percent response rate: 83.7.
State: North Dakota; Field offices surveyed: 56; Field offices
responding: 50; Percent response rate: 89.3.
State: Ohio; Field offices surveyed: 76; Field offices responding: 61;
Percent response rate: 80.3.
State: Oklahoma; Field offices surveyed: 79; Field offices responding:
62; Percent response rate: 78.5.
State: Oregon; Field offices surveyed: 27; Field offices responding:
21; Percent response rate: 77.8.
State: Pennsylvania; Field offices surveyed: 46; Field offices
responding: 40; Percent response rate: 87.0.
State: Rhode Island; Field offices surveyed: 2; Field offices
responding: 1; Percent response rate: 50.0.
State: South Carolina; Field offices surveyed: 42; Field offices
responding: 29; Percent response rate: 69.0.
State: South Dakota; Field offices surveyed: 65; Field offices
responding: 54; Percent response rate: 83.1.
State: Tennessee; Field offices surveyed: 71; Field offices responding:
55; Percent response rate: 77.5.
State: Texas; Field offices surveyed: 201; Field offices responding:
157; Percent response rate: 78.1.
State: Utah; Field offices surveyed: 21; Field offices responding: 15;
Percent response rate: 71.4.
State: Vermont; Field offices surveyed: 8; Field offices responding: 6;
Percent response rate: 75.0.
State: Virginia; Field offices surveyed: 54; Field offices responding:
41; Percent response rate: 75.9.
State: Washington; Field offices surveyed: 34; Field offices
responding: 26; Percent response rate: 76.5.
State: West Virginia; Field offices surveyed: 32; Field offices
responding: 23; Percent response rate: 71.9.
State: Wisconsin; Field offices surveyed: 61; Field offices responding:
52; Percent response rate: 85.2.
State: Wyoming; Field offices surveyed: 23; Field offices responding:
12; Percent response rate: 52.2.
State: Total; Field offices surveyed: 2,549; Field offices responding:
2,015; Percent response rate: 79.1.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We also visited 20 NRCS field offices located in 19 counties in 5
states (Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas) to
discuss implementation of the compliance provisions with relevant staff
and to review documentation of compliance decisions, including waivers,
in order to determine the basis for these decisions. We selected these
field offices on the basis of such criteria as the amount of highly
erodible cropland covered by the office that is subject to the
conservation provisions, geographic dispersion, and apparent anomalies
in USDA data related to compliance reviews, waivers, and penalties
assessed (such as an office that appears to issue an inordinately large
number of waivers). Specifically, in these field offices, we spoke with
the district conservationist and/or other staff and reviewed
documentation on file, including Form AD-1026 (referrals for highly
erodible land and/or wetlands determinations); aerial photography;
conservation assistance notes; conservation plans; soil loss
computations; status review results; and correspondence, including
requests for waivers.
In addition, we reviewed relevant studies prepared by USDA's Office of
Inspector General and the Congressional Research Service, as well as
our own past reports. We also reviewed annual Food Security Act status
(compliance) reviews prepared by NRCS or FSA, and interviewed officials
from these agencies in the field and headquarters. Furthermore, we
reviewed USDA's Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised
Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 and NRCS's Initial Performance Plan for
Fiscal Year 2003 and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 to determine
what performance goals and measures USDA has established for soil
erosion reduction and wetlands conservation.
To determine how often FSA waives NRCS's noncompliance decisions, we
examined FSA's database on violations and benefits withheld or waivers
granted for crop years 1993 through 2001 to determine trends in
assessing penalties for noncompliance. We also spoke with FSA field and
headquarters staff regarding the reasons for waiving NRCS's
noncompliance determinations and reviewed relevant documentation,
including the minutes of county committee meetings, correspondence
files, and appeal files. In addition, we reviewed FSA guidance,
including its manual on highly erodible land conservation and wetlands
conservation provisions.
Finally, to determine the extent to which the conservation provisions
have helped to reduce soil erosion and loss of wetlands, we reviewed
the results of USDA's National Resources Inventory and other related
studies. In addition, we spoke with officials from USDA's Economic
Research Service; the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife
Service; farm organizations, including the American Farm Bureau
Federation and American Soybean Association; and conservation groups,
including Ducks Unlimited, the Soil and Water Conservation Society, the
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and the Wildlife Management
Institute.
We conducted our review from April 2002 through February 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Although we did
not independently assess the accuracy and reliability of the USDA data
we used, we reviewed the data for reasonableness among regions and
compared them with data in other USDA reports.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop
Years 2000 and 2001:
Table 4: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews Showing Violations and
Waivers by State, Crop Year 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NRCS.
Notes: GAO's analysis of NRCS's data.
Violations occur when a farmer does not apply conservation practices on
highly erodible land or the farmer's tract contains a potential
wetlands violation. Waivers allow farmers to maintain eligibility for
federal farm benefits when they are unable to apply a conservation
practice because the farmer was prevented by severe or unusual
conditions such as weather, disease, or pests; because the farmer acted
in good faith, and without intent to violate the conservation
provisions; because the farmer experienced an extreme personal hardship
or unusual occurrence, such as illness or death; because failures were
minor and technical in nature; because the farmer was identified in
noncompliance by NRCS while providing on-site technical assistance; or
because the farmer was conditionally applying practices until the
approved conservation practices are completed. An on-site visit is not
required when an exemption for a specific tract is approved.
[A] Tracts reviewed for compliance includes 13,025 tracts randomly
selected by NRCS headquarters and another 4,234 tracts added by NRCS
field offices on the basis of referrals from other agencies,
whistleblower complaints, and tracts that maintained eligibility for
farm benefits based on previous year waivers.
[B] Total tracts with violations largely reflects NRCS's preliminary
noncompliance determinations, as of the date these data were compiled.
Many of these determinations were subsequently reversed by NRCS--
through granting variances or exemptions--on appeal from the affected
farmers. Tracts referred b;y NRCS to FSA are only those tracts for
which NRCS sustains its preliminary noncompliance determination.
[End of table]
Table 5: Results of NRCS's Compliance Reviews Showing Violations and
Waivers by State, Crop Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NRCS.
Notes: GAO's analysis of NRCS's data.
Violations occur when a farmer does not apply conservation practices on
highly erodible land or the farmer's tract contains a potential
wetlands violation. Waivers allow farmers to maintain eligibility for
federal farm benefits when they are unable to apply a conservation
practice because the farmer was prevented by severe or unusual
conditions such as weather, diseases, or pests; because the farmer
acted in good faith, and without intent to violate the conservation
provisions; because the farmer experienced an extreme personal hardship
or unusual occurrence, such as illness or death; because failures were
minor and technical in nature; because the farmer was identified as
being in noncompliance by NRCS while providing on-site technical
assistance; or because the farmer was conditionally applying practices
until the approved conservation practices are completed. An on-site
visit is not required when an exemption for a specific tract is
approved.
[A] Tracts reviewed for compliance includes 13,544 tracts randomly
selected by NRCS headquarters and another 4,164 tracts added by NRCS
field offices on the basis of referrals from other agencies,
whistleblower complaints, and tracts that maintained eligibility for
farm benefits based on previous year waivers.
[B] Total tracts with violations largely reflects NRCS's preliminary
noncompliance determinations, as of the date these data were compiled.
Many of these determinations were subsequently reversed by NRCS--
through granting variances or exemptions--on appeal from the affected
farmers. Tracts referred by NRCS to FSA are only those tracts for which
NRCS sustains its preliminary noncompliance determination.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993-2001:
Table 6: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for
Violations of Conservation Provisions, Nationwide, Crop Years 1993-
2001:
Dollars in thousands:
Crop Year: 1993; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 1,893; Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with
violations: 2,592; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be denied before appeals: $12,748; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits denied: $3,005; Wetlands provisions: Tracts
with violations: 192; Wetlands provisions: Farmers with violations:
268; Wetlands provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals:
$4,463; Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied:
$1,478; Wetlands provisions: Total benefits
denied: $4,483.
Crop Year: 1994; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 1,530; Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with
violations: 2,303; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be denied before appeals: 10,692; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits denied: 2,243; Wetlands provisions: Tracts
with violations: 109; Wetlands provisions: Farmers with violations:
180; Wetlands provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals:
4,153; Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied:
1,382; Wetlands provisions: Total benefits
denied: 3,625.
Crop Year: 1995; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 605; Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with
violations: 892; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be
denied before appeals: 2,674; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits
denied: 968; Wetlands provisions: Tracts with violations: 28; Wetlands
provisions: Farmers with violations: 45; Wetlands
provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied: 0;
Wetlands provisions: Total benefits denied: 968.
Crop Year: 1996; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 402;
Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with violations:
491; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be
denied before appeals: 1,266; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits
denied: 492; Wetlands provisions: Tracts with violations: 96; Wetlands
provisions: Farmers with violations: 141;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,036;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied: 439;
Wetlands provisions: Total benefits denied: 931.
Crop Year: 1997; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 150;
Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with violations:
215; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be
denied before appeals: 1,391; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits
denied: 334; Wetlands provisions: Tracts with violations: 33; Wetlands
provisions: Farmers with violations: 62; Wetlands
provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals: 913;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied: 69;
Wetlands provisions: Total benefits denied: 403.
Crop Year: 1998; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 167;
Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with violations:
220; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be
denied before appeals: 1,932; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits
denied: 301; Wetlands provisions: Tracts with violations: 38;
Wetlands
provisions: Farmers with violations: 48; Wetlands
provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,962;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied: 430;
Wetlands provisions: Total benefits denied: 731.
Crop Year: 1999; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 134;
Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with violations:
177; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be
denied before appeals: 2,381; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits
denied: 238; Wetlands provisions: Tracts with violations: 46;
Wetlands provisions: Farmers with violations: 61; Wetlands
provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals: 2,296;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied: 111;
Wetlands provisions: Total benefits denied: 349.
Crop Year: 2000; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 118;
Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with violations:
160; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be
denied before appeals: 3,617; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits
denied: 404; Wetlands provisions: Tracts with violations: 35; Wetlands
provisions: Farmers with violations: 36; Wetlands
provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,253;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied: 231;
Wetlands provisions: Total benefits denied: 635.
Crop Year: 2001; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with
violations: 85;
Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with violations:
137; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be
denied before appeals: 5,477; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits
denied: 150; Wetlands provisions: Tracts with violations: 33; Wetlands
provisions: Farmers with violations: 32; Wetlands
provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals: 908;
Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied: 139;
Wetlands provisions: Total benefits denied: 289.
Total; Highly erodible land provisions: Tracts with violations: 5,084;
Highly erodible land provisions: Farmers with violations:
7,187; Highly erodible land provisions: Benefits
to be denied before appeals: $42,178; Highly erodible
land provisions: Benefits denied: $8,135; Wetlands provisions: Tracts
with violations: 610; Wetlands provisions: Farmers with violations:
873; Wetlands provisions: Benefits to be denied before appeals:
$16,984; Wetlands provisions: Benefits denied:
$4,279; Wetlands provisions: Total benefits
denied: $12,414.
Source: FSA.
Notes: GAO's analysis of FSA's data.
The total benefits denied includes price and income support payments,
conservation payments, disaster payments, guaranteed loans, and crop
insurance (through 1996). This total does not include an additional
$361,441 in benefits denied that were not tied directly to specific
tracts in FSA's data.
Data in table do not include benefits denied participants in the
peanut-marketing quota program or tobacco-marketing quota program,
which are reported in pounds. The benefits denied total 2.1 million
pounds for peanuts and 3.6 million pounds for tobacco.
Totals may differ from results presented in other tables in this report
because of rounding.
[End of table]
Table 7: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for
Violations of Conservation Provisions by State, Crop Years 1993-2001:
Dollars in thousands.
State/Highly erodible land: Alabama
38,466; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 52,097;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 90,563; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 7,530; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 620; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 9; Tracts with violations:
Total: 629; Farmers with violations: 794; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: $2,210;
Benefits denied: $416; Percentage of
benefits denied: 18.8.
State/Highly erodible land: Alaska
210; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 187;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 397; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 57; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 0;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0; Benefits
denied: 0; Percentage of benefits denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: Arizona
254; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 7,490;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 7,744; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 311; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 0;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0; Benefits
denied: 0; Percentage of benefits denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: Arkansas
5,766; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 75,770;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 81,536; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 3,758; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 9; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 5; Tracts with violations: Total: 14;
Farmers with violations: 25;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,033;
Benefits denied: 637; Percentage of
benefits denied: 61.7.
State/Highly erodible land: California
5,400; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 43,950;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 49,350; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 2,758; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 2; Tracts with violations: Total: 2;
Farmers with violations: 2;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 36;
Benefits denied: 36; Percentage of benefits
denied: 100.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Colorado
41,948; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 21,347;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 63,295; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 9,520; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 88; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 88;
Farmers with violations: 71;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,231;
Benefits denied: 283; Percentage of
benefits denied: 23.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Connecticut
1,378; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 2,557;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 3,935; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 307; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 5; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 5;
Farmers with violations: 4;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 3; Benefits
denied: 3; Percentage of benefits denied: 100.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Delaware
203; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 6,197;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 6,400; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 377; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 0;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0; Benefits
denied: 0; Percentage of benefits denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: Florida
4,228; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 22,647;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 26,875; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 1,399; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 2; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 2; Tracts with violations: Total: 4;
Farmers with violations: 4;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 4; Benefits
denied: 4; Percentage of benefits denied: 100.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Georgia
20,967; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 78,813;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 99,780; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 6,586; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 24; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 16; Tracts with violations: Total: 40;
Farmers with violations: 60;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,260;
Benefits denied: 587; Percentage of
benefits denied: 46.6.
State/Highly erodible land: Hawaii
18; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 365;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 383; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 15; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 0;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0; Benefits
denied: 0; Percentage of benefits denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: Idaho
22,787; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 17,389;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 40,176; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 5,475; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 11; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 2; Tracts with violations: Total: 13;
Farmers with violations: 18;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 208;
Benefits denied: 10; Percentage of
benefits denied: 4.8.
State/Highly erodible land: Illinois
101,018; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 187,292;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 288,310; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 18,619; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 355; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 32; Tracts with
violations: Total: 387; Farmers with violations:
657; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 5,195;
Benefits denied: 869;
Percentage of benefits denied: 16.7.
State/Highly erodible land: Indiana
58,906; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 130,275;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 189,181; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 9,663; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 105; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 38; Tracts with
violations: Total: 143; Farmers with violations:
221; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 512;
Benefits denied: 228;
Percentage of benefits denied: 44.5.
State/Highly erodible land: Iowa
128,783; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 124,755;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 253,538; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 21,076; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 926; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 62; Tracts with
violations: Total: 988; Farmers with violations:
1,703; Benefits to be denied before appeals:
20,559; Benefits denied: 2,136;
Percentage of benefits denied: 10.4.
State/Highly erodible land: Kansas
105,010; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 130,065;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 235,075; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 16,830; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 764; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 8; Tracts with
violations: Total: 772; Farmers with violations:
995; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,493;
Benefits denied: 1,058;
Percentage of benefits denied: 70.9.
State/Highly erodible land: Kentucky
124,700; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 112,022;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 236,722; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 13,072; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 69; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 2; Tracts with violations:
Total: 71; Farmers with violations: 111; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 220;
Benefits denied: 81; Percentage of
benefits denied: 36.8.
State/Highly erodible land: Louisiana
4,499; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 56,098;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 60,597; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 2,371; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 3; Tracts with violations: Total: 3;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 115;
Benefits denied: 0; Percentage of benefits
denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: Maine
2,492; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 5,863;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 8,355; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 1,055; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 1; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 14; Tracts with violations: Total: 15;
Farmers with violations: 12;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 78;
Benefits denied: 2; Percentage of
benefits denied: 2.6.
State/Highly erodible land: Maryland
8,208; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 11,071;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 19,279; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 2,389; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 16; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 1; Tracts with violations: Total: 17;
Farmers with violations: 24;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 101;
Benefits denied: 7; Percentage of
benefits denied: 6.9.
State/Highly erodible land:
Massachusetts
901; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 4,444;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 5,345; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 308; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 0;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0; Benefits
denied: 0; Percentage of benefits denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: Michigan
17,644; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 96,036;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 113,680; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 4,113; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 25; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 4; Tracts with violations:
Total: 29; Farmers with violations: 47; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 755;
Benefits denied: 506; Percentage of
benefits denied: 67.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Minnesota
40,691; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 150,473;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 191,164; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 9,270; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 23; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 124; Tracts with
violations: Total: 147; Farmers with violations:
162; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 2,304;
Benefits denied: 829;
Percentage of benefits denied: 36.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Mississippi
30,675; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 54,595;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 85,270; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 7,120; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 65; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 3; Tracts with violations: Total: 68;
Farmers with violations: 89;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,237;
Benefits denied: 47; Percentage of
benefits denied: 3.8.
State/Highly erodible land: Missouri
89,090; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 83,219;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 172,309; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 13,808; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 611; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 28; Tracts with
violations: Total: 639; Farmers with violations:
751; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 2,291;
Benefits denied: 645;
Percentage of benefits denied: 28.2.
State/Highly erodible land: Montana
74,522; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 89,434;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 163,956; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 14,562; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 6; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations:
Total: 6; Farmers with violations: 3;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 150;
Benefits denied: 15; Percentage of
benefits denied: 10.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Nebraska
86,604; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 83,594;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 170,198; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 15,710; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 209; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 58; Tracts with
violations: Total: 267; Farmers with violations:
474; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 6,366;
Benefits denied: 1,797;
Percentage of benefits denied: 28.2.
State/Highly erodible land: Nevada
761; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 1,213;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 1,974; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 221; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 0;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0; Benefits
denied: 0; Percentage of benefits denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: New Hampshire
376; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 1,759;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 2,135; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 124; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 3; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 3;
Farmers with violations: 1;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1; Benefits
denied: 1; Percentage of benefits denied: 100.0.
State/Highly erodible land: New Jersey
2,174; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 4,269;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 6,443; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 584; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 23; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 23;
Farmers with violations: 6;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 37;
Benefits denied: 10; Percentage of benefits
denied: 27.0.
State/Highly erodible land: New Mexico
6,953; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 10,256;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 17,209; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 2,151; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 4; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 4;
Farmers with violations: 4;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 9; Benefits
denied: 8; Percentage of benefits denied: 88.9.
State/Highly erodible land: New York
27,314; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 27,072;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 54,386; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 5,582; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 43; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 2; Tracts with violations: Total: 45;
Farmers with violations: 83;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 246;
Benefits denied: 80; Percentage of
benefits denied: 32.5.
State/Highly erodible land: North Carolina
57,574; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 143,368;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 200,942; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 12,164; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 240; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 7; Tracts with
violations: Total: 247; Farmers with violations:
404; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 691;
Benefits denied: 152;
Percentage of benefits denied: 22.0.
State/Highly erodible land: North Dakota
48,626; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 100,820;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 149,446; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 11,006; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 53; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 17; Tracts with violations:
Total: 70; Farmers with violations: 100; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,320;
Benefits denied: 103; Percentage of
benefits denied: 7.8.
State/Highly erodible land: Ohio
46,647; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 117,532;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 164,179; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 7,118; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 49; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 8; Tracts with violations:
Total: 57; Farmers with violations: 60; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,047;
Benefits denied: 69; Percentage of
benefits denied: 6.6.
State/Highly erodible land: Oklahoma
45,658; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 81,545;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 127,203; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 9,098; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 196; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 7; Tracts with
violations: Total: 203; Farmers with violations:
313; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,508;
Benefits denied: 334;
Percentage of benefits denied: 22.1.
State/Highly erodible land: Oregon
6,318; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 16,264;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 22,582; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 2,433; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 18; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 3; Tracts with violations: Total: 21;
Farmers with violations: 27;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 345;
Benefits denied: 66; Percentage of
benefits denied: 19.1.
State/Highly erodible land: Pennsylvania
49,590; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 11,639;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 61,229; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 5,937; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 53; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 4; Tracts with violations: Total: 57;
Farmers with violations: 48;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 62;
Benefits denied: 55; Percentage of
benefits denied: 88.7.
State/Highly erodible land: Rhode Island
51; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 336;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 387; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 24; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 0; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 0;
Farmers with violations: 0;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 0; Benefits
denied: 0; Percentage of benefits denied: 0.
State/Highly erodible land: South Carolina
10,016; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 56,056;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 66,072; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 3,513; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 23; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 1; Tracts with violations: Total: 24;
Farmers with violations: 33;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 426;
Benefits denied: 304; Percentage of
benefits denied: 71.4.
State/Highly erodible land: South Dakota
28,528; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 119,738;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 148,266; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 8,992; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 14; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 38; Tracts with violations:
Total: 52; Farmers with violations: 55; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,281;
Benefits denied: 101; Percentage of
benefits denied: 7.9.
State/Highly erodible land: Tennessee
78,913; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 98,542;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 177,455; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 9,980; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 35; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 8; Tracts with violations:
Total: 43; Farmers with violations: 29; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 42;
Benefits denied: 17; Percentage of
benefits denied: 40.5.
State/Highly erodible land: Texas
81,264; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 200,918;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 282,182; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 17,282; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 32; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 4; Tracts with violations:
Total: 36; Farmers with violations: 69; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,477;
Benefits denied: 341; Percentage of
benefits denied: 23.1.
State/Highly erodible land: Utah
1,618; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 14,047;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 15.665; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 765; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 3; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 1; Tracts with violations: Total: 4;
Farmers with violations: 4;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 41;
Benefits denied: 13; Percentage of benefits
denied: 31.7.
State/Highly erodible land: Vermont
1,645; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 4,671;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 6,316; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 568; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 8; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 8;
Farmers with violations: 4;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 10;
Benefits denied: 10; Percentage of benefits
denied: 100.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Virginia
37,565; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 46,600;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 84,165; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 7,409; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 112; Tracts with
violations: Wetlands: 4; Tracts with violations:
Total: 116; Farmers with violations: 153; Dollars
in Benefits to be denied before appeals: 193;
Benefits denied: 67; Percentage of
benefits denied: 34.7.
State/Highly erodible land: Washington
17,106; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 23,195;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 40,301; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 5,064; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 31; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 4; Tracts with violations: Total: 35;
Farmers with violations: 61;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 1,078;
Benefits denied: 25; Percentage of
benefits denied: 2.3.
State/Highly erodible land: West Virginia
3,815; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 9,538;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 13,353; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 1,146; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 2; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 2;
Farmers with violations: 3;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 3; Benefits
denied: 3; Percentage of benefits denied: 100.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Wisconsin
81,812; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 80,161;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 161,973; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 11,640; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 206; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 89; Tracts with
violations: Total: 295; Farmers with violations:
386; Benefits to be denied before appeals: 2,421;
Benefits denied: 356;
Percentage of benefits denied: 14.7.
State/Highly erodible land: Wyoming
5,167; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 11,330;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 16,497; Tracts reviewed
for compliance[B]: 1,425; Tracts with violations:
Highly erodible land: 1; Tracts with violations:
Wetlands: 0; Tracts with violations: Total: 1;
Farmers with violations: 2;
Benefits to be denied before appeals: 124;
Benefits denied: 124; Percentage of benefits
denied: 100.0.
State/Highly erodible land: Total
1,654,859; Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Potential wetlands: 2,828,914;
Tracts potentially subject to
review in 2002[A]: Total: 4,483,773; Tracts
reviewed for compliance[B]: 312,285; Tracts with
violations: Highly erodible land: 5,084; Tracts
with violations: Wetlands: 610; Tracts with
violations: Total: 5,694; Farmers with
violations: 8,072; Benefits to be denied before
appeals: $59,723; Benefits denied: $12,435;
Percentage of benefits denied: 20.8.
Sources: NRCS and FSA.
Notes: GAO's analysis of NRCS and FSA data.
Compliance reviews are conducted by NRCS. To conduct these reviews,
NRCS randomly selects a sample of land tracts from an FSA database
containing more than 4.5 million tracts of land owned or leased by
farmers receiving USDA program benefits. Of the 4.5 million tracts, 1.7
million are designated as highly erodible land, and the remaining 2.8
million are designated as potential wetlands. Nationwide, about 60
percent of the sample tracts are selected from highly erodible land.
The remaining 40 percent are selected from tracts that have the
potential to contain wetlands. This latter group of tracts is separated
into two groups--hydric and nonhydric. The hydric group includes tracts
located in counties where more than 20 percent of the soil is
classified as hydric--that is, the land is flooded long enough during a
growing season to support plants that can grow in water or in soil too
waterlogged for most plants to survive. The remaining tracts are placed
in the nonhydric group.
Benefits denied include price and income support payments, conservation
payments, disaster payments, guaranteed loans, and crop insurance
(through 1996). Benefits denied do not include $361,441 that could not
be directly associated with specific tracts.
Data in table do not include benefits denied participants in the
peanut-marketing quota program or tobacco-marketing quota program,
which are reported in pounds. The benefits denied total 2.1 million
pounds for peanuts and 3.6 million pounds for tobacco.
Totals may differ from results presented in other tables in this report
because of rounding.
[A] Summary data on tracts potentially subject to review during 1993
through 2001 were not available. Data depicted is for 2002 only to
provide a frame of reference as to the total number of tracts in each
state potentially subject to review. However, the number of tracts
subject to review would not change significantly from one year to the
next. Prior to 1996, USDA did not identify tracts with the potential
for wetlands.
[B] Summary data on the number of tracts reviewed for each state during
1993 through 2001 is depicted. However, these data do not distinguish
between highly erodible land and potential wetlands.
[End of table]
Table 8: Reasons for Reinstating USDA Benefits by State, Crop Years
1993-2001:
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Alabama; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 21; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 8; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 285; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 20; 5; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 41;
Other: 47.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Alaska; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Arizona; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Arkansas; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 24; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 1.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: California; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Colorado; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 2; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 35; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 4;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 1.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Connecticut; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Delaware; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Florida; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Georgia; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 22; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 13; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 11;
Other: 2.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Hawaii; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Idaho; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 6; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 13; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 1; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Illinois; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 44; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 37; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 296; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 47; 27;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 106.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Indiana; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 1; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 30; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 91; 8; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 30.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Iowa; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 579; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 117; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 1,331; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 157; 43;
Misaction/
misinformation: 2; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 108.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Kansas; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 30; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 14; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 33; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 5; 14; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 10.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Kentucky; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Louisiana; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Maine; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 5; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Maryland; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 14; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 7.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Massachusetts; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Michigan; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 35; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 3; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 6; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Minnesota; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 14; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 37; 15;
Misaction/
misinformation: 5; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 17.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Mississippi; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 31; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 3; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Missouri; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 6; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 24; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 17; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 36; 50;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 43.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Montana; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 8; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 1.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Nebraska; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 1; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 28; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 292; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 257; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 1; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 88.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Nevada; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: New Hampshire; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: New Jersey; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: New Mexico; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 1;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: New York; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 23; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: North Carolina; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 6; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 164; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 17;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 14;
Other: 100.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: North Dakota; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 6; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 75; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 81; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 7.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Ohio; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 1; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 23; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 4; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 1.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Oklahoma; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 22; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 10; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 95; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 9;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 7.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Oregon; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 6; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 18; 1; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Pennsylvania; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Rhode Island; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: South Carolina; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 1; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 10; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 7.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: South Dakota; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 9; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 2; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 9; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 73; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 20.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Tennessee; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 3; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 2;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Texas; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 57; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 34; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 19.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Utah; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Vermont; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Virginia; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 2; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 28; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 8;
Other: 2.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Washington; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: West Virginia; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Wisconsin; Farm Service
Agency reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 3; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 2; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 75; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 33; 55;
Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 47.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Wyoming; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Landlord waivers: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith
waivers on highly erodible land: 0; Farm Service Agency reinstatements:
Good faith waivers on wetlands: 0; 0; Misaction/
misinformation: 0; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 0;
Other: 0.
Farm Service Agency reinstatements: State: Total; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Tenant waivers: 729; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Landlord waivers: 253; Farm Service Agency
reinstatements: Good faith waivers on highly erodible land: 3,048; Farm
Service Agency reinstatements: Good faith waivers on wetlands: 918;
249; Misaction/
misinformation: 14; NRCS and other reinstatements[A]: Marketing quota
card or price support loan issued before violation determination: 76;
Other: 671.
Source: FSA.
Note: GAO's analysis of FSA's data.
[A] Includes reinstatements because of decisions made by NRCS's State
Conservationists, USDA's National Appeals Division, and judicial courts
on farmers' appeals.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and
Effectiveness of the Conservation Provisions:
Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) Provisions:
Q1. During calendar years 1998-2001, how many status reviews on highly
erodible land did your field office conduct?
None (percent): 8.0; 1-10 (percent): 34.0; 11-20 (percent): 19.1; 21-30
(percent): 14.0; 31-40 (percent): 6.9; 41-50 (percent): 5.2; More than
50 (percent): 12.8; Number of respondents: 2,002.
[End of table]
Q2. In your experience, compared with neighboring counties, how closely
does your county monitor HELC provisions?
Much more closely (percent): 2.1; More closely (percent): 7.8; About
the same (percent): 88.2; Less closely (percent): 1.5; Much less
closely (percent): 0.4; Number of respondents: 1,759.
[End of table]
Q3. In your opinion, overall, what level of understanding do farmers in
your county have about what constitutes a substantial reduction in soil
erosion?
Very great understanding (percent): 1.6; Great understanding (percent):
22.4; Moderate understanding (percent): 44.8; Some understanding
(percent): 24.3; Little or no understanding (percent): 6.9; Number of
respondents: 1,833.
[End of table]
Q4. In your opinion, what level of understanding do farmers in your
county have of HELC provisions?
Very great understanding (percent): 1.9; Great understanding (percent):
24.3; Moderate understanding (percent): 48.0; Some understanding
(percent): 21.5; Little or no understanding (percent): 4.4; Number of
respondents: 1,835.
[End of table]
Q5. In your experience, to what extent are farmers in your county
willing to comply with HELC provisions?
Very great extent (percent): 9.0; Great extent (percent): 53.5;
Moderate extent (percent): 28.3; Some extent (percent): 8.3; Little or
no extent (percent): 1.0; Number of respondents: 1,830.
[End of table]
Q6. In your experience, how has farmers' willingness to comply with
HELC provisions changed since 1996?
Much more willing to comply (percent): 3.9; More willing to comply
(percent): 36.1; Neither more willing nor less willing to comply
(percent): 53.9; Less willing to comply (percent): 5.5; Much less
willing to comply (percent): 0.5; Number of respondents: 1,813.
[End of table]
Q7. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the
following soil-loss tolerance levels ("T")?
1T; Mean: 28.9; Minimum: 0.0; Maximum: 100; Median: 10.0; Number of
respondents: 1,382.
2T; Mean: 23.3; Minimum: 0.0; Maximum: 100; Median: 15.0; Number of
respondents: 1,471.
3T; Mean: 24.1; Minimum: 0.0; Maximum: 100; Median: 15.0; Number of
respondents: 1,448.
4T; Mean: 13.9; Minimum: 0.0; Maximum: 100; Median: 7.0; Number of
respondents: 1,263.
5T; Mean: 35.9; Minimum: 0.0; Maximum: 100; Median: 25.0; Number of
respondents: 1,367.
Greater than 5T; Mean: 2.4; Minimum: 0.0; Maximum: 100; Median: 0.0;
Number of respondents: 834.
[End of table]
Q8. For what percent of the highly erodible acres in your county are
alternative conservation systems approved?
Mean: 44.2; Minimum: 0.0; Maximum: 100; Median: 40.0; Number of
respondents: 1,817.
[End of table]
Q9. Does your field office currently require producers to have a
written conservation plan for highly erodible land?
Yes (percent): 84.7; No (percent): 15.3; Number of respondents: 1,816.
[End of table]
Opinions about HEL Conservation:
Q10. In your opinion, should USDA farm commodity program participants
be required to control soil erosion on their land?
Definitely yes (percent): 74.8; Probably yes (percent): 20.1; Neither
yes nor no (percent): 3.5; Probably no (percent): 0.9; Definitely no
(percent): 0.8; Number of respondents: 1,823.
[End of table]
Q11. In general, is it economically feasible for producers in your
county to reduce the soil erosion on their land to the soil loss
tolerance level?
Definitely yes (percent): 40.3; Probably yes (percent): 42.4; Neither
yes nor no (percent): 5.1; Probably no (percent): 9.4; Definitely no
(percent): 2.9; Number of respondents: 1,828.
[End of table]
Q12. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, are the current HELC
provisions in reducing soil erosion on land in production in your
county?
Extremely effective (percent): 5.4; Very effective (percent): 36.9;
Moderately effective (percent): 35.3; Somewhat effective (percent):
15.9; Slightly or not effective (percent): 6.5; Number of respondents:
1,818.
[End of table]
Q13. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, would HELC provisions
be in reducing soil erosion in your county if no alternative
conservation systems were allowed?
Extremely effective (percent): 5.1; Very effective (percent): 27.6;
Moderately effective (percent): 27.9; Somewhat effective (percent):
22.7; Slightly or not effective (percent): 16.7; Number of respondents:
1,686.
[End of table]
Q14. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, are sodbuster
provisions in limiting conversion of native vegetation to cropland?
Extremely effective (percent): 3.7; Very effective (percent): 17.7;
Moderately effective (percent): 19.7; Somewhat effective (percent):
20.5; Slightly or not effective (percent): 38.5; Number of respondents:
1,659.
[End of table]
Q15. In your opinion, to what extent do USDA farm commodity and crop
insurance programs act as incentives to convert native vegetation to
cropland?
Very great extent (percent): 11.5; Great extent (percent): 16.6;
Moderate extent (percent): 15.9; Some extent (percent): 16.1; Little or
no extent (percent): 39.8; Number of respondents: 1,664.
[End of table]
Q16. Compared with other conservation programs that attempt to achieve
long-term soil conservation, how effective, if at all, are HELC
provisions in your county?
Much more effective (percent): 4.0; More effective (percent): 26.3;
About the same (percent): 35.3; Less effective (percent): 23.6; Much
less effective (percent): 10.8; Number of respondents: 1,785.
[End of table]
HELC Violations:
Q17. Did your county have any HELC violations in calendar years 1998-
2001?
Yes (percent): 22.8; No (percent): 77.2; Number of respondents: 1,840.
[End of table]
Q18. Of the HELC violations referred to or received by the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) in your county, what portion are granted a good faith
exemption by the FSA county committee?
All or almost all (percent): 60.1; More than half (percent): 7.9; About
half (percent): 5.1; Less than half (percent): 3.6; None or almost none
(percent): 23.4; Number of respondents: 393.
[End of table]
Q19. How often are decisions to grant HELC good faith exemptions by the
Farm Service Agency county committees properly supported?
Always or almost always (percent): 28.6; Most of the time (percent):
35.0; About half of the time (percent): 5.8; Some of the time
(percent): 19.6; Never or almost never (percent): 10.9; Number of
respondents: 311.
[End of table]
Q20. Since January 1, 1997, of the USDA farm program participants who
have violated HELC provisions in your county, about what portion lost
any benefits?
0 to less than 5% (percent): 74.9; 5 to less than 10% (percent): 7.0;
10 to less than 20% (percent): 2.2; 20 to less than 30% (percent): 1.9;
30 to less than 50% (percent): 3.2; 50% or more (percent): 10.8; Number
of respondents: 371.
[End of table]
Q21. Consider all the tracts of land in the geographical area where
your office provides assistance. About what percent of these tracts are
in violation of HELC provisions and have not been reported?
0 to less than 5% (percent): 33.4; 5 to less than 10% (percent): 23.3;
10 to less than 20% (percent): 20.7; 20 to less than 30% (percent):
13.0; 30 to less than 50% (percent): 7.4; 50% or more (percent): 2.1;
Number of respondents: 377.
[End of table]
Legislative Effects:
Q22. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2000 eliminated the provision
that precluded producers from receiving continuing Conservation Reserve
Program payments if they converted grassland to cropland, commonly
referred to as "supersodbuster." Of the grassland that has been
converted to cropland in your county, what portion do you believe is a
result of this change?
All or almost all (percent): 1.9; More than half (percent): 4.7; About
half (percent): 4.1; Less than half (percent): 10.6; None or almost
none (percent): 78.8; Number of respondents: 1,182.
[End of table]
Q23. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen
or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance ?
Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated reductions in
program benefits for HELC violations; Significantly strengthened
(percent): 0.8; Strengthened (percent): 11.8; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 61.4; Weakened (percent): 19.3; Significantly
weakened (percent): 6.6; Number of respondents: 1,530.
Instituted variance for compliance violations that are considered
technical and minor in nature; Significantly strengthened (percent):
1.8; Strengthened (percent): 23.7; Neither strengthened nor weakened
(percent): 58.6; Weakened (percent): 13.6; Significantly weakened
(percent): 2.3; Number of respondents: 1,594.
Instituted tenant exemption; Significantly strengthened (percent):
0.4; Strengthened (percent): 8.3; Neither strengthened nor weakened
(percent): 63.8; Weakened (percent): 23.3; Significantly weakened
(percent): 4.3; Number of respondents: 1,369.
Required additional farm program benefits be subject to denial for
violations of HELC; Significantly strengthened (percent): 4.0;
Strengthened (percent): 45.9; Neither strengthened nor weakened
(percent): 47.2; Weakened (percent): 1.9; Significantly weakened
(percent): 1.0; Number of respondents: 1,545.
Other (please specify in text box below); Significantly strengthened
(percent): 4.1; Strengthened (percent): 2.0; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 54.1; Weakened (percent): 11.2; Significantly
weakened (percent): 28.6; Number of respondents: 98.
[End of table]
Q24. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill)
strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?
Instituted variance for weather, pest, diseases, or other natural
disasters; Significantly strengthened (percent): 2.0; Strengthened
(percent): 26.4; Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent): 59.8;
Weakened (percent): 10.2; Significantly weakened (percent): 1.6; Number
of respondents: 1,660.
Instituted exemption and grace period for compliance violations found
while providing on-site technical assistance; Significantly
strengthened (percent): 2.1; Strengthened (percent): 29.7; Neither
strengthened nor weakened (percent): 51.6; Weakened (percent): 13.4;
Significantly weakened (percent): 3.2; Number of respondents: 1,639.
Instituted Farm Service Agency variance and grace period for economic
hardship relief; Significantly strengthened (percent): 0.8;
Strengthened (percent): 21.1; Neither strengthened nor weakened
(percent): 59.2; Weakened (percent): 14.8; Significantly weakened
(percent): 4.1; Number of respondents: 1,548.
Instituted provision allowing producers to self-certify compliance with
their conservation plan when applying for benefits; Significantly
strengthened (percent): 1.4; Strengthened (percent): 13.6; Neither
strengthened nor weakened (percent): 46.8; Weakened (percent): 27.2;
Significantly weakened (percent): 11.1; Number of respondents: 1,625.
Eliminated graduated reductions in program benefits for conservation
compliance violations; Significantly strengthened (percent): 0.5;
Strengthened (percent): 16.7; Neither strengthened nor weakened
(percent): 62.9; Weakened (percent): 16.3; Significantly weakened
(percent): 3.6; Number of respondents: 1,482.
Eliminated crop insurance payments from the list of benefits subject to
denial for violations of HELC; Significantly strengthened (percent):
0.4; Strengthened (percent): 11.5; Neither strengthened nor weakened
(percent): 51.8; Weakened (percent): 27.9; Significantly weakened
(percent): 8.3; Number of respondents: 1,476.
Revised good faith exemption by removing the 1-in-5 year rule and
allowed for compliance grace period; Significantly strengthened
(percent): 0.9; Strengthened (percent): 16.2; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 58.2; Weakened (percent): 19.5; Significantly
weakened (percent): 5.1; Number of respondents: 1,475.
Other (please specify in text box below); Significantly strengthened
(percent): 1.4; Strengthened (percent): 1.4; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 54.9; Weakened (percent): 11.3; Significantly
weakened (percent): 31.0; Number of respondents: 71.
[End of table]
Wetland Conservation (WC) Provisions:
Q25. During calendar years 1998-2001, how many wetland conservation
status reviews did your field office conduct?
None (percent): 17.7; 1-10 (percent): 51.1; 11-20 (percent): 14.7; 21-
30 (percent): 8.2; 31-40 (percent): 2.9; 41-50 (percent): 2.2; More
than 50 (percent): 3.4; Number of respondents: 1,999.
[End of table]
Q26. In your experience, compared with neighboring counties, how
closely does your field office monitor wetland conservation provisions?
Much more closely (percent): 2.9; More closely (percent): 11.6; About
the same (percent): 83.3; Less closely (percent): 2.0; Much less
closely (percent): 0.3; Number of respondents: 1,578.
[End of table]
Q27. In your opinion, what level of understanding do farmers in your
county have of wetland conservation provisions?
Very great understanding (percent): 3.3; Great understanding (percent):
21.4; Moderate understanding (percent): 37.2; Some understanding
(percent): 27.6; Little or no understanding (percent): 10.5; Number of
respondents: 1,640.
[End of table]
Q28. In your experience, to what extent are farmers in your county
willing to comply with wetland conservation provisions?
Very great extent (percent): 6.9; Great extent (percent): 36.3;
Moderate extent (percent): 34.0; Some extent (percent): 19.0; Little or
no extent (percent): 3.9; Number of respondents: 1,633.
[End of table]
Opinions about Wetlands Conservation:
Q29. In your county, how effective are swampbuster provisions at
limiting the conversion of wetlands to cropland?
Extremely effective (percent): 13.4; Very effective (percent): 42.2;
Moderately effective (percent): 23.4; Somewhat effective (percent):
14.4; Slightly or not effective (percent): 6.5; Number of respondents:
1,574.
[End of table]
Q30. In your opinion, compared with large wetlands in your county, how
important is the protection of small wetlands?
Much more important (percent): 5.0; More important (percent): 15.4;
About the same (percent): 48.1; Less important (percent): 19.5; Much
less important (percent): 11.9; Number of respondents: 1,588.
[End of table]
Q31. In your opinion, should USDA farm program participants be required
to follow wetland conservation provisions on their land?
Definitely yes (percent): 52.9; Probably yes (percent): 33.5; Neither
yes nor no (percent): 6.4; Probably no (percent): 5.7; Definitely no
(percent): 1.5; Number of respondents: 1,617.
[End of table]
Wetland Conservation Violations:
Q32. Did your county have any wetland conservation violations in
calendar years 1998-2001?
Yes (percent): 27.4; No (percent): 72.6; Number of respondents: 1,628.
[End of table]
Q33. Since January 1, 1997, of the USDA farm program participants who
have violated wetland conservation provisions in your county, about
what percent lost any benefits?
0 to less than 5% (percent): 79.6; 5 to less than 10% (percent): 2.9;
10 to less than 20% (percent): 1.5; 20 to less than 30% (percent): 0.7;
30 to less than 50% (percent): 0.7; 50% or more (percent): 14.5; Number
of respondents: 407.
[End of table]
Q34. Of the wetland violations referred to or received by the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) in your county, about what portion are granted a
good faith exemption by the FSA county committee?
All or almost all (percent): 53.1; More than half (percent): 8.2; About
half (percent): 5.0; Less than half (percent): 6.7; None or almost none
(percent): 26.9; Number of respondents: 401.
[End of table]
Q35. How often are decisions to grant wetland good faith exemptions by
the Farm Service Agency county committees in your county properly
supported?
Always or almost always (percent): 37.7; Most of the time (percent):
30.2; About half of the time (percent): 7.5; Some of the time
(percent): 14.2; Never or almost never (percent): 10.4; Number of
respondents: 318.
[End of table]
Q36. In your opinion, what level of technical improvements could be
made to the tools, techniques, or procedures to complete certified
wetland determinations?
Very great improvement (percent): 11.3; Great improvement (percent):
23.7; Moderate improvement (percent): 28.3; Some improvement (percent):
21.4; Little or no improvement (percent): 15.2; Number of respondents:
434.
[End of table]
Q37. To what extent are certified wetland determinations made on a less
than whole tract basis?
Very great extent (percent): 20.0; Great extent (percent): 20.5;
Moderate extent (percent): 15.9; Some extent (percent): 12.3; Little or
no extent (percent): 31.2; Number of respondents: 439.
[End of table]
Q38. Consider the geographical area where you provide assistance. Of
the tracts that are in violation of wetland conservation provisions,
about what percent have not been reported?
0 to less than 5% (percent): 48.1; 5 to less than 10% (percent): 20.2;
10 to less than 20% (percent): 14.3; 20 to less than 30% (percent):
6.7; 30 to less than 50% (percent): 3.0; 50% or more (percent): 7.7;
Number of respondents: 405.
[End of table]
Q39. If you find a converted wetland on lands owned or operated by a
USDA program participant, how often do you do the following?
Notify the person by sending a certified wetland determination,
detailing the potential violation; Always or almost always (percent):
52.1; Most of the time (percent): 16.1; About half of the time
(percent): 4.4; Some of the time (percent): 8.1; Never or almost never
(percent): 19.3; Number of respondents: 409.
Inform the person orally, not in writing, detailing the potential
violation; Always or almost always (percent): 28.7; Most of the time
(percent): 17.1; About half of the time (percent): 5.1; Some of the
time (percent): 12.8; Never or almost never (percent): 36.4; Number of
respondents: 415.
Work with the person to restore or obtain a mitigation exemption for
the wetland in order to maintain benefits; Always or almost always
(percent): 62.2; Most of the time (percent): 19.8; About half of the
time (percent): 4.3; Some of the time (percent): 8.0; Never or almost
never (percent): 5.8; Number of respondents: 415.
Decide if any other exemption applies to this wetland conversion;
Always or almost always (percent): 52.6; Most of the time (percent):
19.3; About half of the time (percent): 4.8; Some of the time
(percent): 10.0; Never or almost never (percent): 13.3; Number of
respondents: 399.
[End of table]
Legislative Effects:
Q40. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen
or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?
Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated reductions in
program benefits for wetland conservation violations; Significantly
strengthened (percent): 1.8; Strengthened (percent): 13.5; Neither
strengthened nor weakened (percent): 48.0; Weakened (percent): 28.1;
Significantly weakened (percent): 8.7; Number of respondents: 392.
Instituted minimal effects exemption; Significantly strengthened
(percent): 2.8; Strengthened (percent): 26.1; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 47.5; Weakened (percent): 18.0; Significantly
weakened (percent): 5.6; Number of respondents: 394.
Instituted mitigation exemption for restoring a prior converted
wetland; Significantly strengthened (percent): 5.0; Strengthened
(percent): 31.7; Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent): 51.3;
Weakened (percent): 8.6; Significantly weakened (percent): 3.4; Number
of respondents: 382.
Instituted requirement for agreement between NRCS and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on mitigation plans and technical determinations;
Significantly strengthened (percent): 1.2; Strengthened (percent):
26.8; Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent): 54.6; Weakened
(percent): 11.4; Significantly weakened (percent): 6.0; Number of
respondents: 403.
Instituted new trigger mechanism for swampbuster violations;
Significantly strengthened (percent): 5.3; Strengthened (percent):
33.3; Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent): 55.8; Weakened
(percent): 3.5; Significantly weakened (percent): 2.1; Number of
respondents: 339.
Required additional farm program benefits be subject to denial for
violations of wetland conservation; Significantly strengthened
(percent): 5.5; Strengthened (percent): 58.5; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 34.5; Weakened (percent): 0.8; Significantly
weakened (percent): 0.8; Number of respondents: 400.
Revised definition of a wetland to include three conditions that must
be present; Significantly strengthened (percent): 8.0; Strengthened
(percent): 44.1; Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent): 40.9;
Weakened (percent): 4.8; Significantly weakened (percent): 2.2; Number
of respondents: 413.
Other (please specify in text box below); Significantly strengthened
(percent): 15.8; Strengthened (percent): 10.5; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 42.1; Weakened (percent): 5.3; Significantly
weakened (percent): 26.3; Number of respondents: 19.
[End of table]
Q41. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill)
strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?
Instituted more options for mitigation including enhancement or
creation of wetlands; Significantly strengthened (percent): 3.9;
Strengthened (percent): 37.6; Neither strengthened nor weakened
(percent): 48.0; Weakened (percent): 7.8; Significantly weakened
(percent): 2.7; Number of respondents: 410.
Eliminated graduated reductions in program benefits for compliance
violations; Significantly strengthened (percent): 0.8; Strengthened
(percent): 25.6; Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent): 54.8;
Weakened (percent): 15.0; Significantly weakened (percent): 3.9; Number
of respondents: 387.
Eliminated the requirement for agreement between NRCS and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on mitigation plans and technical determinations;
Significantly strengthened (percent): 5.3; Strengthened (percent):
23.6; Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent): 54.5; Weakened
(percent): 13.3; Significantly weakened (percent): 3.3; Number of
respondents: 398.
Revised good faith exemption by removing the 1-in-10 year rule and
allowed for compliance grace period; Significantly strengthened
(percent): 1.1; Strengthened (percent): 15.1; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 53.7; Weakened (percent): 23.6; Significantly
weakened (percent): 6.6; Number of respondents: 365.
Other (please specify in text box below); Significantly strengthened
(percent): 13.3; Strengthened (percent): 0.0; Neither strengthened nor
weakened (percent): 60.0; Weakened (percent): 0.0; Significantly
weakened (percent): 26.7; Number of respondents: 15.
[End of table]
Status Reviews:
Q42. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with
HELC provisions?
Extremely effective (percent): 5.6; Very effective (percent): 26.3;
Moderately effective (percent): 32.1; Somewhat effective (percent):
23.0; Slightly or not effective (percent): 13.0; Number of respondents:
1,939.
[End of table]
Q43. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with
wetland conservation provisions?
Extremely effective (percent): 4.6; Very effective (percent): 24.1;
Moderately effective (percent): 29.6; Somewhat effective (percent):
22.3; Slightly or not effective (percent): 19.4; Number of respondents:
1,864.
[End of table]
Q44. How effective is coordination between NRCS and FSA in implementing
compliance with the HELC and wetland conservation provisions, overall?
Extremely effective (percent): 9.0; Very effective (percent): 39.5;
Moderately effective (percent): 28.7; Somewhat effective (percent):
14.0; Slightly or not effective (percent): 8.9; Number of respondents:
1,966.
[End of table]
Status Review Activities:
Q45. In what months of the year does your field office perform
conservation compliance status reviews?
January; Performing review (percent): 1.7; Number of respondents:
2,015.
February; Performing review (percent): 3.0; Number of respondents:
2,015.
March; Performing review (percent): 11.8; Number of respondents: 2,015.
April; Performing review (percent): 24.4; Number of respondents: 2,015.
May; Performing review (percent): 43.7; Number of respondents: 2,015.
June; Performing review (percent): 45.7; Number of respondents: 2,015.
July; Performing review (percent): 27.9; Number of respondents: 2,015.
August; Performing review (percent): 23.5; Number of respondents:
2,015.
September; Performing review (percent): 28.3; Number of respondents:
2,015.
October; Performing review (percent): 22.2; Number of respondents:
2,015.
November; Performing review (percent): 8.2; Number of respondents:
2,015.
December; Performing review (percent): 2.8; Number of respondents:
2,015.
[End of table]
Q46. In your duties as an NRCS employee, how satisfied are you with
your responsibilities for monitoring compliance with HEL and wetland
conservation provisions?
Very satisfied (percent): 8.4; Generally satisfied (percent): 40.6;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 27.9; Generally
dissatisfied (percent): 17.3; Very dissatisfied (percent): 5.8; Number
of respondents: 1,956.
[End of table]
Q47. Please describe the reason for your response below.
Writing comment (percent): 66.7; Number of respondents: 2,015.
[End of table]
Q48. How do you view HELC provisions in terms of their effect on farm
profitability in your county?
Very positive (percent): 2.8; Positive (percent): 33.4; Neither
positive nor negative (percent): 57.8; Negative (percent): 5.5; Very
negative (percent): 0.5; Number of respondents: 1,920.
[End of table]
Q49. When you are doing a status review, does your supervisor encourage
or discourage identifying tracts/fields in violation of conservation
compliance provisions?
Strongly encourages (percent): 22.8; Generally encourages (percent):
19.6; Slightly encourages (percent): 2.4; Neither encourages nor
discourages (percent): 52.5; Slightly discourages (percent): 1.4;
Generally discourages (percent): 0.9; Strongly discourages (percent):
0.4; Number of respondents: 1,948.
[End of table]
Q50. In the normal course of work, does your supervisor encourage or
discourage identifying tracts or fields in violation of conservation
compliance provisions when you are providing technical assistance?
Strongly encourages (percent): 15.4; Generally encourages (percent):
21.4; Slightly encourages (percent): 5.4; Neither encourages nor
discourages (percent): 52.8; Slightly discourages (percent): 2.4;
Generally discourages (percent): 2.2; Strongly discourages (percent):
0.5; Number of respondents: 1,950.
[End of table]
Q51. Compared with other activities in NRCS, what priority does NRCS
management place on conservation compliance?
Very high (percent): 12.7; Generally high (percent): 38.3; Neither high
nor low (percent): 29.3; Generally low (percent): 14.0; Very low
(percent): 5.7; Number of respondents: 1,968.
[End of table]
Q52. Since January 1, 1994, how has NRCS management changed the
priority for implementing conservation compliance?
Significantly increased (percent): 3.7; Generally increased (percent):
16.0; Neither increased nor decreased (percent): 44.3; Generally
decreased (percent): 27.9; Significantly decreased (percent): 8.0;
Number of respondents: 1,907.
[End of table]
Q53. In your opinion, how would increasing the number of annual status
reviews in your county affect producers' compliance with the
conservation provisions?
Very greatly increase compliance (percent): 1.3; Greatly increase
compliance (percent): 5.4; Moderately increase compliance (percent):
14.7; Somewhat increase compliance (percent): 15.1; Slightly or not
increase compliance (percent): 63.5; Number of respondents: 1,892.
[End of table]
Q54. If a participant does not have sufficient crop residue on most of
his or her field after planting, how often do you grant an "AM"
(minimal or technical effect) variance?
Always or almost always (percent): 5.8; Most of the time (percent):
13.7; About half of the time (percent): 3.8; Some of the time
(percent): 31.7; Never or almost never (percent): 45.0; Number of
respondents: 1,282.
[End of table]
Q55. During a status review, if you discover that a producer is not
applying an important practice in his or her conservation system, how
often do you grant an "AM" variance?
Always or almost always (percent): 4.5; Most of the time (percent):
8.3; About half of the time (percent): 3.1; Some of the time (percent):
22.3; Never or almost never (percent): 61.8; Number of respondents:
1,523.
[End of table]
Q56. When performing status reviews, how often do you check for
potential wetland conservation violations?
Always or almost always (percent): 64.2; Most of the time (percent):
21.3; About half of the time (percent): 1.3; Some of the time
(percent): 6.5; Never or almost never (percent): 6.7; Number of
respondents: 1,870.
[End of table]
Q57. Consider the tracts or fields that are granted a variance or
exemption based on a status review. How often are these tracts reviewed
in the year following the variance or exemption?
Always (percent): 67.5; Almost always (percent): 16.3; Most of the time
(percent): 8.3; About half of the time (percent): 1.1; Some of the time
(percent): 3.2; Almost never (percent): 2.4; Never (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 1,550.
[End of table]
Compliance Activities:
Q58. When a tract is not in compliance with the HELC and WC provisions,
how often do you request an FSA-569 (NRCS Report of HELC and WC
Compliance)?
Always (percent): 62.1; Almost always (percent): 18.5; Most of the time
(percent): 6.5; About half of the time (percent): 1.1; Some of the time
(percent): 5.1; Almost never (percent): 4.2; Never (percent): 2.5;
Number of respondents: 1,670.
[End of table]
Q59. If you discover that a producer is not applying an important
practice in his or her conservation system during a status review, how
often do you do the following?
Work with the producer to develop a system that will meet the
provisions; Always or almost always (percent): 73.2; Most of the time
(percent): 18.4; About half of the time (percent): 0.8; Some of the
time (percent): 3.4; Never or almost never (percent): 4.1; Number of
respondents: 1,794.
Identify a variance that will solve the situation for this year; Always
or almost always (percent): 30.8; Most of the time (percent): 22.7;
About half of the time (percent): 5.2; Some of the time (percent):
24.3; Never or almost never (percent): 17.1; Number of respondents:
1,700.
Inform the producer that he or she is out of compliance and provide
appeal rights; Always or almost always (percent): 52.8; Most of the
time (percent): 11.0; About half of the time (percent): 3.2; Some of
the time (percent): 16.7; Never or almost never (percent): 16.4; Number
of respondents: 1,645.
[End of table]
Q60. When you see a USDA participant's tract that includes HEL cropland
farmed without a conservation system to meet the soil-loss reduction
requirements, how often do you do the following?
Notify the participant immediately, either in person or by mail, that
the tract may be out of compliance; Always or almost always (percent):
44.3; Most of the time (percent): 23.3; About half of the time
(percent): 3.4; Some of the time (percent): 13.2; Never or almost never
(percent): 15.9; Number of respondents: 1,640.
Wait to see if the tract is on this year's status review list; Always
or almost always (percent): 7.7; Most of the time (percent): 8.2; About
half of the time (percent): 2.1; Some of the time (percent): 9.2; Never
or almost never (percent): 72.8; Number of respondents: 1,517.
Request an FSA-569 from the FSA; Always or almost always (percent):
21.9; Most of the time (percent): 12.4; About half of the time
(percent): 4.1; Some of the time (percent): 20.9; Never or almost never
(percent): 40.6; Number of respondents: 1,528.
Notify the person, as time and workload permit; Always or almost always
(percent): 24.0; Most of the time (percent): 20.9; About half of the
time (percent): 6.7; Some of the time (percent): 18.2; Never or almost
never (percent): 30.2; Number of respondents: 1,481.
[End of table]
Q61. If a farmer has a farmed wetland (FW) with an existing hydrologic
manipulation, would the farmer be able to do the following?
Expand the manipulation to remove all remaining hydrology and farm the
area; Yes (percent): 0.9; No (percent): 99.1; Number of respondents:
1,722.
Maintain the scope and effect of the maintenance performed prior to
December 23, 1985, but not exceed that level of drainage; Yes
(percent): 98.2; No (percent): 1.8; Number of respondents: 1,733.
Convert the area without penalty to the farmer's USDA benefits; Yes
(percent): 2.8; No (percent): 97.2; Number of respondents: 1,667.
[End of table]
Q62. If a farmer is in violation of conservation compliance provisions
on highly erodible land, how likely is it that the NRCS field office
will automatically grant either a variance or an exemption to the
producer in the first year?
Very likely (percent): 16.0; Likely (percent): 28.5; As likely as not
(percent): 21.9; Unlikely (percent): 20.4; Very unlikely (percent):
13.2; Number of respondents: 1,603.
[End of table]
Q63. If a farmer is in violation of conservation compliance provisions
on highly erodible land, how likely is it that the FSA field office
will automatically grant either a variance or an exemption to the
producer in the first year?
Very likely (percent): 32.1; Likely (percent): 30.8; As likely as not
(percent): 17.5; Unlikely (percent): 13.2; Very unlikely (percent):
6.4; Number of respondents: 1,619.
[End of table]
Q64. You have received an anonymous complaint that a USDA program
participant has converted a wetland. On review, you find that the
conversion is for nonagricultural use. How likely are you to carry out
these options?
Do nothing, as NRCS does not have jurisdiction; Very likely (percent):
14.0; Likely (percent): 14.2; As likely as not (percent): 9.6; Unlikely
(percent): 27.3; Very unlikely (percent): 34.9; Number of respondents:
1,756.
Notify the EPA or the District Corps of Engineers, as this is a
potential Clean Water Act violation; Very likely (percent): 26.5;
Likely (percent): 30.2; As likely as not (percent): 12.2; Unlikely
(percent): 14.6; Very unlikely (percent): 16.5; Number of respondents:
1,744.
Request an FSA-569 from FSA; Very likely (percent): 20.5; Likely
(percent): 17.4; As likely as not (percent): 8.3; Unlikely (percent):
21.7; Very unlikely (percent): 32.0; Number of respondents: 1,679.
[End of table]
Q65. Assume that you received the status review list for your county
and there are tracts on the list that do not have any wetland
determinations. How likely are you to check the tract in the field to
assess any potential wetland violations?
Very likely (percent): 47.8; Likely (percent): 27.1; As likely as not
(percent): 8.3; Unlikely (percent): 9.2; Very unlikely (percent): 7.6;
Number of respondents: 1,940.
[End of table]
Q66. Assume from the status review list that there are tracts where no
records exist. How likely are you to check with the FSA office to see
if the tracts have been reconstituted?
Very likely (percent): 80.4; Likely (percent): 14.6; As likely as not
(percent): 2.0; Unlikely (percent): 1.7; Very unlikely (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 1,981.
[End of table]
Potential Hindrances:
Q67. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in
carrying out HELC and WC provisions?
Do not want to assume enforcement role; Primary hindrance (percent):
18.3; Number of respondents: 1,283.
Lack of guidance from NRCS; Primary hindrance (percent): 2.3; Number of
respondents: 1,283.
Status reviews are received at an inconvenient time; Primary hindrance
(percent): 4.5; Number of respondents: 1,283.
Not a priority with my supervisor; Primary hindrance (percent): 0.5;
Number of respondents: 1,283.
Lack of staff; Primary hindrance (percent): 39.7; Number of
respondents: 1,283.
Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps); Primary hindrance
(percent): 1.9; Number of respondents: 1,283.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA; Primary
hindrance (percent): 13.3; Number of respondents: 1,283.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS; Primary
hindrance (percent): 4.8; Number of respondents: 1,283.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National
Appeals Division; Primary hindrance (percent): 4.5; Number of
respondents: 1,283.
Political influence; Primary hindrance (percent): 2.8; Number of
respondents: 1,283.
Other (Please specify in Question 68 below.); Primary hindrance
(percent): 7.5; Number of respondents: 1,283.
[End of table]
Q68. What other primary hindrance not listed above affects your ability
to carry out HELC and WC provisions?
Writing comment (percent): 21.7; Number of respondents: 1,283.
[End of table]
Q69. What is the second greatest hindrance?
(Continued From Previous Page)
Do not want to assume enforcement role; Second hindrance (percent):
15.8; Number of respondents: 1,060.
Lack of guidance from NRCS; Second hindrance (percent): 5.4; Number of
respondents: 1,060.
Status reviews are received at an inconvenient time; Second hindrance
(percent): 11.4; Number of respondents: 1,060.
Not a priority with my supervisor; Second hindrance (percent): 2.4;
Number of respondents: 1,060.
Lack of staff; Second hindrance (percent): 19.2; Number of respondents:
1,060.
Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps); Second hindrance
(percent): 3.7; Number of respondents: 1,060.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA; Second
hindrance (percent): 13.3; Number of respondents: 1,060.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS; Second
hindrance (percent): 9.2; Number of respondents: 1,060.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National
Appeals Division; Second hindrance (percent): 7.5; Number of
respondents: 1,060.
Political influence; Second hindrance (percent): 6.2; Number of
respondents: 1,060.
Other (Please specify in Question 70 below.); Second hindrance
(percent): 5.8; Number of respondents: 1,060.
No other hindrances; Second hindrance (percent): 0.0; Number of
respondents: 1,060.
[End of table]
Q70. What second greatest hindrance not listed above affects your
ability to carry out HELC and WC provisions?
Writing comment (percent): 12.9; Number of respondents: 1,060.
[End of table]
Q71. What is the third greatest hindrance?
Do not want to assume enforcement role; Third hindrance (percent):
16.3; Number of respondents: 828.
Lack of guidance from NRCS; Third hindrance (percent): 6.0; Number of
respondents: 828.
Status reviews are received at an inconvenient time; Third hindrance
(percent): 9.3; Number of respondents: 828.
Not a priority with my supervisor; Third hindrance (percent): 2.7;
Number of respondents: 828.
Lack of staff; Third hindrance (percent): 14.5; Number of respondents:
828.
Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps); Third hindrance
(percent): 6.5; Number of respondents: 828.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA; Third
hindrance (percent): 9.1; Number of respondents: 828.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS; Third
hindrance (percent): 6.6; Number of respondents: 828.
Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National
Appeals Division; Third hindrance (percent): 11.8; Number of
respondents: 828.
Political influence; Third hindrance (percent): 10.5; Number of
respondents: 828.
Other (Please specify in question 72 below.); Third hindrance
(percent): 6.6; Number of respondents: 828.
No other hindrances; Third hindrance (percent): 0.0; Number of
respondents: 828.
[End of table]
Q72. What third greatest hindrance not listed above affects your
ability to carry out HELC and WC provisions?
Writing comment (percent): 13.6; Number of respondents: 705.
[End of table]
HELC and WC Guidance:
Q73. If implemented appropriately, how effective are the basic
conservation systems in the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) in
addressing the requirements for soil erosion reduction?
Extremely effective (percent): 31.0; Very effective (percent): 51.7;
Moderately effective (percent): 13.4; Somewhat effective (percent):
2.9; Slightly or not effective (percent): 1.1; Number of respondents:
1,949.
[End of table]
Q74. If implemented appropriately, how effective, are the alternative
conservation systems in the FOTG in addressing the requirements for
soil erosion reduction?
Extremely effective (percent): 10.1; Very effective (percent): 40.2;
Moderately effective (percent): 31.9; Somewhat effective (percent):
12.7; Slightly or not effective (percent): 5.2; Number of respondents:
1,879.
[End of table]
Q75. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance
in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be
improved?
Conservation compliance; Needs very great improvement (percent): 4.2;
Needs great improvement (percent): 9.2; Needs moderate improvement
(percent): 21.9; Needs some improvement (percent): 20.3; Needs little
or no improvement (percent): 44.4; Number of respondents: 1,780.
Sodbuster provisions; Needs very great improvement (percent): 5.3;
Needs great improvement (percent): 10.6; Needs moderate improvement
(percent): 19.4; Needs some improvement (percent): 19.1; Needs little
or no improvement (percent): 45.6; Number of respondents: 1,741.
Swampbuster provisions, overall; Needs very great improvement
(percent): 7.2; Needs great improvement (percent): 12.7; Needs moderate
improvement (percent): 20.3; Needs some improvement (percent): 18.5;
Needs little or no improvement (percent): 41.1; Number of respondents:
1,672.
Wetland mitigation and minimal effects provisions; Needs very great
improvement (percent): 11.0; Needs great improvement (percent): 18.0;
Needs moderate improvement (percent): 18.6; Needs some improvement
(percent): 17.1; Needs little or no improvement (percent): 35.4; Number
of respondents: 1,660.
Status reviews provisions; Needs very great improvement (percent): 4.5;
Needs great improvement (percent): 9.1; Needs moderate improvement
(percent): 19.1; Needs some improvement (percent): 21.0; Needs little
or no improvement (percent): 46.2; Number of respondents: 1,782.
Appeals provisions; Needs very great improvement (percent): 7.7; Needs
great improvement (percent): 12.2; Needs moderate improvement
(percent): 16.1; Needs some improvement (percent): 17.7; Needs little
or no improvement (percent): 46.4; Number of respondents: 1,678.
Other; Needs very great improvement (percent): 12.6; Needs great
improvement (percent): 4.2; Needs moderate improvement (percent): 6.8;
Needs some improvement (percent): 8.4; Needs little or no improvement
(percent): 68.1; Number of respondents: 191.
[End of table]
Q76. For those areas needing improvement, please explain below.
Writing comment (percent): 23.1; Number of respondents: 2,015.
[End of table]
Wetlands Mitigation:
Q77. From Janury 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001, did your county
have any wetlands cases that were mitigated for agricultural purposes
under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended?
Yes (percent): 13.8; No (percent): 86.2; Number of respondents: 2,006.
[End of table]
Q78. When a person is granted a mitigation exemption, how often do you
do the following?
Develop a mitigation agreement; Always or almost always (percent):
83.2; Most of the time (percent): 9.3; About half of the time
(percent): 1.1; Some of the time (percent): 3.0; Never or almost never
(percent): 3.4; Number of respondents: 268.
Include time limits for implementation in the mitigation agreement,
including dates and sequence of activities; Always or almost always
(percent): 80.8; Most of the time (percent): 13.5; About half of the
time (percent): 1.1; Some of the time (percent): 1.9; Never or almost
never (percent): 2.6; Number of respondents: 266.
Conduct follow-up inspections until all practices are successfully
established; Always or almost always (percent): 77.2; Most of the time
(percent): 14.6; About half of the time (percent): 1.9; Some of the
time (percent): 4.5; Never or almost never (percent): 1.9; Number of
respondents: 268.
[End of table]
Q79. About how many cases of agricultural wetland violations in your
county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands from January
1, 1997 through December 31, 2001?
(Continued From Previous Page)
1997; Mean: 1.7; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 17; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 71.
1998; Mean: 1.5; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 15; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 62.
1999; Mean: 1.8; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 40; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 84.
2000; Mean: 1.8; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 35; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 96.
2001; Mean: 1.7; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 25; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 92.
[End of table]
Q80. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated
through restoration of the wetlands from January 1, 1997 through
December 31, 2001?
1997; Mean: 11.6; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 125; Median: 5; Number of
respondents: 72.
1998; Mean: 14.3; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 320; Median: 5; Number of
respondents: 63.
1999; Mean: 14.9; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 400; Median: 4; Number of
respondents: 85.
2000; Mean: 12.1; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 350; Median: 4; Number of
respondents: 99.
2001; Mean: 10.5; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 250; Median: 4; Number of
respondents: 87.
[End of table]
Q81. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated
through enhancements, that is improvement of another wetland, from
January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001?
1997; Mean: 1.4; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 2; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 11.
1998; Mean: 1.1; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 2; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 11.
1999; Mean: 1.5; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 3; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 20.
2000; Mean: 2.5; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 20; Median: 2; Number of
respondents: 22.
2001; Mean: 1.5; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 7; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 28.
[End of table]
Q82. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated
through enhancements, that is improvement of another wetland, from
January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001?
1997; Mean: 3.1; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 6; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 10.
1998; Mean: 6.7; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 20; Median: 5; Number of
respondents: 9.
1999; Mean: 7.4; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 35; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 16.
2000; Mean: 6.1; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 30; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 19.
2001; Mean: 8.9; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 40; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 27.
[End of table]
Q83. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated
through creation of new wetlands from January 1, 1997 through December
31, 2001?
1997; Mean: 2.9; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 17; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 23.
1998; Mean: 3.1; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 20; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 18.
1999; Mean: 8.6; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 140; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 27.
2000; Mean: 3.6; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 45; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 36.
2001; Mean: 3.3; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 45; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 38.
[End of table]
Q84. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated
through creation of new wetlands from January 1, 1997 through December
31, 2001?
1997; Mean: 12.2; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 100; Median: 4; Number of
respondents: 20.
1998; Mean: 15.8; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 200; Median: 4; Number of
respondents: 19.
1999; Mean: 28.7; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 400; Median: 5; Number of
respondents: 26.
2000; Mean: 21.0; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 400; Median: 4; Number of
respondents: 36.
2001; Mean: 15.4; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 200; Median: 6; Number of
respondents: 39.
[End of table]
Q85. From January 1,1996 through December 31, 2001, did your county
have any wetlands cases that were granted a minimal effect exemption
under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended?
Yes (percent): 15.2; No (percent): 84.8; Number of respondents: 1,950.
[End of table]
Q86. In your county, about how many cases were granted a minimal effect
exemption for agricultural purposes from January 1, 1997 through
December 31, 2001?
(Continued From Previous Page)
1997; Mean: 2.8; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 22; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 137.
1998; Mean: 3.3; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 25; Median: 2; Number of
respondents: 115.
1999; Mean: 3.2; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 58; Median: 1; Number of
respondents: 134.
2000; Mean: 3.3; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 53; Median: 2; Number of
respondents: 131.
2001; Mean: 3.4; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 57; Median: 2; Number of
respondents: 133.
[End of table]
Q87. In your county, about how many total acres of wetlands were
granted minimal effects exemptions for agricultural purposes from
January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001?
1997; Mean: 11.2; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 200; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 135.
1998; Mean: 13.1; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 350; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 109.
1999; Mean: 17.7; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 830; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 125.
2000; Mean: 16.8; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 800; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 123.
2001; Mean: 15.1; Minimum: 1; Maximum: 450; Median: 3; Number of
respondents: 121.
[End of table]
General Information:
Q88. What is your title?
Soil Technician; Having this title (percent): 7.2; Number of
respondents: 2,004.
Soil Conservationist; Having this title (percent): 7.7; Number of
respondents: 2,004.
Natural Resource Conservationist; Having this title (percent): 3.3;
Number of respondents: 2,004.
District Conservationist; Having this title (percent): 76.3; Number of
respondents: 2,004.
Natural Resource Manager; Having this title (percent): 0.4; Number of
respondents: 2,004.
Conservation Agronomist; Having this title (percent): 1.0; Number of
respondents: 2,004.
Natural Resource Specialist; Having this title (percent): 0.2; Number
of respondents: 2,004.
Other (Please specify below.); Having this title (percent): 3.8; Number
of respondents: 2,004.
[End of table]
Q89. If not listed, what is your title?
Writing comment (percent): 3.4; Number of respondents: 2,015.
[End of table]
Q90. How many years have you been conducting conservation compliance
status reviews?
Mean: 11.0; Minimum: 0; Maximum: 30; Median: 12; Number of respondents:
2,000.
[End of table]
Q91. Since 1996, how often has your office used contractors or third-
party vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance
provisions in each of the following areas?
Making determinations of highly erodible land or wetlands; Always or
almost always (percent): 0.1; Most of the time (percent): 0.0; About
half of the time (percent): 0.1; Some of the time (percent): 1.4; Never
or almost never (percent): 98.4; Number of respondents: 1,982.
Developing conservation plans; Always or almost always (percent): 0.1;
Most of the time (percent): 0.1; About half of the time (percent): 0.2;
Some of the time (percent): 1.8; Never or almost never (percent): 97.9;
Number of respondents: 1,976.
Conducting status reviews; Always or almost always (percent): 0.1; Most
of the time (percent): 0.0; About half of the time (percent): 0.1; Some
of the time (percent): 0.8; Never or almost never (percent): 99.1;
Number of respondents: 1,966.
Other (please specify in question 92 below); Always or almost always
(percent): 0.3; Most of the time (percent): 1.4; About half of the time
(percent): 0.3; Some of the time (percent): 2.7; Never or almost never
(percent): 95.3; Number of respondents: 364.
[End of table]
Q92. In what other area has your office used contractors or third-party
vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance
provisions?
Note: Fewer than 1 percent of the respondents wrote a narrative.
Q93. Please provide below any suggestions or comments you have to
improve the way NRCS supports you in performing status reviews and
ensuring compliance with highly erodible land and wetland conservation
provision requirements.
Writing comment (percent): 47.6; Number of respondents: 2,015.
[End of table]
Q94. Please add any comments or suggestions you have about highly
erodible land and wetland conservation requirements.
Writing comment (percent): 41.0; Number of respondents: 2,015.
[End of table]
Q95. Please add any comments or suggestions you have about this
questionnaire.
Writing comment (percent): 30.1; Number of respondents: 2,015.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm
Service Agency:
Note: GAO's comments supplementing those in the report's text appear at
the end of this appendix.
United States Department of Agriculture:
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services:
Farm Service Agency:
1400 Independence Ave, SW:
Stop-0517 Washington, DC 20250-0517:
TO: Lawrence J. Dyckman, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment Team, GAO:
FROM: John A. Johnson:
Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs:
SUBJECT: Response - Draft GAO Report - GAO-03-418, Conservation
Compliance:
This memorandum is in response to your request for comments regarding
the draft GAO report covering the implementation of USDA Conservation
Compliance requirements.
The primary FSA-related concern in the report deals with the GAO
findings that FSA county committees waived 61 percent of the MRCS
noncompliance determinations during the period 1993 through 2001.
It is important to note FSA does not negate or overrule any NRCS
determination that a violation occurred. A determination by a county
committee to approve a "good faith" exemption to waive a producer's
ineligibility is made under the authority granted in the Code of
Federal Regulations (7 CFR Part 12) and the Food Security Act of 1985
(the 1985 Act).
Under those provisions, a producer who is determined to have violated
the highly erodible land or wetland conservation provisions may
continue to receive USDA program benefits providing:
* The producer acted in good faith and without the intention to
violate.
* NRCS determines the producer:
* restores or mitigates the converted wetland in a time period not to
exceed one year, or:
* has fully implemented an acceptable conservation system on highly
erodible land in a time period not to exceed one year.
Of the total program benefits reinstated by FSA committees,
approximately 16 percent ($6.5 million), were provided to tenants or
landlords who were determined to be innocent and uninvolved with the
noncompliance activity. In such cases, the violations were attributed
solely to the producers' responsible for the adverse action.
Although a "good faith" determination will allow a violating producer
to continue receiving program benefits, there are other costs to the
producer associated with the violation. In the case of a converted
wetland, the producer initially incurred the cost of conversion. The
same producer must also incur the cost of wetland restoration without
any monetary assistance from USDA.
FSA procedures do not allow a producer to retain USDA covered program
benefits without meeting all conservation compliance requirements or
the requirements for a waiver of ineligibility. The restoration of
converted wetlands, along with the implementation of NRCS-acceptable
conservation systems on highly erodible land, is consistent with the
provisions of the 1985 Act.
FSA would note that application of "good faith" procedures facilitated
the restoration of converted wetlands along with the implementation of
good conservation systems on approximately 3,500 tracts of land which
were brought back into conservation compliance. It could be argued that
many of these tracts would not have been brought back into compliance
if eligibility for benefits had not been reinstated under the "good
faith" exemption. Surely, the overall purpose of the conservation
compliance provisions of the 1985 Act is not to deny benefits, but
rather to achieve conservation compliance.
Denied Benefits:
During the time span covered by the report, FSA has permanently denied
approximately $20 million in program benefits to violators of the
conservation compliance provisions. Price support benefits were also
denied on 2.1 million pounds of peanuts and 3.6 million pounds of
tobacco due to violations.
The statistics totaling the dollar amount of denied benefits tend to be
significantly understated. Once producers are aware they are in
violation of the conservation compliance provisions, it is normal to
refrain from applying for USDA program benefits. There are no
statistics available which capture the amount of program payments that
were not paid to violators because they failed to file an application,
anticipating denial.
Documentation:
This report outlines the lack of acceptable documentation or reasons,
by FSA committees, when many of the "good faith" determinations were
granted.
Current procedure in FSA Handbook 6-CP instructs county offices to
document the case history and reasons for the committee determination
on Form AD-1068. This procedure also indicates:
"...approvals must be supported by conclusive evidence to indicate that
the producer intended to comply without intent to violate and the
action was not a scheme or device to avoid compliance.":
FSA Action:
FSA agrees there is value in placing additional emphasis on the current
procedural requirements.
This will be accomplished through the issuance of FSA notices to the
field offices. A revision of FSA Handbook 6-CP will also stress the
documentation requirements along with the requirements necessary to
qualify for a "good faith" determination.
Enforcement will be conducted through County Office Reviews.
See comment 2.
See comment 1.
The following are GAO's comments on the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's letter dated March 4, 2003.
GAO's Comments:
1. We agree that the purpose of the conservation compliance provisions
is not to deny farmers benefits. However, the FSA's guidance requires
that county office committees grant good faith waivers judiciously and
only when supported by conclusive evidence indicating that the farmer
did not intend to violate the provisions. In addition, NRCS officials
were concerned at the extent to which the FSA waives NRCS's
noncompliance determinations. These officials expressed the view that
many of these waivers are not justified and that the high number of
waivers tends to undermine NRCS's implementation of the conservation
provisions, giving its field staff less incentive to issue violations
when warranted.
2. Table 2 of the report shows that the FSA denied about $19.2 million
of benefits to farmers during crop years 1993 through 2001; this amount
represents the difference between the totals for the "Benefits to be
denied before appeals" and the "Benefits reinstated by Farm Service
Agency" columns of the table. However, the table also shows that this
total was further reduced by about $6.5 million worth of benefits that
were reinstated by others including NRCS, USDA's National Appeals
Division, and judicial courts. Thus, substantially less than
approximately $20 million worth of benefits were permanently denied.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Lawrence J. Dyckman (202) 512-3841
James R. Jones, Jr. (202) 512-9839:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Gary Brown, Thomas Cook,
Tyra DiPalma-Vigil, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Katherine Tang, and
Cleofas Zapata made key contributions to this report. Important
contributions were also made by Alice Feldesman, Luann Moy, Minette
Richardson, and Rebecca Shea.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees' Views on How USDA
Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns. GAO-02-295.
Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2002.
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions Needed to
Strengthen Program and Financial Accountability. GAO/RCED-00-83.
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2000.
Soil and Wetlands Conservation: Soil Conservation Service Making Good
Progress but Cultural Issues Need Attention. GAO/RCED-94-241.
Washington, D.C.: September 27, 1994.
Farm Programs: Conservation Compliance Provisions Could Be Made More
Effective. GAO/RCED-90-206. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 1990.
FOOTNOTES
[1] "Wetland" is a generic term used to describe a variety of wet
habitats such as marshes, bogs, and swamps. In general, wetlands are
characterized by the frequent and prolonged presence of water at or
near the soil surface, soils that form under flooded or saturated
conditions (hydric soils), and plants that are adapted to life in these
types of soils (hydrophytes).
[2] The Nation's total cropland includes about 410 million acres.
However, about 34 million of these acres are currently idled, having
been enrolled in USDA's Conservation Reserve Program. This program
provides cost-share and annual rental payments to establish permanent
land cover in exchange for taking environmentally sensitive cropland
out of production for 10 to 15 years. If land enrolled in the program
is subsequently taken out of the program and farmed again, it is
subject to the conservation provisions.
[3] In this report, we use the term "waiver" to refer to variances and
exemptions given by either NRCS or the Farm Service Agency. An NRCS
variance continues a farmer's eligibility for federal farm program
benefits when the farmer is unable to apply a conservation practice
because of severe or unusual conditions related to weather, disease, or
pests; because the farmer experienced an extreme personal hardship or
unusual occurrence, such as illness or death; or because the deficiency
is minor and technical in nature. An NRCS exemption maintains a
farmer's eligibility for benefits when a violation is identified while
NRCS staff are providing on-site technical assistance. A Farm Service
Agency variance continues a farmer's eligibility when the farmer is
unable to implement a conservation system because doing so would cause
undue economic hardship. A Farm Service Agency exemption maintains a
farmer's eligibility when the farmer acted in good faith and without
intent to violate the conservation provisions or when a landlord
prevents a tenant farmer from implementing an approved conservation
system. Similarly, in cases in which the tenant farmer's violation is
not attributable to actions of the landlord, the landlord may receive
an exemption that continues the landlord's eligibility for benefits
regarding other tracts. The granting of a variance or an exemption by
NRCS or the Farm Service Agency does not negate NRCS's noncompliance
determination. The farmer involved is still considered to be in
violation of the conservation provisions and is expected to take
corrective actions within 12 months, except in the case of NRCS
variances given for severe or unusual conditions.
[4] A crop year is the calendar year in which a crop is produced.
[5] To protect highly erodible land, the 1985 act also introduced the
Conservation Reserve Program.
[6] For the purpose of this report, we use the term "conservation plan"
interchangeably with "conservation system." However, strictly
speaking, a conservation plan is generally the document that describes
a conservation system. In turn, a conservation system is a combination
of one or more conservation practices. These practices include
structural or vegetative measures or management techniques used to
enhance, protect, or manage natural resources, such as soil.
[7] The 1990 act also authorized the Wetlands Reserve Program. This
program offers cost-share assistance for wetlands restoration and the
purchase of permanent or 30-year easements for the agricultural value
of the land taken out of production.
[8] The 1990 act authorized graduated reductions in program benefits of
not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 for a violation of conservation
compliance or sodbuster provisions, or not less than $750 nor more than
$10,000 for a violation of the swampbuster provision.
[9] The 1996 act also authorized the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program to provide cost-share and incentive payments, to assist farmers
in implementing conservation practices on their land for 5 to 10 years.
[10] For highly erodible land not farmed from 1981 through 1985, under
the sodbuster provisions, conservation systems must prevent a
substantial increase in erosion, defined as 25 percent of potential
erodibility, and hold soil erosion to no more than the rate at which
soil can maintain continued productivity. For highly erodible land
farmed at any time from 1981 through 1985, under the conservation
compliance provisions, conservation systems must substantially reduce
soil erosion, defined as 75 percent of the potential erodibility and
not more than twice the rate at which soil can maintain continued
productivity.
[11] Crop insurance is available for a fee (premium) to the producers
of most crops as protection against significant yield losses from
natural hazards, such as drought.
[12] The 2002 act increased the enrollment ceiling for two of the
incentive-based conservation programs, namely the Conservation Reserve
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. It also increased funding for
several other incentive-based programs, including the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. Finally, this act created two new
incentive-based programs, the Conservation Security Program and the
Grasslands Reserve Program. These latter programs are not yet
operational.
[13] NRCS is a decentralized agency; its programs are implemented by
its state and local offices (covering one or more counties), often in
partnership with state conservation agencies and local conservation
districts.
[14] Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). The Court specifically addressed Clean
Water Act jurisdiction over isolated waters that are intrastate and
nonnavigable where the sole basis for asserting such jurisdiction is
the actual or potential use of the waters as habitat for migratory
birds. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers
are considering the implications of the ruling for Clean Water Act
jurisdiction over other isolated, intrastate, nonnavigable waters. See
68 Fed. Reg. 1991 (Jan. 15, 2003).
[15] 68 Fed. Reg. 1991, 1995 (Jan. 15, 2003).
[16] Prairie potholes are freshwater depressions and marshes, often
less than 2 feet deep and 1 acre in size, that were created by glaciers
thousands of years ago. These wetlands are used as breeding areas for
migratory waterfowl. In the United States, the Prairie Pothole Region
encompasses parts of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and
Minnesota. Less than half of the original 20 million acres of these
prairie wetlands remain.
[17] We selected these states on the basis of such criteria as the
amount of land that is subject to the conservation provisions and
geographic dispersion.
[18] In September 2002, USDA's Office of Inspector General reported a
similar problem in three Kansas field offices. See U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Natural Resources
Conservation Service Compliance with Highly Erodible Land Provisions,
Audit Report No. 10099-8-KC (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2002).
[19] In one of these offices, field staff granted the minor and
technical waiver in 2 or more consecutive years for 16 of the tracts.
[20] See NRCS, National Food Security Act Manual, third edition.
[21] See NRCS, National Food Security Act Manual, third edition, and
the Farm Service Agency's Farm Loan Program handbooks.
[22] Detailed information regarding waivers and violations was
unavailable for crop years 1998 and 1999 because NRCS did not collect
these data.
[23] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Soil and Wetlands
Conservation: Soil Conservation Service Making Good Progress but
Cultural Issues Need Attention, GAO/RCED-94-241 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 27, 1994).
[24] At present, NRCS has about 11,000 employees. About three-fourths
of these employees are located in the agency's approximately 2,500
field offices.
[25] See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General,
Natural Resources Conservation Service Compliance with Highly Erodible
Land Provisions, Audit Report No. 10099-8-KC (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
10, 2002). This audit was undertaken in NRCS and Farm Service Agency
offices in Kansas.
[26] The actual number of compliance reviews done each year was
somewhat higher. For example, in 2000 and 2001, the total tracts
reviewed were 17,259 and 17,708, respectively. The total for 2000
includes 13,025 tracts selected randomly by NRCS headquarters and an
additional 4,234 tracts added by NRCS field offices on the basis of
referrals from other agencies (e.g., tracts owned by employees of other
USDA agencies), whistleblower complaints, tracts owned by Farm Loan
Program participants, and tracts that maintained eligibility for farm
benefits because of prior year waivers. Similarly, the total for 2001
includes 13,544 tracts selected randomly and an additional 4,164 tracts
added by NRCS field offices.
[27] NRCS eliminated the earlier system in favor of a new system, known
as the Performance and Results Measurement System. This system is used
to collect data on the number of farmers assisted, types of assistance
provided, conservation practices planned and installed, and program
results or outcomes. The system was piloted in fiscal year 1999 and is
now fully operational.
[28] NRCS's field structure includes state, area (encompassing several
field offices), and field offices. Some smaller states do not have area
offices. In general, field offices correspond to a county.
[29] According to NRCS officials, NRCS's state offices must report the
results of compliance reviews to headquarters by December 1. To ensure
this deadline is met, field offices are generally required to report
the results of their reviews to their area offices in October, and, in
turn, the area offices must report these results to the state offices
by early November.
[30] As of January 2003, USDA, as well as most of the federal
government, was operating under a continuing resolution.
[31] According to NRCS officials, the agency plans to include a
conservation compliance database in a module of its Integrated
Accountability System. Eventually, the associated data entry would be
web-based. As of early February 2003, this project plan was pending and
subject to receipt of adequate appropriations. Regarding cost, NRCS
officials noted that the cost of the planned actions will be relatively
low and it is included as an indistinct cost element in a larger
accountability system appropriation request for fiscal year 2003. In
the meantime, these officials advised us that NRCS is undertaking
measures in fiscal year 2003 to improve the compliance review process,
including earlier dissemination of information on the tracts to be
reviewed and several policy changes. However, given the recentness or
pending status of these developments, we were unable to assess their
impact.
[32] See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General,
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Effectiveness of Status Review
Process in Kansas, Audit Report No. 10099-9-KC (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
8, 2002) and Natural Resources Conservation Service: Compliance with
Highly Erodible Land Provisions, Audit Report No. 10099-8-KC
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2002).
[33] In the remaining 982 appeals, the Farm Service Agency reinstated
the benefits by issuing tenant and landlord waivers in 729 and 253
cases, respectively. Tenants may maintain eligibility for benefits if
the violation occurred because the actions of the landlord prevented
the tenant's implementation of the conservation system. If a landlord
owns tracts operated by more than one tenant, the landlord will be
eligible for benefits on all tracts except those tracts where a tenant
violates the conservation compliance provisions.
[34] The National Resources Inventory is conducted in 5-year intervals
by NRCS to assess the conditions of land cover and use, soil erosion,
farmland, wetlands, and other natural resource characteristics on
nonfederal rural land in the United States. In general, the inventory
covers some 800,000 sample sites on this nonfederal land (about 75
percent of the nation's land area). The inventory results are used for
formulating policy and developing natural resource programs at the
national and state levels.
[35] The results of NRCS's most recent National Resources Inventory,
covering the 5-year period ending in 2002, have not yet been published.
[36] Soil productivity is the quality of a soil that enables it to
provide nutrients in adequate amounts and proper balance for crop
production. Soil productivity is maintained when the rate of erosion
does not exceed the ability of the soil to regenerate itself through
natural processes.
[37] See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing
Landscape, Report No. AER-794 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).
According to this report, the estimate of $1.4 billion in benefits
includes improved surface water quality, which increases the public's
enjoyment of water-based recreation and decreases the cost to
municipalities, industry, and other public and private sectors.
However, the estimate understates the true value of reduced soil
erosion because other benefits, such as the increases in waterfowl
populations or the survival of endangered species and decreases in the
cost that air-borne soil imposes on industries and scenic views, have
not been included.
[38] We also note that the Conservation Reserve Program has been a
significant factor in reducing the overall levels of soil erosion
achieved. This program was enacted in conjunction with the conservation
compliance and sodbuster provisions in the Food Security Act of 1985 as
part of an overall strategy to reduce soil erosion. Currently, about 34
million acres of cropland are enrolled in the program; many of these
acres were highly erodible prior to enrollment. The program reduces
erosion by taking this cropland out of production and requiring that a
permanent vegetative cover be established on it.
[39] In 1988, NRCS revised its technical guidance to provide farmers
greater flexibility in complying with the conservation provisions. For
example, the option of alternative conservation systems was introduced.
Alternative systems are available in areas in which it is not
economically feasible for farmers to reduce soil erosion to levels low
enough to maintain the long-term productivity of the land.
Nevertheless, alternative systems achieve some reduction in soil
erosion. Changing resource conditions and the introduction of new
farming and conservation technologies may now make it economically
feasible for farmers using alternative systems to achieve further
reductions in soil erosion.
[40] See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing
Landscape, Report No. AER-794 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).
[41] See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing
Landscape, Report No. AER-794 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).
[42] NRCS officials indicated that the Food Security Act of 1985, as
amended, requires NRCS to conduct wetlands determinations during the
growing season, which generally includes the summer months. However, we
note that the growing season also generally includes the spring months
after planting, when temporary and seasonal wetlands are more likely to
be wet.
[43] In addition to responding to our survey questions, many of these
officials also provided us with written comments. Because of the volume
of these written comments as well as the need to ensure the
confidentiality of individual responses, these comments have not been
included in appendix V.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: