Agricultural Conservation
State Advisory Committees' Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns Gao ID: GAO-02-295 February 22, 2002Private landowners own more than two-thirds of the continental United States' 1.9 billion acres. Recognizing the critical role that private landowners play in managing soil, water, and wildlife habitat, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to improve stewardship practices on these lands. USDA currently has more than 70 million acres of privately-owned land enrolled in programs that offer landowners financial incentives to implement conservation practices to protect or improve soil and water quality and wildlife habitat. USDA's conservation efforts address specific environmental concerns, target funding toward state and local environmental priority areas, and promote partnerships with state or local entities to leverage limited funding. State technical committee members indicated that although USDA's conservation programs are generally effective, some targeted programs are more effective than others. Committee members cited several elements of the current programs that hinder achievement of environmental objectives and indicated a preference for more flexibility in new or existing programs. More than two-thirds of members considered program provisions that prohibit landowners from receiving compensation for maintaining previously implemented landowner-financed conservation practices to be a hindrance. Members would like to be able to tailor new or existing programs to the farming practices of producers in their states as well as increase emphasis on programs that keep lands in production.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-295, Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees' Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-295
entitled 'Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees‘ Views
on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns' which
was released on February 22, 2002.
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.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S.
Senate:
February 2002:
Agricultural Conservation:
State Advisory Committees‘ Views on How USDA Programs Could Better
Address Environmental Concerns:
GAO-02-295:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Committee Members Noted Some Programs Better Address Specific Concerns
and Some Regions and Types of Operations Are Not as Effectively
Assisted:
Members Noted Some Program Elements Hinder Achievement of Environmental
Objectives and Would Like More Flexibility:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Program Enrollment and the Extent to Which Program
Applications Exceed Funding and Acreage Limits:
Appendix II: Distribution of Payments for USDA‘s Conservation Programs:
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives and Scope:
Survey Methodology:
Sampling Errors and Confidence Intervals of Estimates:
Controlling for Nonsampling Errors:
Methodology for Obtaining Additional Information:
Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee
Members:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: USDA‘s Conservation Programs:
Table 2: CRP General Enrollment Applications and Acres, Fiscal Years
1986-2001:
Table 3: CRP Continuous and CREP Contracts and Acres, Fiscal Years 1997-
2001:
Table 4: NRCS Conservation Program Contracts and Acres, Fiscal Years
1992-2001:
Table 5: Eligible Acres That Exceeded Program Limits and USDA Estimate
of Funding Required to Enroll Acres in USDA Conservation Programs As of
October 2001:
Figures:
Figure 1: USDA Conservation Program Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as Effective
in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing CRP-Based Programs as
’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and
FPP as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental
Concerns:
Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing CRP-
Based Programs as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing
Environmental Concerns:
Figure 6: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WRP as
’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing EQIP
as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental
Concerns:
Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WHIP
as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental
Concerns:
Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing FPP as
’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
Figure 10: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as
Effective in Assisting Different Sizes and Types of Agricultural
Operations:
Figure 11: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP
General ’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental
Objectives:
Figure 12: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP
Continuous ’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental
Objectives:
Figure 13: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating WRP Provisions
’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives:
Figure 14: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating EQIP Provisions
’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives:
Figure 15: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs Having
’Less Than Enough“ or ’Much Less Than Enough“ Technical Assistance:
Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Members Citing Program Elements as
’Somewhat“ or ’Very“ Important in Modifying or Creating New Programs:
Figure 17: Actual and Member-Proposed Allocations of Fiscal Years 1996-
2000 Funds to USDA Conservation Programs:
Figure 18: CRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
Figure 19: WRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
Figure 20: EQIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
Figure 21: FPP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
Figure 22: WHIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
Abbreviations:
CRP: Conservation Reserve Program:
CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program:
EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentives Program:
FPP: Farmland Protection Program:
FSA: Farm Service Agency:
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service:
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:
WHIP: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program:
WRP: Wetlands Reserve Program:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 22, 2002:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard Lugar:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
United States Senate:
Farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners own and manage more
than two-thirds of the continental United States‘ 1.9 billion acres and
thus are the primary stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat.
Because of this important responsibility, how private land is used is
increasingly being recognized as vital to the protection of the
nation‘s environment and natural resources. For example, state water-
quality agencies report that agricultural production is a leading
contributor to impaired water quality; similarly, habitat loss
associated with agriculture has been a factor in the declining
populations of many wildlife species, including many threatened or
endangered native species. Recognizing the critical role played by
private landowners, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to implement numerous programs aimed at improving the
stewardship practices on these lands. USDA currently has more than 70
million acres of privately owned land enrolled in programs that offer
landowners financial incentives to implement conservation practices to
protect or improve soil and water quality and wildlife habitat. USDA‘s
conservation efforts are intended to address specific environmental
concerns, target funding toward state and local environmental priority
areas, and include partnerships with state or local entities to leverage
limited funding. USDA‘s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the federal
government‘s largest single conservation program, has an enrollment of
almost 34 million acres and makes annual payments of about $1.5 billion
on these acres.
Administered by USDA‘s Farm Service Agency, CRP compensates landowners
for taking certain highly erodible cropland or environmentally
sensitive land out of agricultural production. Most of CRP‘s 34 million
acres were enrolled through CRP General Enrollment, which USDA
implemented in 1986. Alternative CRP enrollment options--CRP Continuous
Enrollment, implemented in 1997, and the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP), implemented in 1998--are specifically
targeted to high-priority conservation practices that yield significant
environmental benefits. As of October 2001, enrollment in CRP
Continuous and CREP totaled 1.6 million acres. Other USDA programs,
including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the
Farmland Protection Program, are administered by USDA‘s Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These programs, which NRCS state
conservationists manage, compensate landowners for activities such as
restoring and protecting wetlands, implementing conservation and
wildlife practices on land currently used for agricultural production,
and preventing the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses near
urban areas.
State technical committees advise the NRCS state conservationists on
implementing NRCS-administered conservation programs in each state.
These committees include representatives from federal, state, local,
and Indian tribal governments, as well as representatives from
organizations knowledgeable about conservation issues, and are chaired
by the NRCS state conservationists. The committees are responsible for
such activities as recommending guidelines for evaluating conservation
practices, determining eligible conservation practices for state
priority areas, and making suggestions on program selection processes.
The future of USDA conservation programs has been the subject of
extensive debate within the environmental and agricultural communities
and in the Congress. This debate has centered on increasing the
environmental and natural resource benefits resulting from the programs
by allocating more funding to them, modifying them, or creating new
programs. Pursuant to this debate, the omnibus farm bill is expected to
become law in 2002.
In this context, you asked us to obtain the views of members of state
technical committees on (1) the effectiveness of USDA‘s conservation
efforts in addressing environmental concerns related to agriculture and
(2) any program elements that hinder the achievement of environmental
objectives related to agriculture, as well as program characteristics
that current or new programs might include to better meet these
objectives. Also, you asked us to provide information on program
participation and the extent to which applications for program
participation exceed program funding as well as the geographic
distribution of payments for each program. This information is provided
in appendixes I and II, respectively.
To provide information on the views of members of state technical
committees for our first two objectives, we mailed a questionnaire to
all NRCS state conservationists and a sample of 1,470 committee members
and received 996 responses. We drew the sample from the 2,124 state
technical committee members in all 50 states and two territories. The
sample was stratified by geographic region and the organizations the
members represent, and the overall survey results are generalizable to
the entire population. All percentage estimates from the survey have
sampling errors of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less, unless
otherwise noted. The survey solicited views on the effectiveness of CRP
General Enrollment, CRP Continuous Enrollment, CREP, Wetlands Reserve
Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program, and Farmland Protection Program. For CREP and the
Farmland Protection Program, which are relatively new programs, our
results include only those states where the programs were implemented
at the time of our survey. Our nationwide survey results are in
appendix IV. In addition, survey results stratified by region and
organization are included in a special publication entitled
Agricultural Conservation: Survey of USDA State Technical Committee
Members (GAO-02-371SP), which is available on the Internet at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgibin/getrpt?gao-02-371SP].
We conducted our work from March 2001 through November 2001 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. More
detailed information on our scope and methodology is contained in
appendix III.
Results in Brief:
State technical committee members indicated that while USDA‘s
conservation programs are generally effective, some targeted programs
are more effective than others in addressing specific environmental
concerns. In addition, members believed that program effectiveness
varies by region and type of agricultural operation. Of particular
significance, members viewed CRP Continuous Enrollment and CREP, which
target such specific environmental concerns as improving water quality
and protecting native species, as more effective in addressing these
concerns than CRP General Enrollment, which addresses environmental
concerns more generally. These results are consistent with other
analyses, such as a 1993 National Academy of Sciences study, which
found that targeting programs to specific environmental concerns”as
done by CRP Continuous Enrollment and CREP”is a promising way to
increase program effectiveness. While USDA has taken steps to increase
enrollment in the more targeted CRP programs, as of October 2001,
enrolled acreage totaled only 1.6 million of the 34 million CRP acres.
Committee members also viewed other programs as effective in addressing
environmental concerns. For example, members viewed the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
as effective in improving water quality and wildlife habitat,
respectively. Members from the Northeast and Pacific regions regard CRP
General Enrollment as significantly less effective in addressing their
agro-environmental concerns than do respondents from the Corn Belt and
Plains regions. These results may reflect the concentration of CRP
funding in the Corn Belt and Plains regions. Members also indicated
that programs are less effective in addressing the needs of specialty
crop operations (such as fruit and vegetable farms) and livestock and
poultry operations compared to their effectiveness for field crop
operations (such as wheat, corn, and cotton farms).
Committee members cited several elements of the current programs that
hinder achievement of environmental objectives and indicated a
preference for more flexibility in new or existing programs. More than
two-thirds of members cited program provisions that do not allow
landowners to receive compensation for maintaining previously
implemented landowner-financed conservation practices as a hindrance to
the CRP programs. These provisions were also cited as a hindrance to
the Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. In addition, members viewed as
a hindrance the Environmental Quality Incentives Program provision
stipulating that participants may not receive payment in the first year
of the contract. Under this provision, producers are expected to bear
the cost of conservation practice implementation in the first year of
the contract. Finally, members would like to be able to tailor new or
existing programs to the farming practices of producers in their states
as well as increase emphasis on programs that keep lands in production.
In view of the survey results, we are making a recommendation to the
secretary of agriculture to take into consideration committee members‘
views on ways to increase the environmental benefits of conservation
programs as USDA modifies or develops regulations for programs
reauthorized or created by the omnibus farm bill, which is expected to
become law in 2002. In commenting on a draft of this report, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service agreed with the information
presented in the draft report. The Farm Service Agency generally agreed
but provided additional comments about the impact of increasing
emphasis on targeted CRP-based programs. The agencies also provided
some technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
USDA conservation programs are intended to compensate landowners for
taking environmentally sensitive land out of agricultural production or
employing conservation practices on land in production. Programs are
designed to address a range of environmental concerns, such as soil
erosion, surface and ground water quality, loss of wildlife habitat and
native species, air quality, and urban sprawl. USDA‘s programs are
intended to assist landowners in addressing environmental concerns
identified at the state or local level as well as national
environmental concerns. USDA establishes regulations governing these
programs, including eligibility requirements, pursuant to authorizing
statutes. Table 1 summarizes USDA‘s principal conservation programs and
funding over the last 6 years.
Table 1: USDA‘s Conservation Programs:
Program, responsible agency: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) General
Enrollment; FSA;
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To improve soil, water, and wildlife
resources by taking cropland out of production and converting it to a
conserving use; Food Security Act of 1985;
Program description: Provides annual rental payments and cost-share
assistance to establish permanent land cover in exchange for taking
whole fields of environmentally sensitive cropland out of production
for 10-15 years;
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $9,837.
Program, responsible agency: CRP Continuous Enrollment Option[A]; FSA;
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To improve soil, water, and wildlife
resources by taking cropland out of production, targeting the most
highly sensitive land; Food Security Act of 1985;
Program description: Same as CRP General Enrollment except allows
enrollment at any time for smaller parcels of land that provide
especially high environmental benefits, such as narrow strips of land
adjacent to water bodies, and offers additional incentives;
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): [B].
Program, responsible agency: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP)[C]; FSA;
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To address specific state and
nationally significant soil, water, and wildlife resource issues by
taking cropland out of production; Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996;
Program description: Same as CRP General Enrollment and CRP Continuous
Enrollment option except partners with states and targets specific
state conservation objectives and offers additional incentives;
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): [B].
Program, responsible agency: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); NRCS;
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To restore and protect wetlands, to
improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, reduce soil erosion
and flooding, and improve water supply by restoring marginal
agricultural land to its previous wetland condition; Food Security Act
of 1985[D];
Program description: Offers cost-share assistance for restoration or
purchase of permanent or 30-year easements for the agricultural value
of the land;
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $845.
Program, responsible agency: Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP); NRCS[E];
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To improve soil quality, water
quality and supply, and wildlife habitat on lands in a agricultural
production; Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996;
Program description: Offers incentive payments and cost-share
assistance under 5-10 year contracts, allocating half of funds to
natural resource concerns related to livestock production and targeting
at least 65 percent of state funds to priority areas;
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $1,038.
Program, responsible agency: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP); NRCS;
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To develop wildlife habitat; Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996;
Program description: Offers cost-share assistance through 5-10 year
agreements to develop and improve wildlife habitat;
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $63.
Program, responsible agency: Farmland Protection Program (FPP); NRCS;
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To limit the conversion of land to
non-agricultural uses; Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996;
Program description: Purchases easements for land development rights in
partnership with state, tribal, and local government, as well as non-
governmental organizations for a minimum duration of 30 years;
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $52.
[A] FSA took administrative action in 1997 to allow an option under the
CRP permitting enrollment at any time.
[B] Funded from CRP General Enrollment.
[C] CRP option that uses CRP authority in combination with state
resources.
[D] Although WRP was authorized in 1985, it was not implemented until
1992.
[E] FSA has some administrative responsibilities.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of USDA‘s data.
[End of table]
Payments for these conservation programs totaled about $1.7 billion in
fiscal year 2000, $1.5 billion of which went to CRP. As shown in figure
1, conservation payments are concentrated in the Corn Belt and Plains
regions. This concentration reflects the fact that CRP payments are a
large portion of total agricultural conservation payments. The
distribution of payments for some of the other programs is less
concentrated. Appendix II provides more detailed information on the
geographic distribution of payments by program.
Figure 1: USDA Conservation Program Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Continental United States with state and
regional borders indicated. Also, dots represent $50,000 payments,
based on county level data.
The following regions are indicated:
Northeast;
Southeast;
Delta;
Corn Belt;
Plains;
Mountain;
Pacific.
Notes: Figure includes payments in the continental United States for
CRP, WRP, FPP, and EQIP, including programs that preceded EQIP (the
Agricultural Conservation Program, Great Plains Conservation Program,
and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Program). Payments were also made
to Alaska and Hawaii and the Caribbean territory. Fiscal year 2000
payment data at the county level were not available for WHIP.
During the time that we conducted our review, fiscal year 2000 data
were the most recent data available for county level payments.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of USDA‘s data.
[End of figure]
USDA‘s NRCS is the primary federal agency that works with private
landowners to help them protect their natural resources. The work of
the agency is accomplished through conservation planning, technical and
financial assistance, resource assessment, and technology development
and transfer. NRCS administers EQIP, WRP, WHIP, and FPP programs, in
addition to providing technical assistance for CRP-based programs.
USDA‘s FSA administers CRP-based programs, with technical assistance
provided by NRCS.
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 established
state technical committees to advise NRCS state conservationists on
technical matters related to the implementation of USDA conservation
programs in each state. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 provided additional guidance on committee membership. By
regulation, USDA requires that state technical committees include
representatives, if they are willing to serve, from NRCS, FSA, and
other USDA agencies; various U.S. Department of Interior agencies
including Fish & Wildlife Service; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Indian tribal governments; state
and local natural resource departments and agencies; representatives
from nonprofit organizations and agribusinesses; agricultural
producers; and other individuals with conservation expertise. Chaired
by NRCS state conservationists, committees are responsible for such
activities as recommending guidelines for evaluating conservation
practices, determining eligible conservation practices for state
priority areas, and making suggestions on program selection processes.
Committee Members Noted Some Programs Better Address Specific Concerns
and Some Regions and Types of Operations Are Not as Effectively
Assisted:
Committee members cited USDA‘s conservation programs as being generally
effective in addressing environmental concerns. However, members also
indicated that CRP Continuous and CREP are more effective than CRP
General in addressing specific environmental concerns. In addition,
members viewed WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and FPP as effective in achieving
environmental objectives important to these programs. Finally, some
members indicated that the effectiveness of the programs is uneven
across regions and types of agricultural operations.
Members Considered Targeted CRP-based Programs More Effective Than CRP
General in Addressing Specific Environmental Concerns:
Overall, state technical committee members viewed programs as effective
in addressing agro-environmental concerns. As figure 2 shows, most
committee members rated all programs as ’moderately“ to ’extremely“
effective in addressing environmental concerns. Some respondents noted
in explaining their assessment of program effectiveness that current
funding levels limit effectiveness. Other factors may also have
affected committee members‘ assessments of program effectiveness. For
example, respondents may have given higher scores to programs such as
CRP General that have been in place a number of years because they
would be more familiar with the programs. In contrast, the more
recently implemented programs such as CREP and FPP may have been scored
lower because respondents may be less familiar with them.
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as Effective
in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked multiple vertical bar graph depicting the
percentage of members viewing programs as effective in addressing
environmental concerns. Each bar stacks the percentage viewed as
moderately, very, and extremely effective for the following programs:
CRP General;
CRP Continuous;
CREP;
WRP;
EQIP;
WHIP;
FPP;
Overall.
Notes: CREP and FPP results are for only the 15 states that had CREP
and the 18 states that had FPP implemented at the time of our survey.
Figure reflects respondents reporting programs as ’moderately,“ ’very,“
or ’extremely“ effective. The remaining respondents rated the programs
as ’somewhat“ or ’slightly or not“ effective.
[End of figure]
Unlike the other conservation programs, the three CRP-based programs
provide an opportunity for direct comparison with each other because
they have similar environmental objectives and use the same mechanism
to achieve these objectives--land retirement. Moreover, USDA has the
ability to change the relative emphasis of the three programs by
setting acreage goals and offering additional incentives for landowners
to enroll land into CRP Continuous and CREP.
Committee members viewed the targeted CRP-based programs--CRP
Continuous and CREP--as more effective in addressing surface water
quality as figure 3 shows. Survey results showed statistically
significant differences in the effectiveness of CRP Continuous and CREP
compared to CRP General in protecting or improving surface water
quality. In addition, some members noted that CRP Continuous and CREP,
which are specifically targeted to high-priority conservation practices
that yield significant environmental benefits such as retiring small
parcels of land adjacent to water bodies, result in greater
environmental benefits relative to federal dollars spent. Furthermore,
members considered surface water quality to be an important
environmental concern. In response to a survey question on whether
various environmental concerns should receive more or less emphasis in
the future, about 80 percent of members (more than for any other
environmental concern) indicated that surface water quality should
receive more emphasis.
Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing CRP-Based Programs as
’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the percentage
of members viewing CRP-based programs as ’very“ or ’extremely“
effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the following
environmental concerns depicts the percentage for CREP, CRP General,
and CRP Continuous programs:
Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Protecting native species;
Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Reducing soil erosion;
Protecting or improving ground water quality.
[End of figure]
Concerning protecting native species, survey results showed
statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of CREP and
CRP Continuous compared with CRP General. As shown in figure 3, an
estimated 40 percent of members indicated that CREP, which has a
defined native species objective, is effective, compared with 22
percent for CRP General. A higher percentage of members also indicated
that CRP Continuous is effective compared with CRP General.
Concerning protecting wildlife habitat, members viewed CRP General,
CRP Continuous, and CREP as about equally effective (52 percent, 51
percent, and 56 percent, respectively). Some committee members noted
that the large number of grassland acres enrolled in CRP General
provides habitat for species that need this type of habitat, such as
pheasants and prairie chickens. Other members noted that CRP
Continuous and CREP, which often focus on small parcels of land near
water, provide habitat for a wide variety of species, including many
fish and bird species. In addition, a greater percentage of committee
members viewed CRP General as effective in reducing soil erosion.
Members‘ views on soil erosion may have been influenced by the
substantial number of acres enrolled in that program compared to CRP
Continuous and CREP. While soil erosion can be addressed through land
retirement, it is also addressed through EQIP and USDA‘s conservation
compliance program, which covers a large amount of erodible land.
[Footnote 1]
Underscoring the effectiveness of CREP and CRP Continuous in targeting
environmental benefits per federal dollar spent, committee members from
the Corn Belt region, where more members are familiar with CREP and CRP
Continuous and the majority of enrolled CREP and CRP Continuous acres
are located, said that these programs are more cost-effective than CRP
General (67 percent and 73 percent respectively compared with 58
percent for CRP General).
These survey results are consistent with other analyses, such as a 1993
National Academy of Sciences study, [Footnote 2] which found that
targeting specific environmental concerns through the use of buffer
zones (small parcels of land whose retirement results in high
environmental benefits)”as done by CRP Continuous and CREP”is a
promising way to increase program effectiveness. Similarly, in 1995, we
reported that a targeted approach to land retirement, including the use
of buffer zones, would achieve substantial environmental
benefits.[Footnote 3] More recently, a September 2001 USDA report on
developing future agricultural policy stated that CRP Continuous and
CREP are very well suited to increasing environmental benefits per land
retirement program dollar.[Footnote 4]
Recognizing the effectiveness of targeting, USDA has taken steps
recently to increase enrollment in CRP Continuous and CREP. Of the 36.4
million acres authorized for CRP enrollment, USDA has reserved 4.2
million acres for CRP Continuous and CREP. In 2000 USDA began offering
additional financial incentives for landowners to enroll highly
sensitive land in CRP Continuous. Furthermore, USDA has promoted CRP
Continuous and CREP through an initiative in which it partners with
other federal, state, and private agencies to encourage landowners to
create a buffer between fields in crop production and the surrounding
environment. However, the results of these programs still fall short of
their potential. As of October 2001, CRP Continuous and CREP enrollment
totaled 1.6 million acres, less than 5 percent of the authorized CRP
enrollment, and over 71 percent of these acres were concentrated in the
Corn Belt and three other states. Enrollment in many other states is
very low. Furthermore, USDA‘s September 2001 agricultural policy report
also notes that, among the CRP-based programs, CRP Continuous and CREP
have the greatest untapped potential to generate environmental
benefits.
As shown in figure 4, members viewed WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and FPP as
effective in achieving environmental objectives important to these
programs. For example, members rated WRP and WHIP as effective in
protecting or improving wildlife habitat (68 percent and 69 percent,
respectively). In addition, members viewed WRP and EQIP as effective in
protecting or improving surface water quality (58 percent and 61
percent, respectively). Some members noted the flexibility of EQIP, in
that it is able to implement a wide variety of conservation practices
to address local environmental needs. Finally, 69 percent of members
rated FPP as effective in addressing urban sprawl.
Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and
FPP as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental
Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the percentage
of members viewing WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and FPP as ’very“ or ’extremely“
effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the following
environmental concerns depicts the percentage for WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and
FPP programs:
Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Protecting native species;
Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Reducing soil erosion;
Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Preventing urban sprawl.
Note: Shown are environmental concerns that are important for each
program.
[End of figure]
Members Indicated that Programs Are Not as Effective in Assisting Some
Regions of the Country and Types of Agricultural Operations:
Because of the wide diversity in agricultural production settings,
environmental needs differ across regions.[Footnote 5] While members
were generally positive about the assistance provided by USDA‘s
conservation programs, as figure 5 shows, members in the Northeast and
Pacific regions, which receive a relatively small portion of total
conservation funds, regarded CRP General and CRP Continuous as less
effective in serving their needs than did members from other regions.
Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing CRP-
Based Programs as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing
Environmental Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members in each region viewing CRP-based programs as
’very“ or ’extremely“ effective in addressing environmental concerns.
The programs depicted are CRP General, CRP Continuous, and CREP. The
regional percentage is depicted for each of the following regions:
Corn Belt;
Delta;
Plains;
Mountain;
Pacific;
Southeast;
Northeast.
Note: CREP was not implemented in the Delta and Mountain regions at the
time of our survey.
[End of figure]
While many factors may have influenced members‘ responses, some
respondents from the Corn Belt and Plains regions commented that the
significant enrollment in their areas contributes to the effectiveness
of CRP General. These regions receive the most concentrated funding
because CRP is primarily directed to environmental concerns related to
field crop production. (See appendix II for additional information on
geographic distribution of program payments.)
As figure 5 shows, members from the Northeast and Corn Belt regions
viewed CREP as significantly more effective than members from other
regions. These results may reflect the concentration of CREP funding in
these regions and the program‘s flexibility in allowing conservation
practices and offering financial incentives. Similarly, members from
the Corn Belt and Delta regions viewed CRP Continuous as significantly
more effective than members from other regions. More than half of the
1.5 million acres enrolled in CRP Continuous are located in the Corn
Belt and Delta regions.
Concerning WRP, as shown in figure 6, a greater percentage of members
from the Delta and Corn Belt regions viewed this program as ’very“ or
’extremely“ effective compared to members in other regions. Moreover,
members from the Delta region rated WRP as more effective than any
other program. In addition, almost half of all members from the Pacific
also viewed WRP as effective. While there may be many reasons for
members‘ responses, the results from the Delta region may reflect the
significant amount of WRP funding in this region. Furthermore,
according to USDA officials, these survey results may reflect the
considerable landowner interest in these regions for converting acreage
poorly suited for agricultural production to other uses; specifically,
for developing habitat for migratory birds in the Delta region and
salmon in the Pacific region.
Figure 6: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WRP as
’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members in each region viewing WRP as ’very“ or
’extremely“ effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the
seven regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages
indicated as very effective and extremely effective.
[End of figure]
With the exception of the Northeast and the Plains, about half of the
members rated EQIP as ’very“ or ’extremely“ effective in addressing
environmental concerns. As shown in figure 7, a greater percentage of
members in the Northeast believed that EQIP is effective, possibly
reflecting limited funding from other programs in the region. The
uniformity in responses across most regions may reflect the uniform
distribution of EQIP funding to all states.
Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing EQIP
as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental
Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members in each region viewing EQIP as ’very“ or
’extremely“ effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the
seven regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages
indicated as very effective and extremely effective.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 8, members from different regions generally viewed
the effectiveness of WHIP similarly, which may also reflect the uniform
distribution of WHIP funding across states.
Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WHIP
as ’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental
Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members in each region viewing WHIP as ’very“ or
’extremely“ effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the
seven regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages
indicated as very effective and extremely effective.
[End of figure]
At the time of our survey, FPP was not implemented in all states;
consequently, we were able to summarize data related to FPP for four
regions only. As shown in figure 9, members from the four regions
viewed the effectiveness of the program differently. A greater
percentage of members from the Northeast, 57 percent, viewed FPP as
’very“ or ’extremely“ effective, possibly reflecting the concentration
of FPP funding in this region.
Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing FPP as
’Very“ or ’Extremely“ Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members in each region viewing WHIP as ’very“ or
’extremely“ effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of
four regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages
indicated as very effective and extremely effective.
Note: FPP was not implemented in the Delta or Plains regions at the
time of our survey. The Mountain region was not included in the figure
because only one response from this region was received.
[End of figure]
Regarding the effectiveness of the USDA conservation programs in
assisting different types of agricultural operations, a greater
percentage of members viewed programs as effective in assisting field
crop operations compared to other operations. Figure 10 shows that more
than 80 percent of members viewed the programs as effective in
assisting field crop operations (such as wheat, corn and cotton), while
only about half viewed the programs as effective in assisting specialty
crops (such as fruits and vegetables), large-animal feeding operations,
and forestry operations. These results may reflect the programs‘
traditional focus on field crop operations.
Finally, members viewed programs as more effective in assisting medium-
size operations than small or large operations, as shown in figure 10.
These results may be explained by conservation programs‘ historical
focus on medium-size operations.
Figure 10: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as
Effective in Assisting Different Sizes and Types of Agricultural
Operations:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members viewing programs as effective in assisting
different sizes and types of agricultural operations. The following
agricultural operations are represented by a vertical bar stacked with
percentages indicated as moderately effective, very effective and
extremely effective:
Field crops;
Combination crop and animal operations;
Grazing operations;
Small animal feeding operations;
Forestry operations;
Specialty crops;
Large operations; Medium operations;
Small operations.
Note: We considered members viewing programs as effective as those that
responded that the programs were ’moderately,“ ’very,“ or ’extremely“
effective.
[End of figure]
Recognizing that the existing programs are concentrated on certain
regions and types of operations, USDA‘s September 2001 report stated
that the success of USDA‘s conservation programs will depend on
programs extending coverage to a broader base of agricultural
operations across geographic regions.
Members Noted Some Program Elements Hinder Achievement of Environmental
Objectives and Would Like More Flexibility:
State technical committee members believe that some program elements
hinder achievement of environmental objectives but identified other
program elements they would like to see emphasized in current or new
programs. For example, members indicated several provisions that limit
eligibility or deter participation. Members cited provisions that do
not allow landowners that maintain previously implemented landowner-
financed conservation practices to receive compensation as a hindrance
to all programs. Members indicated a preference for program elements
that provide increased flexibility that would enable the programs to
better adapt to the diverse situations faced by landowners across the
nation as well as increased emphasis on local conservation priorities.
Members Noted Some Program Provisions Limit Eligibility and Deter
Participation:
State technical committee members viewed a number of provisions in CRP
General, CRP Continuous, WRP, and EQIP as limiting eligibility and
deterring participation. As figure 11 shows, about 70 percent of
members cited as a hindrance CRP General‘s provisions that do not allow
landowners that maintain previously implemented landowner-financed
conservation practices to be compensated. A majority of members in all
regions shared this view, ranging from 58 percent in the Delta region
to 77 percent in the Northeast. Members cited the CRP General provision
generally restricting use of land from activities such as haying and
grazing as a hindrance that may serve as a deterrent to program
participation. While not viewed as a hindrance by a majority at the
national level, the provision limiting the amount of annual payments
per acre was viewed as a significant hindrance by almost two-thirds of
members in the Northeast and Pacific. In these regions, the income
derived from annual payments is often significantly lower than
potential income from other land uses, thus deterring participation.
More than half of all members indicated that specific enrollment
periods, rather than continuous enrollment offered under the CRP
Continuous option, is a hindrance.
Figure 11: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP
General ’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental
Objectives:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members indicating provisions of CRP General ’somewhat“
or ’greatly“ hinder achievement of environmental objectives. The
following CRP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked with
percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders:
No payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Restriction on haying and grazing;
Limit on percentage of land enrolled in a county (25%);
Requirement that land be in production 2 of the past 5 years;
Size of annual payments per acre.
[End of figure]
Almost half of the members also indicated that the program eligibility
requirement that land be in crop production 2 of the past 5 years
hinders CRP General. Furthermore, in response to a question regarding
the incentives the programs provide to landowners, almost a quarter of
members believed that landowners discontinue or avoid desirable
conservation practices to meet this program eligibility requirement.
For example, several respondents noted that some landowners convert
grassland that is susceptible to soil erosion to cropland in order to
be eligible to enroll this land in CRP. Higher percentages of members
from the Plains and Corn Belt regions (44 percent and 39 percent,
respectively), where CRP participation is concentrated, believed that
landowners discontinue or avoid desirable practices to qualify for CRP
General.
Figure 12 shows the principal hindrances that members cited for CRP
Continuous. As with CRP General, CRP Continuous‘ provisions that do not
allow landowners to be compensated for maintaining previously
implemented practices were viewed as a hindrance. This view was
consistent across all regions. While viewed as a hindrance by 37
percent of members overall, the provision limiting the amount of annual
payments per acre was viewed as a significant hindrance by 63 percent
of members in the Northeast and 48 percent in the Pacific. In addition,
84 percent of committee members believed that the ability to enroll at
any time rather than during specific sign-up periods ’somewhat“ or
’greatly“ helps CRP Continuous. For example, some members noted that
the continuous sign-up process simplifies enrollment in CRP Continuous.
Finally, about 62 percent of members cited the premium on annual
payments per acre offered as an incentive for enrollment in CRP
Continuous as helping the program achieve its environmental objectives.
Figure 12: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP
Continuous ’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental
Objectives:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members indicating provisions of CRP Continuous
’somewhat“ or ’greatly“ hinder achievement of environmental objectives.
The following CRP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked
with percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders:
No payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Restriction on haying and grazing;
Restrictions on acceptable conservation practices;
Size of annual rental rate per acre.
[End of figure]
For WRP, as shown in figure 13, an estimated 64 percent of members
indicated that provisions that do not allow landowners to be
compensated for maintaining previously protected wetlands are a
hindrance. This view was consistent across all regions. Over half of
the state technical committee members viewed restrictions on the use of
land enrolled in WRP as a hindrance. They viewed the determination of
WRP easement purchase price based on the agricultural value of the land
rather than the market value, which may reflect its value as developed
property, as somewhat or greatly hindering achievement of WRP‘s
environmental objectives. A higher percentage of members from the
Northeast, Pacific, and Southeast regions (84 percent, 71 percent, and
66 percent, respectively) viewed this provision as a hindrance,
possibly reflecting higher market prices relative to the agricultural
value of the land in these regions. Members‘ views were strongly
divided on WRP‘s use of 30-year or permanent easements; 45 percent
viewed easements as helping achieve the program‘s objectives while 38
percent viewed easements as a hindrance.
Figure 13: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating WRP Provisions
’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members indicating provisions of WRP ’somewhat“ or
’greatly“ hinder achievement of environmental objectives. The following
WRP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked with
percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders:
No payment to maintain previously protected wetlands;
Determination of easement price based on agricultural value;
Restrictions on land use;
Limit on percentage of land enrolled in a county.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 14, committee members cited several program
provisions as hindrances to achieving EQIP‘s environmental objectives.
For example, 69 percent of members cited the provisions that do not
allow landowners to be compensated for maintaining previously
implemented conservation practices as a hindrance. Furthermore, more
than 80 percent of members viewed as a hindrance the program provision
stipulating that participants may not receive payment in the first year
of the 5-or 10-year contract. Under this provision, producers are
expected to bear the cost of conservation practice implementation in
the first year of the contract. About 60 percent of members indicated
that the prohibition on USDA‘s sharing the cost of the construction of
waste structures for large livestock and poultry operations[Footnote 6]
’somewhat“ or ’greatly“ hinders achievement of environmental objectives
by limiting eligibility. In addition, more than half of the members
believed that the application process for EQIP enrollment is a
hindrance. For example, some members told us in their written comments
that the EQIP application process is unnecessarily cumbersome and
entails too much paperwork and staff time. NRCS program officials told
us they believe the application process is relatively easy, but that it
is the ranking of the applications to determine which are funded that
members may consider as the hindrance.
Figure 14: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating EQIP Provisions
’Somewhat“ or ’Greatly“ Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members indicating provisions of EQIP ’somewhat“ or
’greatly“ hinder achievement of environmental objectives. The following
EQIP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked with
percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders:
No payment in first year;
No payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Method of allocating funds to states;
Prohibition on cost-sharing on large animal waste storage facilities;
Limit on incentive payments to three years;
Application process.
[End of figure]
Similar to the other programs, 69 percent of committee members viewed
as a hindrance WHIP's provisions that do not allow landowners to be
compensated for maintaining previously implemented practices. Members
also viewed as a hindrance the program's lack of annual rental payments
(69 percent). About 75 percent of members viewed program promotion at
the state or local level as a factor that helps WHIP achieve its
environmental objectives. Members viewed this factor as helpful for all
of the other programs as well.
Finally, committee members noted that all the programs lack adequate
technical assistance to support landowners in planning and implementing
conservation practices. As figure 15 depicts, a majority of members
indicated that all programs lack adequate technical assistance. Among
regions, members from the Northeast and Pacific responded that EQIP has
the greatest shortage of technical assistance (75 percent).
Figure 15: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs Having
’Less Than Enough“ or ’Much Less Than Enough“ Technical Assistance:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members viewing programs having ’less than enough“ or
’much less than enough“ technical assistance. The following programs
are represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages indicated as
less than enough and much less than enough:
CRP General;
CRP Continuous;
CREP;
WRP;
EQIP;
WHIP.
[End of figure]
Members Would Like to See Programs Provide Increased Flexibility and
Emphasis on Local Priorities:
Eighty percent of committee members believed that programs should
emphasize local conservation needs while only 24 percent would
emphasize national needs. As shown in figure 16, members also indicated
that emphasizing local priorities is an important design element in
current or new programs. Most of the current programs allow landowners
to implement only a limited selection of conservation practices. More
than an estimated 80 percent of members viewed allowing a broad array
of conservation practices as ’very“ or ’extremely“ important in
modifying current programs or designing new programs. More than an
estimated three-quarters of members identified the need for less
stringent eligibility requirements. For example, some respondents said
in written responses that little land in their states meets CRP
eligibility requirements. About 70 percent of members also said that
providing eligibility to all types of operations is an important design
element.
Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Members Citing Program Elements as
’Somewhat“ or ’Very“ Important in Modifying or Creating New Programs:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated
percentage of members citing program elements as ’somewhat“ or ’very“
important in modifying or creating new programs. The following program
elements are represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages
indicated as very important and extremely important:
Allow a broad array of conservation practices;
Emphasize local priorities;
Provide flexible eligibility;
Provide eligibility to all types of operations;
Allow economic use of lands;
Provide payment for maintenance of existing practices.
[End of figure]
The 2002 omnibus farm bill is expected to increase emphasis on funding
to programs that keep lands in production. Currently more than 80
percent of conservation funding is directed to CRP, a program that is
directed at land removed from production and is managed at the national
level. When asked how they would distribute conservation funding among
current programs, state technical committee members indicated they
would increase the percentage of funding to EQIP and WHIP, programs
that are decentralized in order to emphasize local environmental
objectives. This response is consistent with a desire to increase
funding to programs that implement conservation practices on land in
agricultural production. Figure 17 compares the current actual
allocation of USDA‘s conservation funds to the allocation suggested by
committee members.
Figure 17: Actual and Member-Proposed Allocations of Fiscal Years 1996-
2000 Funds to USDA Conservation Programs:
[See PDF for image]
This figure contains two pie-charts depicting the following data:
Current:
CRP: 83.2%;
EQIP: 8.8%;
WRP: 7.3%;
FPP: 0.4%;
WHIP: 0.3%.
Proposed:
CRP: 57.8%;
EQIP: 20.8%;
WRP: 9.6%;
WHIP: 5%;
FPP: 4.9%;
Other: 1.8%.
Note: Total percentage may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. For
FPP and WHIP, percentage estimates have sampling errors of plus or
minus 8 and 10 percentage points, respectively.
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
Legislation modifying USDA‘s conservation programs is expected to
become law in 2002 as part of the omnibus farm bill. The modification
or development of regulations to implement the new law will present the
department with an opportunity to increase the environmental benefits
that result from its programs. We believe our survey of state technical
committee members identified several avenues USDA could pursue to
enhance the programs‘ effectiveness. Specifically, our survey results
indicate that USDA has the potential to enhance environmental benefits
resulting from CRP, the federal government‘s largest conservation
program, by increasing emphasis on programs that target specific
environmental concerns. The department has the ability to set acreage
goals and offer additional incentives for landowners to enroll land
into CRP Continuous and CREP. USDA has already taken some actions along
these lines, setting aside 4.2 million of CRP‘s 36.4 million acres for
CRP Continuous and CREP. However, as of October 2001, USDA had enrolled
only 1.6 million acres in these programs and many states had very
little enrollment. Moreover, USDA has noted these programs have
significant untapped potential to generate environmental benefits.
Committee members believe USDA‘s conservation programs do not
adequately address the needs of some regions and types of agricultural
operations. Historically, USDA‘s conservation programs have focused on
soil erosion resulting from crop production in the Corn Belt and Plains
regions. Increasingly diverse agricultural operations, including those
operations not served by the current conservation programs, play a role
in conservation efforts. As USDA reported in September 2001, the
success of USDA‘s conservation programs will depend on programs
extending coverage to a broader base of agricultural operations across
geographic regions.
USDA‘s conservation programs have resulted in environmental benefits,
but according to state technical committee members, a number of
provisions of the current programs hinder the achievement of
environmental objectives. Although some of these provisions are
important to ensuring that programs maintain the proper balance between
accountability to the taxpayer and flexibility in the achievement of
environmental objectives, committee members‘ views suggest the net
effect of some of these provisions may constrain the programs‘
environmental benefits. If, after examination of the impact of these
provisions on the accomplishment of environmental objectives, USDA
decides action is needed, it can address this by modifying program
regulations or by seeking legislative change.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
As USDA modifies or develops implementing regulations for conservation
programs reauthorized or created by the omnibus farm bill, which is
expected to become law in 2002, we recommend that the secretary of
agriculture consider state technical committee members‘ views on (1)
increasing emphasis on CRP Continuous and CREP, programs that target
specific environmental concerns, (2) modifying programs to make them
more accessible to all regions and types of agricultural operations,
and (3) revising elements in all programs that hinder achievement of
environmental objectives. If USDA finds that revising the program
regulations to incorporate these views would require legislative
action, the secretary should submit such proposals to the Congress.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and
comment. We received oral comments from the NRCS deputy chief for
programs and from the FSA director of conservation and environmental
programs. NRCS agreed with our report. FSA generally agreed with the
report but provided additional comments.
FSA did not agree that the environmental benefits of CRP-based programs
would increase by placing more emphasis on CRP Continuous and CREP. It
is more likely, FSA indicated, that certain environmental benefits
would increase but others, such as wildlife habitat, could decrease.
Therefore, FSA believed that any shifting of emphasis should be done
only after evaluation of the costs and benefits of all environmental
goals so that decision-makers could make the best-informed
determinations.
We agree with FSA that the effects on all environmental goals should be
considered before shifting the emphasis within CRP-based programs. As
we acknowledge in the report, while some wildlife species benefit from
large parcels of grassland that CRP General provides, some members
noted that a wide variety of fish and wildlife species also benefit
from habitat such as filter strips near water bodies provided by CRP
Continuous and CREP. Committee members‘ views also indicate that these
programs are more effective than CRP General in addressing surface
water quality and the protection of native species, and about equally
effective in protecting and improving wildlife habitat. Finally, these
results are consistent with USDA‘s September 2001 report on developing
future agricultural policy, which stated that CRP Continuous and CREP
are very well suited to increasing environmental benefits per land
retirement program dollar.
Both agencies also provided technical corrections, which we have
incorporated into the report as appropriate.
Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we
plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
secretary of agriculture, the director of the Office of Management and
Budget, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to
others on request. This report will also be available on GAO‘s home
page at [hyperlink, 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 V.
Signed by:
Lawrence J. Dyckman:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Program Enrollment and the Extent to Which Program
Applications Exceed Funding and Acreage Limits:
Table 2: CRP General Enrollment Applications and Acres, Fiscal Years
1986-2001:
Fiscal year: 1986;
Applications (in thousands): 21.0;
Acres (in millions): 2.0.
Fiscal year: 1987;
Applications (in thousands): 125.0;
Acres (in millions): 15.7.
Fiscal year: 1988;
Applications (in thousands): 88.0;
Acres (in millions): 24.5.
Fiscal year: 1989;
Applications (in thousands): 62.0;
Acres (in millions): 29.8.
Fiscal year: 1990;
Applications (in thousands): 38.0;
Acres (in millions): 33.9.
Fiscal year: 1991;
Applications (in thousands): 9.0;
Acres (in millions): 34.4.
Fiscal year: 1992;
Applications (in thousands): 15.0;
Acres (in millions): 35.4.
Fiscal year: 1993;
Applications (in thousands): 18.0;
Acres (in millions): 36.4;
Fiscal year: 1994;
Applications (in thousands): 0[A];
Acres (in millions): 36.4.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Applications (in thousands): 0[A];
Acres (in millions): 36.4.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Applications (in thousands): 11.0;
Acres (in millions): 34.5.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Applications (in thousands): 2.0;
Acres (in millions): 32.7.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Applications (in thousands): 185.0;
Acres (in millions): 29.4.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Applications (in thousands): 55.0;
Acres (in millions): 28.9.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Applications (in thousands): 60.0;
Acres (in millions): 30.2.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Applications (in thousands): 38.0;
Acres (in millions): 32.0.
Note: Applications and acres are estimated.
[A] USDA did not offer enrollment in fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
Source: USDA‘s Farm Service Agency.
[End of table]
Table 3: CRP Continuous and CREP Contracts and Acres, Fiscal Years 1997-
2001:
Fiscal year: 1997;
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 11,351;
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 99,559;
CREP[B] Contracts: [Empty];
CREP[B] Acres: [Empty].
Fiscal year: 1998;
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 35,797;
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 571,815;
CREP[B] Contracts: 267;
CREP[B] Acres: 3,141.
Fiscal year: 1999;
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 26,727;
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 213,489;
CREP[B] Contracts: 1,792;
CREP[B] Acres: 26,674.
Fiscal year: 2000;
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 27,627;
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 220,201;
CREP[B] Contracts: 2,829;
CREP[B] Acres: 51,770.
Fiscal year: 2001;
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 37,609;
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 304,906;
CREP[B] Contracts: 7,396;
CREP[B] Acres: 103,128.
Fiscal year: Total;
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 139,111;
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 1,409,970;
CREP[B] Contracts: 12,284;
CREP[B] Acres: 184,713.
[A] CRP Continuous was authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 but
was not implemented until fiscal year 1997.
[B] The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) was authorized
in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and
implemented in fiscal year 1998.
Source: USDA‘s Farm Service Agency.
[End of table]
Table 4: NRCS Conservation Program Contracts and Acres, Fiscal Years
1992-2001:
Fiscal year: 1992;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 226;
WRP[A]: Acres: 43,428;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty];
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty].
Fiscal year: 1993;
WRP[A]: Contracts: [Empty];
WRP[A]: Acres: [Empty];
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty];
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty].
Fiscal year: 1994;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 457;
WRP[A]: Acres: 75,017;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty];
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty].
Fiscal year: 1995;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 633;
WRP[A]: Acres: 115,071;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty];
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty].
Fiscal year: 1996;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 540;
WRP[A]: Acres: 92,405;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty];
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Easements: 161;
FPP[D]: Acres: 29,795.
Fiscal year: 1997;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 703;
WRP[A]: Acres: 127,267;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 24,812;
EQIP[B]: Acres: 8,694,205;
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Easements: 25;
FPP[D]: Acres: 4,553.
Fiscal year: 1998;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 1,080;
WRP[A]: Acres: 211,917;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 20,261;
EQIP[B]: Acres: 9,312,597;
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 4,600;
WHIP[C]: Acres: 672,000;
FPP[D]: Easements: 154;
FPP[D]: Acres: 31,143.
Fiscal year: 1997;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 767;
WRP[A]: Acres: 119,919;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 18,785;
EQIP[B]: Acres: 8,753,229;
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 3,855;
WHIP[C]: Acres: 721,249;
FPP[D]: Easements: 3;
FPP[D]: Acres: 270.
Fiscal year: 2000;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 2,103;
WRP[A]: Acres: 149,915;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 16,249;
EQIP[B]: Acres: 7,448,478
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty];
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty];
FPP[D]: Easements: 4;
FPP[D]: Acres: 241.
Fiscal year: 2001;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 898;
WRP[A]: Acres: 139,306;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 17,389;
EQIP[B]: Acres: 8,544,465;
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 2,274;
WHIP[C]: Acres: 212,361;
FPP[D]: Easements: 7;
FPP[D]: Acres: 551.
Fiscal year: Total;
WRP[A]: Contracts: 7,407;
WRP[A]: Acres: 1,074,245;
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 97,496;
EQIP[B]: Acres: 42,752,975;
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 10,729;
WHIP[C]: Acres: 1,605,610;
FPP[D]: Easements: 354
FPP[D]: Acres: 66,553.
[A] Authorized in 1985, the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was
implemented in fiscal year 1992 and did not offer enrollment in fiscal
year 1993.
[B] The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was authorized
in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and
implemented in fiscal year 1997.
[C] The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was authorized in
1996 but was not implemented until fiscal year 1998. NRCS allocated all
the authorized funds during fiscal years 1998 and 1999, using funds
authorized by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 in fiscal
year 2001.
[D] The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) was authorized in the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Similar to WHIP, NRCS
allocated all of the authorized funds during fiscal years 1996 through
1998. FPP received additional funding through the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000.
Source: USDA‘s Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[End of table]
Table 5: Eligible Acres That Exceeded Program Limits and USDA Estimate
of Funding Required to Enroll Acres in USDA Conservation Programs As of
October 2001:
Program: EQIP;
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 90,291,131;
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $1,638.
Program: WRP;
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 647,172;
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $783;
Program: WHIP;
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 254,833;
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $16.
Program: FPP;
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 290,273;
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $256.
Program: Total;
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 91,483,409;
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $2,693.
Note: During the most recent CRP General enrollment period, which
occurred from January to February 2000, 1,030,085 acres met eligibility
requirements but fell below the cut-off the Farm Service Agency used to
select acres. The Farm Service Agency does not maintain an estimate of
the funding required to enroll these acres.
[A] Includes acres that are otherwise eligible for the program but were
not enrolled because they exceeded the level of funding or acres
authorized.
Source: USDA‘s Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Distribution of Payments for USDA‘s Conservation Programs:
Figure 18: CRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots
indicating CRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $50,000.
Note: Figure includes payments in the continental United States.
Payments were also made in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean territory.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of USDA‘s data.
[End of figure]
Figure 19: WRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots
indicating WRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $5,000.
Note: Figure includes payments in the continental United States.
Payments were also made in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean territory.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of USDA‘s data.
[End of figure]
Figure 20: EQIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots
indicating EQIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $5,000.
Note: Figure includes payments from cost-share programs that preceded
EQIP, including the Agricultural Conservation Program, Great Plains
Conservation Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Program.
Figure includes payments in the continental United States. Payments
were also made in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean territory.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of USDA‘s data.
[End of figure]
Figure 21: FPP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots
indicating FPP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $5,000.
Note: Figure includes payments in the continental United States.
[End of figure]
Figure 22: WHIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000:
See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with shading of
states indicating payments in the following categories:
$0 to $100,000;
$100,000 to $200,000;
$200,000 to $300,000;
$300,000 to $500,000.
Note: Payments in this figure are based on state-level data. Figure
includes payments in the continental United States. Payments were also
made in Hawaii and the Caribbean territory.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of USDA‘s data.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This appendix presents the objectives, scope, and methodology to review
USDA‘s conservation programs. It discusses the methodology used in
sampling and controlling for sampling error and nonsampling error, as
well as sources and analyses conducted to provide additional
information.
Objectives and Scope:
The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry asked us to obtain the views of members of the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) state technical
committees on the effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), including the Continuous Enrollment and CREP options; the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP); the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP); and the
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). Specifically, we were asked to
determine committee members‘ views on:
* the effectiveness of USDA‘s conservation efforts in addressing
environmental concerns and;
* any program elements that hinder the achievement of environmental
objectives related to agriculture, as well as program characteristics
that current or new programs might include to better meet these
objectives.
In addition, the requesters asked us to provide information on program
participation and the extent to which programs are oversubscribed as
well as the geographic distribution of payments for each program.
Survey Methodology:
To address the first two objectives, we mailed a questionnaire to all
NRCS state conservationists, who chair the state technical committees,
and a stratified sample of state technical committee members. To
identify these members we obtained lists of state technical committee
members from NRCS offices in all 50 states and two U.S. territories.
The original population of 2,176 committee members (52 NRCS state
conservationists plus 2,124 state technical committee members) was
reduced by 193 to account for members who did not regularly attend
state technical committee meetings, leaving 1,983. We stratified the
sample by seven geographic regions collapsed from the ten USDA farm
production regions on the basis of advice from USDA‘s Economic Research
Service. In addition we stratified the sample by the organization that
respondents represented. Within these strata, respondents were selected
at random. This results in an adjusted sample size of 1,395. Of the
1,395 state technical committee members we surveyed, 996 (or 71.4
percent) returned our survey. All percentage estimates from the survey
have sampling errors of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less,
unless otherwise noted.
Our sample was statistically drawn and weighted so that we could
generalize the responses of the members we sampled within regional and
organizational strata to the entire population for each question in the
survey. See appendix IV for the entire questionnaire and the nationwide
survey results. For survey results stratified by region and
organization, see a special publication entitled Agricultural
Conservation: Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members (GAO-02-
371SP), which is available on the Internet at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-02-371SP].
We pretested the questionnaire with committee members in Iowa,
Maryland, Texas, and Virginia from USDA‘s Agricultural Research
Service, and NRCS; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; state natural resource
and environmental agencies; universities; and agricultural and
environmental organizations. During these visits, we administered the
survey and asked the officials to fill out the survey as they would if
they had received it in the mail. 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.
To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, we included a
letter from NRCS encouraging members to respond in the initial survey
sent to members. We also sent a replacement survey to nonrespondents
about 4 weeks after mailing the initial survey. At this time, we also
requested that NRCS state conservationists in all 50 states and two
U.S. territories encourage committee members to respond. We contacted
nonrespondents by telephone about 4 weeks after replacement surveys
were sent to request their cooperation, sending additional copies of
the survey if needed.
Sampling Errors and Confidence Intervals of Estimates:
Since we used a sample (called a probability sample) of committee
members to develop our estimates, each estimate has a measurable
precision, or sampling error, that may be expressed as a plus/minus
figure. A sampling error indicates how closely we reproduce from a
sample the results that we would obtain if we were to take a complete
count of the population using the same measurement methods. By adding
the sampling error to and subtracting it from the estimate, we can
develop upper and lower bounds for each estimate. This range is called
a confidence interval.
Sampling errors and confidence intervals are stated at a certain
confidence level–in this case, 95 percent. For example, a confidence
interval at the 95 percent confidence level means that in 95 out of 100
instances, the sampling procedure we used would produce a confidence
interval containing the population value we are estimating.
We obtained a response rate of 71.4 percent. We did not test for
potential differences between the respondents who did and did not
respond to our survey because we had little or no information about the
nonrespondents. As a result, we do not know the effect of these
nonrespondents on the results of our survey. Our results are
generalizable to the views and opinions of the regions and
organizations committee members represented. In addition, some
estimates do not always represent the entire population because some
members did not answer all of the questions.
Controlling for Nonsampling Errors:
In addition to reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of
conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how
questions are interpreted, errors in entering data, incomplete sampling
lists, and the types of people who do not respond can all introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in both
the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize such
nonsampling errors. Some of these steps included pretesting
questionnaires with committee members, obtaining comments on the
questionnaire from experts in the area, following quality control
procedures to ensure data were entered correctly, and checking all
computer analyses with a second analyst.
Methodology for Obtaining Additional Information:
To provide information on participation levels and the extent to which
USDA conservation programs are oversubscribed, we obtained data on
program participation and backlogs from NRCS and FSA.
To provide information on the geographic distribution of fiscal year
2000 conservation program payments, we obtained data from NRCS and FSA.
CRP and EQIP data were obtained from USDA‘s main database on farm
payments, the Producer Payments Reporting System, which is maintained
by FSA in Kansas City, Missouri. WRP data were obtained from the NRCS
and FSA financial management divisions. WHIP data were obtained from
the NRCS financial management division. FPP data were obtained from the
program manager.
Although we did not independently assess the accuracy and reliability
of the USDA data, we reviewed the data for reasonableness among regions
and compared it with other USDA reports.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee
Members:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members:
Introduction:
The Congress has asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to
review USDA's conservation programs. Specifically, the Congress is
interested in the effectiveness of the current programs in addressing
states' agricultural environmental and natural resource needs and the
design elements that existing, and possibly new, programs should
include to better meet these needs. The GAO is collecting information
to assist the Congress as it prepares for discussions on the next
omnibus farm bill, including authorizing agricultural programs, which
is expected to become law in 2002.
This survey primarily addresses five existing USDA conservation
programs: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), including continuous
signup and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP); the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP); the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP); and the
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). The survey explores the need, if
any, to modify these programs or design new programs.
As part of this review, we are surveying Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) State Conservationists and a sample of State Technical
Committee members from all 50 states and the Pacific Basin and
Caribbean Area to obtain their views on USDA's conservation programs.
Because this is only a sample, it is critical that you respond so that
all State Technical Committee members' views are represented in the
results.
Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire is vital to our
study. The survey's results will be discussed in our report to the
Congress.
Instructions:
When answering the questions in this questionnaire, please primarily
consider the USDA conservation programs listed above. In addition,
please base responses to the questionnaire from your organization's
perspective. For more information about these programs, please refer to
the "Definitions" enclosed.
Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed, pre-
addressed business reply envelope within 10 business days of receipt.
This will help us avoid costly follow-up. If you should lose or
misplace the envelope, please send the completed questionnaire to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Attn: Tom Cook:
1999 Bryan St.
Suite 2200:
Dallas, TX 75201-6848:
If you have any questions, please contact the following staff in our
Dallas, TX office:
Tom Cook:
Tel: (214) 777-5607:
Email: cookt@gao.gov:
Joanna McFarland:
Tel: (214) 777-5623:
Email: mcfarlandj@gao.gov:
Please provide the following information for the person we should
contact should we have any questions.
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
City/State/Zip Code:
Phone #:
Program Needs:
1. To what degree, if at all, do you believe the following
environmental or natural resource conditions related to agriculture on
private land are concerns in your state? (Check one for each row.)
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
1. Air pollution from agricultural field operations;
Major concern: 11.0%;
Moderate concern: 24.0%;
Minor concern: 44.8%;
Not a concern: 20.2%;
N=: 1868.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
2. Air pollution from livestock operations;
Major concern: 13.0%;
Moderate concern: 32.7%;
Minor concern: 41.8%;
Not a concern: 12.5%;
N=: 1878.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
3. Depletion of groundwater sources;
Major concern: 39.5%;
Moderate concern: 29.1%;
Minor concern: 21.7%;
Not a concern: 9.7%;
N=: 1930.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
4. Depletion of surface water;
Major concern: 36.4%;
Moderate concern: 28.8%;
Minor concern: 23.6%;
Not a concern: 11.1%;
N=: 1918.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
5. Impaired groundwater from leaching from agricultural fields;
Major concern: 27.1%;
Moderate concern: 41.7%;
Minor concern: 25.7%;
Not a concern: 5.5%;
N=: 1921.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
6. Impaired groundwater from livestock operations;
Major concern: 26.8%;
Moderate concern: 40.2%;
Minor concern: 25.9%;
Not a concern: 7.1%;
N=: 1897.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
7. Impaired surface water from livestock operations;
Major concern: 41.3%;
Moderate concern: 38.7%;
Minor concern: 16.3%;
Not a concern: 3.8%;
N=: 1908.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
8. Impaired surface water from runoff from agricultural fields;
Major concern: 40.1%;
Moderate concern: 38.9%;
Minor concern: 16.9%;
Not a concern: 4.1%;
N=: 1932.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
9. Loss of native species;
Major concern: 25.2%;
Moderate concern: 30.6%;
Minor concern: 33.3%;
Not a concern: 10.9%;
N=: 1896.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
10. Loss of agricultural land to urban sprawl;
Major concern: 51.8%;
Moderate concern: 32.7%;
Minor concern: 12.9%;
Not a concern: 2.6%;
N=: 1942.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
11. Loss of wetlands;
Major concern: 31.9%;
Moderate concern: 36.9%;
Minor concern: 23.9%;
Not a concern: 7.3%;
N=: 1919.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
12. Loss of wildlife habitat on farms and ranches;
Major concern: 21.3%;
Moderate concern: 41.3%;
Minor concern: 28.4%;
Not a concern: 9.1%;
N=: 1913.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
13. Proliferation of invasive species;
Major concern: 36.7%;
Moderate concern: 36.9%;
Minor concern: 21.7%;
Not a concern: 4.8%;
N=: 1889.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
14. Soil erosion from water runoff;
Major concern: 36.5%;
Moderate concern: 46.5%;
Minor concern: 15.0%;
Not a concern: 2.0%;
N=: 1944.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
15. Soil erosion from wind;
Major concern: 11.0%;
Moderate concern: 32.2%;
Minor concern: 39.5%;
Not a concern: 17.3%;
N=: 1887.
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern:
16. Other (Please specify);
Major concern: 76.4%;
Moderate concern: 22.3%;
Minor concern: 1.3%;
Not a concern: 0%;
N=: 199.
2. How effective, if at all, are the following USDA conservation
programs in addressing your state's environmental and natural resource
concerns related to agriculture on private lands? (Check one for each
row.)
Program:
1. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) General Signup - provides annual
rental payments to agriculture producers to retire lands that are
highly erodible or environmentally sensitive;
Extremely effective: 15.2%;
Very effective: 34.4%;
Moderately effective: 23.4%;
Somewhat effective: 14.6%;
Slightly or effective: 12.4%;
N=: 1638.
Program:
2. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Continuous Signup - offers
additional financial incentives and allows acreage devoted to
conservation practices, such as riparian buffers and filter strips,
yielding highly desirable environmental benefits to be enrolled at any
time without going through the competitive bidding process;
Extremely effective: 17.4%;
Very effective: 34.4%;
Moderately effective: 24.0%;
Somewhat effective: 14.6%;
Slightly or effective: 9.7%;
N=: 1629.
Program:
3. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) - a federal-state
conservation partnership program that targets environmental concerns
related to agriculture by using financial incentives to encourage
landowners to retire lands;
Extremely effective: 21.1%;
Very effective: 29.7%;
Moderately effective: 22.6%;
Somewhat effective: 14.3%;
Slightly or effective: 12.3%;
N=: 686.
Program:
4. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) - offers payment for the restoration
of wetlands that have been previously drained and converted to
agricultural uses, requiring landowners to
sign an easement for thirty years or perpetuity;
Extremely effective: 16.9%;
Very effective: 25.0%;
Moderately effective: 25.4%;
Somewhat effective: 20.9%;
Slightly or effective: 11.8%;
N=: 1611.
Program:
5. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - provides financial
incentives to landowners to address soil, water, and related
environmental concerns on lands in agricultural uses;
Extremely effective: 19.0%;
Very effective: 31.0%;
Moderately effective: 32.4%;
Somewhat effective: 13.7%;
Slightly or effective: 3.9%;
N=: 1808.
Program:
6. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) - provides financial
incentives to develop habitats for fish and wildlife on private land;
Extremely effective: 11.2%;
Very effective: 25.7%;
Moderately effective: 32.1%;
Somewhat effective: 23.9%;
Slightly or effective: 7.1%;
N=: 1697.
Program:
7. Farmland Protection Program (FPP) - protects farmland from non-
agricultural conversion by acquiring thirty-year or permanent easements
on farmlands in cooperation with existing state, local, or tribal
farmland protection programs or land trusts;
Extremely effective: 19.1%;
Very effective: 21.8%;
Moderately effective: 17.7%;
Somewhat effective: 27.8%;
Slightly or effective: 13.6%;
N=: 538.
Program:
8. All programs;
Extremely effective: 5.8%;
Very effective: 31.9%;
Moderately effective: 41.0%;
Somewhat effective: 18.4%;
Slightly or effective: 2.8%;
N=: 1379.
3. If you responded `extremely effective' or `slightly or not
effective,' for any item in question 2 above, please provide the name
of the program and explain the reason(s) for your response(s) below.
If extremely effective: 100%, N=679.
If slightly or not effective: 100%, N=643.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) General Signup:
4. How familiar are you with the CRP General Signup program? (Check
one):
Extremely familiar: 14.6%;
Very familiar: 19.0%;
Moderately familiar: 26.4%;
Somewhat familiar: 13.2%;
Slightly or not familiar 26.8%, N=1919; (Go to Question 7 on page 6.)
5. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled in
the CRP General Signup program. Where it is applied, how effective, if
at all, is the CRP General Signup program in encouraging producers/
landowners in your state to engage in practices that benefit the
following environmental or natural resource objectives? (Check one for
each row):
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Extremely effective: 15.7%;
Very effective: 36.2%;
Moderately effective: 29.7%;
Somewhat effective: 14.3%;
Slightly or effective: 4.1%;
N= 1307.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
Extremely effective: 5.3%;
Very effective: 16.8%;
Moderately effective: 37.7%;
Somewhat effective: 23.8%;
Slightly or effective: 16.5%;
N= 1270.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Extremely effective: 27.0%;
Very effective: 43.6%;
Moderately effective: 18.0%;
Somewhat effective: 8.5%;
Slightly or effective: 2.9%;
N= 1310.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Extremely effective: 12.2%;
Very effective: 33.9%;
Moderately effective: 26.4%;
Somewhat effective: 19.5%;
Slightly or effective: 8.0%;
N= 1255.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Extremely effective: 17.3%;
Very effective: 39.9%;
Moderately effective: 25.7%;
Somewhat effective: 11.3%;
Slightly or effective: 5.9%;
N= 1295.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Extremely effective: 5.8%;
Very effective: 19.2%;
Moderately effective: 28.0%;
Somewhat effective: 23.3%;
Slightly or effective: 23.7%;
N= 1160.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Extremely effective: 3.9%;
Very effective: 8.1%;
Moderately effective: 17.4%;
Somewhat effective: 24.6%;
Slightly or effective: 45.9%;
N= 1111.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 25.9%;
Very effective: 18.5%;
Moderately effective: 6.8%;
Somewhat effective: 11.5%;
Slightly or effective: 37.3%;
N= 55
6. Do the following CRP General Signup provisions or factors help or
hinder the achievement of the program's environmental or natural
resource objectives? (Check one for each row)
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
1. Application process;
Greatly helps: 3.0%;
Somewhat helps: 22.3%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 38.8%;
Somewhat hinders: 30.3%;
Greatly hinders: 5.5%;
N= 1128.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
2. Specific signup periods rather than continuous signup;
Greatly helps: 4.0%;
Somewhat helps: 16.3%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 21.5%;
Somewhat hinders: 50.2%;
Greatly hinders: 8.0%;
N= 1197.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
3. Acceptance selection process (EBI);
Greatly helps: 11.3%;
Somewhat helps: 27.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 21.5%;
Somewhat hinders: 31.0%;
Greatly hinders: 9.3%;
N= 1077.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
4. Length of contract (10 to 15 years);
Greatly helps: 20.9%;
Somewhat helps: 37.3%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 22.5%;
Somewhat hinders: 17.0%;
Greatly hinders: 2.3%;
N= 1242.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
5. Requirement that land be in crop production 2 of the past 5 years;
Greatly helps: 7.3%;
Somewhat helps: 24.1%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 20.8%;
Somewhat hinders: 37.7%;
Greatly hinders: 10.0%;
N= 1248.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
6. Size of cost-share percentage;
Greatly helps: 10.7%;
Somewhat helps: 35.8%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 19.7%;
Somewhat hinders: 29.2%;
Greatly hinders: 4.7%;
N= 1191.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
7. Size of annual rental rate per acre;
Greatly helps: 15.2%;
Somewhat helps: 29.1%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 11.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 27.1%;
Greatly hinders: 16.6%;
N= 1210.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
8. No payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Greatly helps: 1.4%;
Somewhat helps: 3.6%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 25.4%;
Somewhat hinders: 53.9%;
Greatly hinders: 15.8%;
N= 1193.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
9. Limit on the percentage of land that may be enrolled in a county
(25%);
Greatly helps: 2.8%;
Somewhat helps: 6.4%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 39.0%;
Somewhat hinders: 40.3%;
Greatly hinders: 11.6%;
N= 1210.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
10. Limit on total rental payments ($50,000);
Greatly helps: 3.7%;
Somewhat helps: 9.6%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 43.7%;
Somewhat hinders: 37.5%;
Greatly hinders: 5.9%;
N= 1176.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
11. Restriction on economic uses of land;
Greatly helps: 7.4%;
Somewhat helps: 14.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 25.5%;
Somewhat hinders: 43.9%;
Greatly hinders: 9.1%;
N= 1221.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
12. Restriction on haying and grazing of land;
Greatly helps: 9.2%;
Somewhat helps: 11.9%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 17.6%;
Somewhat hinders: 45.9%;
Greatly hinders: 15.2%;
N= 1247.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
13. Restrictions on acceptable conservation practices;
Greatly helps: 6.8%;
Somewhat helps: 18.1%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 32.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 35.5%;
Greatly hinders: 7.5%;
N= 1208.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
14. Having program promotion at the state or local level;
Greatly helps: 25.8%;
Somewhat helps: 44.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 24.7%;
Somewhat hinders: 3.6%;
Greatly hinders: 1.2%;
N= 1208.
CRP General Signup Provision or Factor:
15. Other (Please specify);
Greatly helps: 11.8%;
Somewhat helps: 0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 1.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 8.2%;
Greatly hinders: 78.1%;
N= 60.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Continuous Signup:
7. How familiar are you with the CRP Continuous Signup? (Check one)
Extremely familiar: 12.1%;
Very familiar: 16.8%;
Moderately familiar: 24.0%;
Somewhat familiar: 13.0%;
Slightly or not familiar: 34.1%, N=1900; (Go to Question 10 on page 8)
8. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled in
the CRP Continuous Signup program. Where it is applied, how effective,
if at all, is the CRP Continuous Signup program in encouraging
producers/landowners in your state to engage in practices that benefit
the following environmental or natural resource objectives? (Check one
for each row)
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Extremely effective: 14.0%;
Very effective: 37.1%;
Moderately effective: 33.6%;
Somewhat effective: 12.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 2.6%;
N= 1193.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
Extremely effective: 5.1%;
Very effective: 24.0%;
Moderately effective: 35.0%;
Somewhat effective: 23.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 12.8%;
N= 1146.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Extremely effective: 16.1%;
Very effective: 48.9%;
Moderately effective: 24.1%;
Somewhat effective: 8.8%;
Slightly or not effective: 2.1%;
N= 1177.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Extremely effective: 9.4%;
Very effective: 33.9%;
Moderately effective: 29.4%;
Somewhat effective: 20.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 7.2%;
N= 1154.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Extremely effective: 21.0%;
Very effective: 46.0%;
Moderately effective: 20.8%;
Somewhat effective: 9.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 3.3%;
N= 1185.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Extremely effective: 4.6%;
Very effective: 14.2%;
Moderately effective: 24.2%;
Somewhat effective: 29.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 27.9%;
N= 1006.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Extremely effective: 4.1%;
Very effective: 7.0%;
Moderately effective: 13.7%;
Somewhat effective: 19.6%;
Slightly or not effective: 55.7%;
N= 987.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 12.2%;
Very effective: 28.5%;
Moderately effective: 7.4%;
Somewhat effective: 14.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 37.2%;
N= 38.
9. Do the following CRP Continuous Signup provisions or factors help or
hinder the achievement of the program's environmental or natural
resource objectives? (Check one for each row)
Greatly helps: 11.8%;
Somewhat helps: 0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 1.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 8.2%;
Greatly hinders: 78.1%;
N= 60.
CRP Continuous Signup Provision or Factor:
1. Application process;
Greatly helps: 16.6%;
Somewhat helps: 30.8%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 31.3%;
Somewhat hinders: 18.2%;
Greatly hinders: 3.1%;
N= 1056.
2. Continuous signup rather than specific signup periods;
Greatly helps: 43.2%;
Somewhat helps: 41.2%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 11.6%;
Somewhat hinders: 3.6%;
Greatly hinders: 0.4%;
N= 1130.
3. Length of contract (10 to 15 years);
Greatly helps: 21,2%;
Somewhat helps: 38.1%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 23.4%;
Somewhat hinders: 16.2%;
Greatly hinders: 1.1%;
N= 1149.
4. Percentage of incentive payments (20%);
Greatly helps: 23.9%;
Somewhat helps:38. 0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 14.1%;
Somewhat hinders: 20.4%;
Greatly hinders: 3.4%;
N= 1088.
5. Size of cost-share percentage;
Greatly helps: 16.1%;
Somewhat helps: 39.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 17.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 23.5%;
Greatly hinders: 3.4%;
N= 1093.
6. Size of annual rental rate per acre;
Greatly helps: 15.7%;
Somewhat helps: 36.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 11.6%;
Somewhat hinders: 26.0%;
Greatly hinders: 10.7%;
N= 1119.
7. No payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Greatly helps: 1.5%;
Somewhat helps: 3.4%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 26.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 52.8%;
Greatly hinders: 15.3%;
N= 1107.
8. Restriction on haying and grazing of land;
Greatly helps: 8.8%;
Somewhat helps: 10.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 19.8%;
Somewhat hinders: 46.2%;
Greatly hinders: 14.6%;
N= 1139.
9. Restrictions on acceptable conservation practices;
Greatly helps: 6.3%;
Somewhat helps: 14.8%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 28.7%;
Somewhat hinders: 42.3%;
Greatly hinders: 7.9%;
N= 1115.
10. Having program promotion at the state or local level;
Greatly helps: 32.1%;
Somewhat helps: 41.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 22.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 2.3%;
Greatly hinders: 1.6%;
N= 1112.
11. Other (Please specify);
Greatly helps: 33.2%;
Somewhat helps: 3.2%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 5.0%;
Somewhat hinders: 5.8%;
Greatly hinders: 52.8%;
N= 63.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP):
10. Does your state have a CREP program? (Check one)
Yes 44.8%, N= 796; (Continue);
No 25.7%, N= 4574; (Go to Question 13 on page 9);
Don't know 29.4%, N= 5234; (Go to Question 13 on page 9).
11. How familiar are you with the CREP program? (Check one)
Extremely familiar: 16.1%, N= 149;
Very familiar: 16.5%, N= 152;
Moderately familiar: 22.4%, N= 206;
Somewhat familiar: 16.7%, N= 154;
Slightly or not familiar: 28.2%, N= 259; (Go to Question 13 on page 9).
12. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled
in the CREP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is
the CREP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural
resource objectives? (Check one for each row)
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Extremely effective: 26.7%;
Very effective: 28.8%;
Moderately effective: 26.7%;
Somewhat effective: 14.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 3.6%;
N= 475.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
Extremely effective: 15.0%;
Very effective: 24.8%;
Moderately effective: 27.0%;
Somewhat effective: 22.2%;
Slightly or not effective: 11.1%;
N= 455.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Extremely effective: 23.9%;
Very effective: 35.2%;
Moderately effective: 28.2%;
Somewhat effective: 8.4%;
Slightly or not effective: 4.4%;
N= 466.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Extremely effective: 17.0%;
Very effective: 29.1%;
Moderately effective: 28.8%;
Somewhat effective: 17.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 7.4%;
N= 477.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Extremely effective: 33.7%;
Very effective: 36.0%;
Moderately effective: 18.8%;
Somewhat effective: 7.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 3.9%;
N= 469.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Extremely effective: 6.3%;
Very effective: 10.4%;
Moderately effective: 25.3%;
Somewhat effective: 26.3%;
Slightly or not effective: 31.7%;
N= 416.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Extremely effective: 5.2%;
Very effective: 6.4%;
Moderately effective: 22.8%;
Somewhat effective: 17.4%;
Slightly or not effective: 48.2%;
N= 408.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 36.5%;
Very effective: 20.5%;
Moderately effective: 4.4%;
Somewhat effective: 18.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 19.8%;
N= 23.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP):
13. How familiar are you with the WRP? (Check one)
Extremely familiar: 11.6%, N= 219;
Very familiar: 18.2%, N= 346;
Moderately familiar: 23.7%, N= 448;
Somewhat familiar: 20.7%, N= 392:
Slightly or not familiar: 25.8%, N= 489; (Go to Question 16 on page
10).
14. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled
in the WRP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is
the WRP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural
resource objectives? (Check one for each row)
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Extremely effective: 32.9%;
Very effective: 34.6%;
Moderately effective: 22.6%;
Somewhat effective: 7.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 2.2%;
N= 1354.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
Extremely effective: 19.3%;
Very effective: 30.2%;
Moderately effective: 30.9%;
Somewhat effective: 13.9%;
Slightly or not effective: 5.6%;
N= 1301.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Extremely effective: 10.6%;
Very effective: 23.6%;
Moderately effective: 32.1%;
Somewhat effective: 20.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 13.2%;
N= 1280.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Extremely effective: 14.3%;
Very effective: 31.2%;
Moderately effective: 28.7%;
Somewhat effective: 18.2%;
Slightly or not effective: 7.5%;
N= 1296.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Extremely effective: 20.1%;
Very effective: 38.2%;
Moderately effective: 25.5%;
Somewhat effective: 12.0%;
Slightly or not effective: 4.2%;
N= 1326.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Extremely effective: 4.2%;
Very effective: 9.3%;
Moderately effective: 24.4%;
Somewhat effective: 26.4%;
Slightly or not effective: 35.8%;
N= 1087.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Extremely effective: 6.4%;
Very effective: 11.5%;
Moderately effective: 22.0%;
Somewhat effective: 19.8%;
Slightly or not effective: 40.3%;
N= 1134.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 17.0%;
Very effective: 20.1%;
Moderately effective: 27.8%;
Somewhat effective: 9.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 25.4%;
N= 63.
15. Do the following WRP provisions or factors help or hinder the
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource
objectives? (Check one for each row)
WRP Provision or Factor:
1. Application process;
Greatly helps: 5.3%;
Somewhat helps: 17.3%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 38.1%;
Somewhat hinders: 33.3%;
Greatly hinders: 6.0%;
N= 1077.
2. Determination of easement price based on the agricultural value of
the land rather than the market value of the land;
Greatly helps: 4.7%;
Somewhat helps: 16.5%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 15.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 46.0%;
Greatly hinders: 17.5%;
N= 1161.
3. Length of easement (thirty years or perpetuity);
Greatly helps: 20.3%;
Somewhat helps: 24.8%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 17.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 29.8%;
Greatly hinders: 7.9%;
N= 1225.
4. Size of cost-share percentage;
Greatly helps: 19.3%;
Somewhat helps: 32.1%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 19.8%;
Somewhat hinders: 26.0%;
Greatly hinders: 2.8%;
N= 1135.
5. No payment to maintain previously protected wetlands;
Greatly helps: 1.2%;
Somewhat helps: 5.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 29.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 49.4%;
Greatly hinders: 14.6%;
N= 1197.
6. Limit on the percentage of land that may be enrolled in a county
(25%);
Greatly helps: 1.2%;
Somewhat helps: 3.6%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 53.4%;
Somewhat hinders: 34.5%;
Greatly hinders: 7.3%;
N= 1163.
7. Restrictions on land use;
Greatly helps: 9.8%;
Somewhat helps: 16.4%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 23.1%;
Somewhat hinders: 42.1%;
Greatly hinders: 8.6%;
N= 1234.
8. Having program promotion at the state or local level;
Greatly helps: 29.7%;
Somewhat helps: 43.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 23.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 2.8%;
Greatly hinders: 1.2%;
N= 1177.
9. Other (Please specify);
Greatly helps: 18.3%;
Somewhat helps: 3.4%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 4.8%;
Somewhat hinders: 6.4%;
Greatly hinders: 67.0%;
N= 66.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
16. How familiar are you with the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP)? (Check one)
Extremely familiar: 19.1%, N= 363;
Very familiar: 28.3%, N= 539;
Moderately familiar: 29.5%, N= 561;
Somewhat familiar: 11.3%, N= 214;
Slightly or not familiar: 11.8%, N= 224; (Go to Question 19 on page
13).
17. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled
in the EQIP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is
the EQIP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural
resource objectives? (Check one for each row)
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Extremely effective: 6.6%;
Very effective: 23.5%;
Moderately effective: 32.8%;
Somewhat effective: 23.3%;
Slightly or not effective: 13.8%;
N= 1615.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
Extremely effective: 5.6%;
Very effective: 14.1%;
Moderately effective: 31.0%;
Somewhat effective: 28.0%;
Slightly or not effective: 21.4%;
N= 1553.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Extremely effective: 14.5%;
Very effective: 40.3%;
Moderately effective: 31.8%;
Somewhat effective: 11.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 2.3%;
N= 1643.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Extremely effective: 14.2%;
Very effective: 34.5%;
Moderately effective: 32.5%;
Somewhat effective: 14.8%;
Slightly or not effective: 4.0%;
N= 1584.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Extremely effective: 21.0%;
Very effective: 39.5%;
Moderately effective: 29.3%;
Somewhat effective: 8.4%;
Slightly or not effective: 1.7%;
N= 1644.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Extremely effective: 6.0%;
Very effective: 15.2%;
Moderately effective: 29.1%;
Somewhat effective: 25.2%;
Slightly or not effective: 24.5%;
N= 1430.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Extremely effective: 3.4%;
Very effective: 6.5%;
Moderately effective: 15.8%;
Somewhat effective: 20.0%;
Slightly or not effective: 54.3%;
N= 1322.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 39.5%;
Very effective: 8.0%;
Moderately effective: 13.7%;
Somewhat effective: 11.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 27.7%;
N= 42.
18. Do the following EQIP provisions or factors help or hinder the
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource
objectives? (Check one for each row)
EQIP Provision or Factor:
1. Application process;
Greatly helps: 4.0%;
Somewhat helps: 16.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 27.7%;
Somewhat hinders: 36.6%;
Greatly hinders: 15.7%;
N= 1485.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
2. Method of allocating funds to states;
Greatly helps: 22.3%;
Somewhat helps: 13.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 20.0%;
Somewhat hinders: 42.9%;
Greatly hinders: 21.0%;
N= 1359.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
3. Method of prioritizing environmental objectives in your state;
Greatly helps: 9.9%;
Somewhat helps: 35.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 15.3%;
Somewhat hinders: 28.7%;
Greatly hinders: 11.0%;
N= 1565.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
4. Minimum of 65% of state funds allocated to priority areas;
Greatly helps: 9.1%;
Somewhat helps: 29.8%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 18.4%;
Somewhat hinders: 32.4%;
Greatly hinders: 10.4%;
N= 1538.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
5. Length of contract (5 to 10 years);
Greatly helps: 7.2%;
Somewhat helps: 31.3%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 33.7%;
Somewhat hinders: 21.4%;
Greatly hinders: 6.3%;
N= 1547.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
6. Ability for producers to bid down cost-share to be more competitive;
Greatly helps: 5.9%;
Somewhat helps: 40.1%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 19.1%;
Somewhat hinders: 21.2%;
Greatly hinders: 13.7%;
N= 1413.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
7. Size of maximum annual ($10,000/year) and total rental payments
($50,000/total);
Greatly helps: 4.9%;
Somewhat helps: 18.3%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 27.6%;
Somewhat hinders: 38.4%;
Greatly hinders: 10.8%;
N= 1490.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
8. Percentage (50%) of funds targeted to natural resource concerns
relating to livestock production;
Greatly helps: 12.7%;
Somewhat helps: 27.8%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 27.1%;
Somewhat hinders: 25.5%;
Greatly hinders: 7.0%;
N= 1520.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
9. No payment in first year;
Greatly helps: 1.2%;
Somewhat helps: 3.9%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 13.6%;
Somewhat hinders: 52.5%;
Greatly hinders: 28.7%;
N= 1420.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
10. No payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Greatly helps: 0.6%;
Somewhat helps: 3.9%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 26.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 50.9%;
Greatly hinders: 17.7%;
N= 1509.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
11. Requirement that FSA concur on policies and procedures;
Greatly helps: 7.0%;
Somewhat helps: 13.6%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 36.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 29.0%;
Greatly hinders: 13.5%;
N= 1436.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
12. Limit on incentive payments (3 years);
Greatly helps: 2.0%;
Somewhat helps: 7.4%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 34.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 47.5%;
Greatly hinders: 8.3%;
N= 1405.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
13. Prohibition on cost-sharing animal waste storage or treatment
facilities for large confined livestock operations;
Greatly helps: 7.1%;
Somewhat helps: 10.9%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 21.6%;
Somewhat hinders: 40.4%;
Greatly hinders: 20.0%;
N= 1396.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
14. Having program promotion at the state or local level;
Greatly helps: 30.2%;
Somewhat helps: 43.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 21.8%;
Somewhat hinders: 2.6%;
Greatly hinders: 1.7%;
N= 1482.
EQIP Provision or Factor:
15. Other (Please specify);
Greatly helps: 16.6%;
Somewhat helps: 0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 1.5%;
Somewhat hinders: 14.4%;
Greatly hinders: 67.5%;
N= 76.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP):
19. How familiar are you with the WHIP? (Check one)
Extremely familiar: 11.6%, N= 225;
Very familiar: 15.1%, N= 292;
Moderately familiar: 23.2%, N= 448;
Somewhat familiar: 21.1%, N= 407;
Slightly or not familiar: 29.0%, N= 561; Go to Question 22 on page 14).
20. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled
in the WHIP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is
the WHIP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural
resource objectives? (Check one for each row)
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Extremely effective: 32.7%;
Very effective: 36.5%;
Moderately effective: 24.1%;
Somewhat effective: 5.3%;
Slightly or not effective: 1.5%;
N= 1327.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
Extremely effective: 18.1%;
Very effective: 34.8%;
Moderately effective: 32.6%;
Somewhat effective: 10.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 3.8%;
N= 1290.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Extremely effective: 6.3%;
Very effective: 26.2%;
Moderately effective: 37.3%;
Somewhat effective: 22.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 8.1%;
N= 1278.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Extremely effective: 5.3%;
Very effective: 18.9%;
Moderately effective: 36.5%;
Somewhat effective: 26.9%;
Slightly or not effective: 12.5%;
N= 1234.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Extremely effective: 8.9%;
Very effective: 29.3%;
Moderately effective: 36.0%;
Somewhat effective: 19.0%;
Slightly or not effective: 6.8%;
N= 1276.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Extremely effective: 2.2%;
Very effective: 10.4%;
Moderately effective: 25.1%;
Somewhat effective: 25.9%;
Slightly or not effective: 36.4%;
N= 1099.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Extremely effective: 2.7%;
Very effective: 6.1%;
Moderately effective: 16.7%;
Somewhat effective: 20.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 54.4%;
N= 1107.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 36.8%;
Very effective: 21.6%;
Moderately effective: 14.1%;
Somewhat effective: 6.4%;
Slightly or not effective: 21.0%;
N= 35.
21. Do the following WHIP provisions or factors help or hinder the
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource
objectives? (Check one for each row)
WHIP Provision or Factor:
1. Application process;
Greatly helps: 7.6%;
Somewhat helps: 19.9%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 42.9%;
Somewhat hinders: 25.5%;
Greatly hinders: 4.2%;
N= 1106.
WHIP Provision or Factor:
2. Length of contract (5 to 10 years);
Greatly helps: 8.5%;
Somewhat helps: 33.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 35.4%;
Somewhat hinders: 20.1%;
Greatly hinders: 2.4%;
N= 1219.
WHIP Provision or Factor:
3. Size of cost-share percentage;
Greatly helps: 6.7%;
Somewhat helps: 41.6%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 18.7%;
Somewhat hinders: 29.6%;
Greatly hinders: 3.4%;
N= 1188.
WHIP Provision or Factor:
4. No payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Greatly helps: 0.6%;
Somewhat helps: 3.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 27.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 57.9%;
Greatly hinders: 10.6%;
N= 1216.
WHIP Provision or Factor:
5. Lack of annual rental payments;
Greatly helps: 0.6%;
Somewhat helps: 3.2%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 27.4%;
Somewhat hinders: 53.8%;
Greatly hinders: 15.0%;
N= 1168.
WHIP Provision or Factor:
6. Having program promotion at the state or local level;
Greatly helps: 31.2%;
Somewhat helps: 43.6%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 20.5%;
Somewhat hinders: 2.8%;
Greatly hinders: 1.9%;
N= 1190.
WHIP Provision or Factor:
7. Other (Please specify);
Farmland Protection Program (FPP):
22. Does your state have an FPP program? (Check one)
Yes: 30.9%, N= 583;
No: 19.6%, N= 370; (Go to Question 26 on page 16);
Don't know: 49.6%, N= 936; (Go to Question 26 on page 16).
23. How familiar are you with the FPP program? (Check one)
Extremely familiar: 8.6%, N= 70;
Very familiar: 10.1%, N= 82;
Moderately familiar: 16.8%, N= 135;
Somewhat familiar: 22.4%, N= 180;
Slightly or not familiar: 42.2%, N= 339; (Go to Question 26 on page 16)
24. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled
in the FPP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is
the FPP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural
resource objectives? (Check one for each row)
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Extremely effective: 8.7%;
Very effective: 18.5%;
Moderately effective: 31.5%;
Somewhat effective: 30.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 10.9%;
N= 274.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
Extremely effective: 7.6%;
Very effective: 8.7%;
Moderately effective: 29.8%;
Somewhat effective: 25.9%;
Slightly or not effective: 27.0%;
N= 268.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Extremely effective: 8.8%;
Very effective: 20.4%;
Moderately effective: 39.3%;
Somewhat effective: 23.0%;
Slightly or not effective: 8.6%;
N= 280.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Extremely effective: 9.2%;
Very effective: 13.2%;
Moderately effective: 39.3%;
Somewhat effective: 31.2%;
Slightly or not effective: 7.1%;
N= 277.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Extremely effective: 9.7%;
Very effective: 21.0%;
Moderately effective: 40.4%;
Somewhat effective: 21.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 7.4%;
N= 278.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Extremely effective: 6.8%;
Very effective: 10.1%;
Moderately effective: 26.6%;
Somewhat effective: 26.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 30.4%;
N= 251.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Extremely effective: 45.2%;
Very effective: 24.1%;
Moderately effective: 16.7%;
Somewhat effective: 5.8%;
Slightly or not effective: 8.3%;
N= 287.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 62.9%;
Very effective: 22.9%;
Moderately effective: 14.2%;
Somewhat effective: 0%;
Slightly or not effective: 0%;
N= 10.
25. Do the following FPP provisions or factors help or hinder the
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource
objectives? (Check one for each row)
FPP Provision or Factor:
1. Application process;
Greatly helps: 1.0%;
Somewhat helps: 15.7%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 38.8%;
Somewhat hinders: 30.8%;
Greatly hinders: 12.7%;
N= 251.
FPP Provision or Factor:
2. Permanent easements rather than limited year contracts;
Greatly helps: 30.3%;
Somewhat helps: 28.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 16.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 17.3%;
Greatly hinders: 8.3%;
N= 277.
FPP Provision or Factor:
3. Size of federal contribution (up to 50%);
Greatly helps: 22.1%;
Somewhat helps: 27.9%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 13.2%;
Somewhat hinders: 30.3%;
Greatly hinders: 6.4%;
N= 282.
FPP Provision or Factor:
4. Requirement that a state, local, or tribal government program
sponsor be in existence;
Greatly helps: 21.0%;
Somewhat helps: 28.3%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 25.3%;
Somewhat hinders: 23.0%;
Greatly hinders: 2.3%;
N= 273.
FPP Provision or Factor:
5. Requirement that land is prime, unique, or productive;
Greatly helps: 18.8%;
Somewhat helps: 31.0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 22.4%;
Somewhat hinders: 25.2%;
Greatly hinders: 2.5%;
N= 277.
FPP Provision or Factor:
6. Having program promotion at the state or local level;
Greatly helps: 40.0%;
Somewhat helps: 31.6%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 24.5%;
Somewhat hinders: 0.8%;
Greatly hinders: 3.1%;
N= 276.
FPP Provision or Factor:
7. Other (Please specify);
Greatly helps: 64.7%;
Somewhat helps: 0%;
Neither helps nor hinders: 7.3%;
Somewhat hinders: 22.7%;
Greatly hinders: 5.3%;
N= 20.
Conservation Plans for USDA Conservation Programs:
26. Consider the conservation plans that producers are required to
adopt for various USDA conservation programs. How effective, if at all,
are these conservation plans in addressing the following areas? (Check
one for each row)
Conservation Plan Area:
1. Opportunities for conserving natural resources on entire
agricultural operations;
Extremely effective: 9.5%;
Very effective: 30.4%;
Moderately effective: 35.5%;
Somewhat effective: 16.9%;
Slightly or not effective: 7.6%;
N= 1689.
2. Opportunities for improving the profitability of entire agricultural
operations;
Extremely effective: 3.9%;
Very effective: 19.4%;
Moderately effective: 35.0%;
Somewhat effective: 27.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 14.2%;
N= 1578.
3. Long-term strategies for addressing the needs of entire agricultural
operations;
Extremely effective: 7.3%;
Very effective: 27.8%;
Moderately effective: 31.8%;
Somewhat effective: 20.0%;
Slightly or not effective: 13.1%;
N= 1606.
27. If you responded 'extremely effective' or 'slightly or not
effective,' please explain the reason(s) for your response(s) below.
If extremely effective: 100.0%, N= 201;
If slightly or not effective: 100.0%, N= 300.
Land Maintenance and Conservation Practices:
28. Consider lands in your state for which CRP contracts have expired
and have not been renewed. To what extent, if any, are these lands
being used in the following ways? (Check one for each row)
Land use:
1. Forestry;
Very great extent: 6.5%;
Great extent: 13.8%;
Moderate extent: 13.0%;
Some extent: 24.4%;
Little or no extent: 42.3%;
N=: 943.
Land use:
2. Grazing/haying;
Very great extent: 2.8%;
Great extent: 18.3%;
Moderate extent: 37.7%;
Some extent: 33.4%;
Little or no extent: 7.8%;
N=: 1008.
Land use:
3. Crop production;
Very great extent: 9.1%;
Great extent: 29.3%;
Moderate extent: 28.9%;
Some extent: 23.9%;
Little or no extent: 8.8%;
N=: 1032.
Land use:
4. Commercial development (non-agricultural);
Very great extent: 3.0%;
Great extent: 7.6%;
Moderate extent: 16.5%;
Some extent: 30.2%;
Little or no extent: 42.7%;
N=: 899.
Land use:
5. Other (Please specify);
Very great extent: 6.8%;
Great extent: 26.0%;
Moderate extent: 29.0%;
Some extent: 30.7%;
Little or no extent: 7.4%;
N=: 36.
29. In your opinion, do producers/landowners in your state either
discontinue or avoid desirable conservation practices in order to
qualify for USDA conservation programs? (Check one for each row)
Program:
1. CRP General Signup;
Definitely yes: 5.0%;
Probably yes: 19.3%;
Probably no: 57.5%;
Definitely no: 18.2%;
N=: 1212.
Program:
2. CRP Continuous Signup;
Definitely yes: 3.8%;
Probably yes: 14.8%;
Probably no: 61.5%;
Definitely no: 19.9%;
N=: 1182.
Program:
3. CREP;
Definitely yes: 0.8%;
Probably yes: 13.5%;
Probably no: 65.3%;
Definitely no: 20.4%;
N=: 846.
Program:
4. WRP;
Definitely yes: 0.9%;
Probably yes: 10.7%;
Probably no: 65.3%;
Definitely no: 23.1%;
N=: 1124.
Program:
5. EQIP;
Definitely yes: 1.9%;
Probably yes: 14.0%;
Probably no: 63.8%;
Definitely no: 20.3%;
N=: 1268.
Program:
6. WHIP;
Definitely yes: 0.7%;
Probably yes: 7.8%;
Probably no: 67.0%;
Definitely no: 24.6%;
N=: 1145.
Program:
7. FPP;
Definitely yes: 0.8%;
Probably yes: 5.5%;
Probably no: 68.0%;
Definitely no: 25.8%;
N=: 666.
30. If you responded 'definitely yes' or 'probably yes,' how could the
program(s) be modified to discourage this? In your response, please
provide the name of the program(s) for which you are responding.
100.0%, N= 284.
Conservation Compliance/Sodbuster/Swampbuster Provisions:
31. Currently in your state, how effective, if at all, are the
conservation compliance/sodbuster/swampbuster provisions of The Food
Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1985 in protecting highly erodible lands
and wetlands? (Check one for each row)
Provision:
1. Conservation compliance;
Extremely effective:5.6%;
Very effective: 33.7%;
Moderately effective: 32.2%;
Somewhat effective: 19.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 9.1%;
N= 1284.
Provision:
2. Sodbuster;
Extremely effective: 6.2%;
Very effective: 31.0%;
Moderately effective: 30.0%;
Somewhat effective: 21.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 1.3%;
N= 1212.
Provision:
3. Swampbuster;
Extremely effective: 8.9%;
Very effective: 31.0%;
Moderately effective: 28.4%;
Somewhat effective: 22.1%;
Slightly or not effective: 9.7%;
N= 1270.
32. If you responded 'extremely effective' or 'slightly or not
effective' for any provision in Question 31, please indicate for which
provision(s) you are responding and explain the reason(s) for your
response(s) below.
If extremely effective: 100.0%, N= 122.
If slightly or not effective: 100.0%, N= 176.
Program Assistance:
33. In your opinion, does your state have enough NRCS technical
assistance available for the following programs? (Check one)
Program:
1. CRP General Signup;
Much more than enough: 1.6%;
More than enough: 4.4%;
Enough: 35.7%;
Less than enough: 38.9%;
Much less than enough: 19.4%;
N=: 1476.
Program:
2. CRP Continuous Signup;
Much more than enough: 1.7%;
More than enough: 4.1%;
Enough: 34.6%;
Less than enough: 37.5%;
Much less than enough: 22.0%;
N=: 1462.
Program:
3. CREP (if applicable);
Much more than enough: 0.5%;
More than enough: 4.0%;
Enough: 25.3%;
Less than enough: 34.9%;
Much less than enough: 35.3%;
N=: 581.
Program:
4. WRP;
Much more than enough: 1.5%;
More than enough: 5.4%;
Enough: 27.9%;
Less than enough: 38.9%;
Much less than enough: 26.2%;
N=: 1442.
Program:
5. EQIP;
Much more than enough: 1.5%;
More than enough: 3.3%;
Enough: 23.0%;
Less than enough: 37.2%;
Much less than enough: 35.0%;
N=: 1604.
Program:
6. WHIP;
Much more than enough: 1.3%;
More than enough: 3.9%;
Enough: 32.8%;
Less than enough: 37.5%;
Much less than enough: 24.5%;
N=: 1485.
34. In your opinion, overall, what is the quality of the technical
assistance that NRCS provides in your state? (Check one)
Excellent: 22.2%, N= 413;
Good: 51.2%, N= 955;
Fair: 19.3%, N= 359;
Poor: 1.7%, N= 31;
Very poor: 0.9%, N= 16;
Don't know: 4.8%, N= 90.
35. How effective, if at all, are the USDA conservation programs in
assisting farming operations of the following sizes in your state in
addressing environmental or natural resource objectives? (Check one for
each row)
Size of Operation:
1. Small Operations (gross farming revenues of less than $100,000);
Extremely effective: 4.9%;
Very effective: 27.5%;
Moderately effective: 33.2%;
Somewhat effective: 24.6%;
Slightly or not effective: 9.9%;
N= 1426.
Size of Operation:
2. Medium Operations (gross farming revenues of $100,000 - $500,000);
Extremely effective: 3.5%;
Very effective: 31.6%;
Moderately effective: 44.5%;
Somewhat effective: 18.4%;
Slightly or not effective: 2.0%;
N= 1388.
Size of Operation:
3. Large Operations (gross farming revenues greater than $500,000);
Extremely effective: 4.6%;
Very effective: 22.2%;
Moderately effective: 39.1%;
Somewhat effective: 22.7%;
Slightly or not effective: 11.4%;
N= 1315.
36. Are all sizes of operations receiving adequate assistance in
addressing your state's environmental or natural resource objectives?
(Check one)
Yes: 25.9%, N= 478;
No: Please briefly describe below which operations are not receiving
adequate assistance and the reason(s) for this. 43.2%, N= 799;
Don't know: 30.9%, N= 571.
37. In your experience, overall, how effective, if at all, are the USDA
conservation programs in assisting the following types of operations in
your state in addressing environmental or natural resource objectives?
(Check one for each row)
Type of Operation:
1. Field crops;
Extremely effective: 5.8%;
Very effective: 39.2%;
Moderately effective: 36.3%;
Somewhat effective: 15.4%;
Slightly or not effective: 3.3%;
N= 1573.
Type of Operation:
2. Specialty crops;
Extremely effective: 1.8%;
Very effective: 13.8%;
Moderately effective: 29.2%;
Somewhat effective: 36.0%;
Slightly or not effective: 19.2%;
N= 1361.
Type of Operation:
3. Small confined animal feeding operations;
Extremely effective: 3.0%;
Very effective: 27.0%;
Moderately effective: 38.4%;
Somewhat effective: 22.8%;
Slightly or not effective: 8.8%;
N= 1474.
Type of Operation:
4. Large confined animal feeding operations;
Extremely effective: 2.1%;
Very effective: 17.9%;
Moderately effective: 33.5%;
Somewhat effective: 25.8%;
Slightly or not effective: 20.6%;
N= 1339.
Type of Operation:
5. Combined crop/animal operations;
Extremely effective: 3.0%;
Very effective: 27.3%;
Moderately effective: 47.0%;
Somewhat effective: 18.8%;
Slightly or not effective: 3.9%;
N= 1472.
Type of Operation:
6. Grazing;
Extremely effective: 4.4%;
Very effective: 29.6%;
Moderately effective: 39.2%;
Somewhat effective: 20.6%;
Slightly or not effective: 6.1%;
N= 1529.
Type of Operation:
7. Forestry;
Extremely effective: 2.6%;
Very effective: 16.1%;
Moderately effective: 27.5%;
Somewhat effective: 31.3%;
Slightly or not effective: 22.4%;
N= 1291.
Type of Operation:
8. Other (Please specify);
Extremely effective: 6.7%;
Very effective: 19.4%;
Moderately effective: 17.6%;
Somewhat effective: 25.5%;
Slightly or not effective: 30.8%;
N= 69.
38. Are all types of operations receiving adequate assistance in
addressing your state's environmental or natural resource objectives?
(Check one)
Yes: 24.1%, N= 439;
No: Please briefly describe below which operations are not receiving
adequate assistance and the reason(s) for this. 46.8%, N= 851;
Don't know: 29.1%, N= 529.
Effect on Economy of Rural Communities:
39. What is the overall impact, if any, of the following USDA
conservation programs on the local economies in your state's rural
communities? (Check one for each row)
Program:
1. CRP General Signup;
Very positive: 12.3%;
Somewhat positive: 46.3%;
No impact: 21.7%;
Somewhat negative: 16.3%;
Very negative: 3.5%;
N=: 1267.
Program:
2. CRP Continuous Signup;
Very positive: 8.8%;
Somewhat positive: 47.9%;
No impact: 34.1%;
Somewhat negative: 7.8%;
Very negative: 1.4%;
N=: 1248.
Program:
3. CREP;
Very positive: 16.8%;
Somewhat positive: 45.9%;
No impact: 31.8%;
Somewhat negative: 4.4%;
Very negative: 1.1%;
N=: 478.
Program:
4. WRP;
Very positive: 9.0%;
Somewhat positive: 46.2%;
No impact: 37.1%;
Somewhat negative: 5.6%;
Very negative: 2.2%;
N=: 1200.
Program:
5. EQIP;
Very positive: 14.8%;
Somewhat positive: 62.9%;
No impact: 19.6%;
Somewhat negative: 2.3%;
Very negative: 0.4%;
N=: 1401.
Program:
6. WHIP;
Very positive: 7.7%;
Somewhat positive: 49.4%;
No impact: 40.5%;
Somewhat negative: 1.6%;
Very negative: 0.7%;
N=: 1273.
Program:
7. FPP;
Very positive: 16.3%;
Somewhat positive: 36.5%;
No impact: 41.5%;
Somewhat negative: 4.4%;
Very negative: 1.4%;
N=: 359.
40. For those programs that have a `very positive' or `very negative'
impact on the local economies in your state's rural communities, please
provide the name of the program and explain the reason(s) for your
response(s) below.
If very positive: 100.0%, N= 375;
If very negative: 100.0%, N= 106.
Conservation Program Emphasis:
41. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001 (estimates), federal
funding was distributed nationally among USDA conservation programs as
follows:
Program: CRP (including CREP);
Percentage: 83.2%.
Program: WRP;
Percentage: 7.2%.
Program: EQIP;
Percentage: 8.8%.
Program: WHIP;
Percentage: 0.3%;
Program: FPP;
Percentage: 0.4%;
Program: Total:
Percentage: 100%.
Note: Total does not add due to rounding.
Given current federal funding, how do you believe conservation funds
should be distributed nationally among these programs? (Your total
should equal 100%.)
Program: CRP (including CREP);
Percentage: 57.84%.
Program: WRP;
Percentage: 9.62%.
Program: EQIP;
Percentage: 20.82%.
Program: WHIP;
Percentage: 5.01%;
Program: FPP;
Percentage: 4.91%;
Program: Other (Please specify):
Percentage: 1.82%.
Program: Total:
Percentage: 100%.
N= 1386.
42. In your opinion, overall, how cost-effective, are the following
USDA conservation programs; that is, how well are these programs
achieving results given the money spent for these programs? (Check one
for each row)
Program:
1. CRP General signup;
Extremely cost-effective: 7.0%;
Very cost-effective: 36.6%;
Moderately cost-effective: 31.4%;
Somewhat cost-effective: 17.3%;
Slightly or not cost-effective: 7.6%;
N=: 1377.
Program:
2. CRP Continuous signup;
Extremely cost-effective: 10.3%;
Very cost-effective: 40.3%;
Moderately cost-effective: 29.2%;
Somewhat cost-effective: 15.9%;
Slightly or not cost-effective: 4.3%;
N=: 1340.
Program:
3. CREP;
Extremely cost-effective: 14.6%;
Very cost-effective: 33.4%;
Moderately cost-effective: 26.9%;
Somewhat cost-effective: 16.1%;
Slightly or not cost-effective: 9.1%;
N=: 524.
Program:
4. WRP;
Extremely cost-effective: 11.0%;
Very cost-effective: 28.8%;
Moderately cost-effective: 32.4%;
Somewhat cost-effective: 20.8%;
Slightly or not cost-effective: 6.9%;
N=: 1313.
Program:
5. EQIP;
Extremely cost-effective: 7.3%;
Very cost-effective: 38.1%;
Moderately cost-effective: 33.2%;
Somewhat cost-effective: 15.3%;
Slightly or not cost-effective: 6.1%;
N=: 1546.
Program:
6. WHIP;
Extremely cost-effective: 7.7%;
Very cost-effective: 34.1%;
Moderately cost-effective: 32.0%;
Somewhat cost-effective: 19.6%;
Slightly or not cost-effective: 6.6%;
N=: 1342.
Program:
7. FPP;
Extremely cost-effective: 8.7%;
Very cost-effective: 36.5%;
Moderately cost-effective: 25.4%;
Somewhat cost-effective: 18.7%;
Slightly or not cost-effective: 10.8%;
N=: 360.
43. If you responded 'extremely cost-effective' or 'slightly or not
cost-effective' for any program, please provide the name of the program
and explain the reason(s) for your response(s) below.
If extremely cost-effective: 100.0%, N= 317;
If slightly or not cost-effective: 100.0%, N= 252.
44. Consider the degree that current USDA conservation programs
emphasize environmental or natural resource objectives. Should more or
less national emphasis be placed on each of the following environmental
or natural resource objectives in the future? (Check one for each row)
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat;
Much more emphasis: 17.8%;
More emphasis: 32.5%;
No change: 35.6%;
Less emphasis: 11.9%;
Much less emphasis: 2.2%;
N=: 1808.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
2. Protecting native species;
1779
Much more emphasis: 16.1%;
More emphasis: 29.6%;
No change: 40.3%;
Less emphasis: 10.5%;
Much less emphasis: 3.5%;
N=: 1779.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
3. Reducing soil erosion;
Much more emphasis: 13.1%;
More emphasis: 45.7%;
No change: 39.1%;
Less emphasis: 1.9%;
Much less emphasis: 0.1%;
N=: 1801.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality;
Much more emphasis: 21.0%;
More emphasis: 51.3%;
No change: 26.6%;
Less emphasis: 1.0%;
Much less emphasis: 0.1%;
N=: 1809.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality;
Much more emphasis: 26.1%;
More emphasis: 53.8%;
No change: 19.2%;
Less emphasis: 0.9%;
Much less emphasis: 0%;
N=: 1829.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
6. Protecting or improving air quality;
Much more emphasis: 8.6%;
More emphasis: 30.5%;
No change: 50.8%;
Less emphasis: 8.8%;
Much less emphasis: 1.2%;
N=: 1750.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
7. Preventing urban sprawl;
Much more emphasis: 29.7%;
More emphasis: 38.9%;
No change: 23.4%;
Less emphasis: 5.2%;
Much less emphasis: 2.8%;
N=: 1757.
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives:
8. Other (Please specify);
Much more emphasis: 77.9%;
More emphasis: 19.1%;
No change: 2.2%;
Less emphasis: 0.8%;
Much less emphasis: 0%;
N=: 118.
45. USDA conservation programs emphasize environmental and natural
resource priorities at different levels. At what levels of
environmental and natural resource priorities should USDA programs
place more or less emphasis? (Check one for each row)
Levels:
1. National:
Much more emphasis: 7.4%;
More emphasis: 17.0%;
No change: 34.9%;
Less emphasis: 31.6%;
Much less emphasis: 9.1%;
N=: 1736.
Levels:
2. Multi-state regional;
Much more emphasis: 8.2%;
More emphasis: 28.5%;
No change: 38.2%;
Less emphasis: 21.4%;
Much less emphasis: 3.7%;
N=: 1722.
Levels:
3. State;
Much more emphasis: 24.0%;
More emphasis: 50.1%;
No change: 20.6%;
Less emphasis: 4.7%;
Much less emphasis: 0.6%;
N=: 1774.
Levels:
4. Multi-county regional;
Much more emphasis: 22.2%;
More emphasis: 55.2%;
No change: 18.8%;
Less emphasis: 3.4%;
Much less emphasis: 0.5%;
N=: 1738.
Levels:
5. Local (county);
Much more emphasis: 38.2%;
More emphasis: 41.8%;
No change: 16.1%;
Less emphasis: 3.1%;
Much less emphasis: 0.8%;
N=: 1759.
46. Congress is considering modifying existing USDA conservation
programs or designing new programs. How important, if at all, are the
following elements in modifying or designing these programs? (Check one
for each row)
Design elements that:
1. Provide flexible eligibility;
Extremely important: 28.0%;
Very important: 49.9%;
Moderately important: 14.5%;
Somewhat important: 5.9%;
Slightly or not important: 1.7%;
N=: 1796.
Design elements that:
2. Allow economic use of lands;
Extremely important: 23.1%;
Very important: 38.4%;
Moderately important: 21.9%;
Somewhat important: 10.6%;
Slightly or not important: 5.9%;
N=: 1974.
Design elements that:
3. Provide payment for maintenance of existing practices;
Extremely important: 13.7%;
Very important: 35.5%;
Moderately important: 27.4%;
Somewhat important: 14.3%;
Slightly or not important: 9.2%;
N=: 1778.
Design elements that:
4. Emphasize local environmental priorities;
Extremely important: 34.5%;
Very important: 45.2%;
Moderately important: 13.2%;
Somewhat important: 5.8%;
Slightly or not important: 1.3%;
N=: 1838.
Design elements that:
5. Keep lands in production;
Extremely important: 18.7%;
Very important: 29.5%;
Moderately important: 26.5%;
Somewhat important: 14.5%;
Slightly or not important: 10.7%;
N=: 1806.
Design elements that:
6. Emphasize construction of waste structures;
Extremely important: 11.3%;
Very important: 33.5%;
Moderately important: 31.4%;
Somewhat important: 17.7%;
Slightly or not important: 6.2%;
N=: 1734.
Design elements that:
7. Allow a broad array of conservation practices;
Extremely important: 35.1%;
Very important: 48.7%;
Moderately important: 10.4%;
Somewhat important: 4.6%;
Slightly or not important: 1.3%;
N=: 1837.
Design elements that:
8. Make participation voluntary;
Extremely important: 46.0%;
Very important: 32.2%;
Moderately important: 11.3%;
Somewhat important: 6.2%;
Slightly or not important: 4.4%;
N=: 1791.
Design elements that:
9. Provide eligibility to all types of operations;
Extremely important: 30.6%;
Very important: 39.5%;
Moderately important: 18.2%;
Somewhat important: 7.3%;
Slightly or not important: 4.4%;
N=: 1786.
Design elements that:
10. Provide financial rewards for conservation practices;
Extremely important: 35.7%;
Very important: 40.8%;
Moderately important: 15.5%;
Somewhat important: 5.9%;
Slightly or not important: 2.0%;
N=: 1831.
Design elements that:
11. Allow non-NRCS entities to provide technical assistance;
Extremely important: 27.1%;
Very important: 29.4%;
Moderately important: 20.7%;
Somewhat important: 12.9%;
Slightly or not important: 9.9%;
N=: 1763.
Design elements that:
12. Provide up-front payments;
Extremely important: 18.2%;
Very important: 31.8%;
Moderately important: 27.3%;
Somewhat important: 13.0%;
Slightly or not important: 9.7%;
N=: 1702.
Design elements that:
13. Other (Please specify);
Extremely important: 78.8%;
Very important: 19.1%;
Moderately important: 0%;
Somewhat important: 0%;
Slightly or not important: 2.1%;
N=: 124.
Respondent Information:
47. Which one category best describes your organization? (Check one)
U.S. Department of Agriculture:
NRCS State Conservationist;
NRCS, Other;
Farm Service Agency;
Farmer Service Agency State Committee;
Forest Service;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Rural Development;
Other (Please specify).
Department of Interior:
Fish and Wildlife Service;
Bureau of Land Management;
Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Bureau of Reclamation;
U.S. Geological Survey;
Other (Please specify).
Department of Defense:
Army Corps of Engineers;
Other (Please specify).
State or local departments and agencies:
Fish and wildlife agency;
Forestry agency;
Water resources agency;
Department of agriculture;
Association of soil and water conservation districts;
Coastal zone management agency;
Soil and water conservation agency;
Other (Please specify).
Indian Tribes:
Federally recognized American Indian Tribal Governments or Alaskan
Native Corporations encompassing 100,000 acres or more in the state:
Other:
Agricultural producers (farmers);
Representatives from for-profit agribusinesses;
Nonprofit organizations (Please specify);
Universities;
Other knowledgeable persons (Please specify).
Comments:
48. Please provide below any comments you have about your state or
local agricultural environmental needs.
49. Please add any other comments or suggestions you have about the
current or future agricultural conservation programs.
50. Please add any comments or suggestions you have about this
questionnaire.
Thank you for your help!
Definitions:
Agricultural conservation programs:
Refers to the following federal agricultural conservation programs
administered by USDA: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), including
continuous signup and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP); the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP); and the Farmland Protection Program (FPP).
Air quality:
Refers to the chemical and physical characteristics of air, including
particulate matter, smoke, dust, and odor. Air quality may be impacted
by agricultural production.
Conservation compliance/sodbuster provision/swampbuster provision:
Compliance provisions, first introduced in the 1985 Food Security Act,
requiring certain resource conservation activities on highly erodible
lands and wetlands in return for benefits from selected federal
agricultural programs.
Conservation plan:
A combination of land uses and farming practices to protect and improve
soil productivity and water quality, and to prevent deterioration of
natural resources on all or part of a farm.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP):
Authorized in 1996, CREP is a federal-state conservation partnership
program that targets environmental concerns related to agriculture.
Leveraging federal funds with state funds, CREP uses financial
incentives to encourage landowners to enroll in ten- to fifteen-year
contracts to remove land from agricultural production.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - Continuous Signup:
An extension of the CRP program introduced in 1996, the CRP Continuous
Signup offers additional financial incentives and allows acreage
devoted to certain conservation practices, such as riparian buffers and
filter strips, yielding highly desirable environmental benefits to be
enrolled at any time without going through the competitive bidding
process.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - General Signup:
USDA program authorized in 1985, which provides annual rental payments
to agriculture producers to retire lands that are highly erodible or
environmentally sensitive. CRP includes a 50 percent cost-share to
install vegetative cover and requires that landowners sign a ten-to
fifteen-year contract.
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI):
Ranking criteria used for CRP general signup applications, which
weights wildlife habitat benefits, water quality benefits, the on-farm
benefits of reduced erosion, the likely long-term benefits of reduced
erosion, air quality benefits, benefits of enrollment in conservation
priority areas, and cost.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP):
USDA program authorized in 1996 which provides technical, educational
and financial assistance to landowners to address soil, water, and
related environmental concerns on lands in agricultural uses. EQIP
provides cost-share and incentive payments and requires that landowners
sign a five- to ten-year contract.
Farmland Protection Program (FPP):
USDA program authorized in 1996 created to protect farmland from non-
agricultural conversion by acquiring productive farmland near urban
areas. In cooperation with existing state, local or tribal farmland
protection programs or land trusts,
USDA contributes up to 50 percent of the fair market value of the land
to acquire 30-year or permanent easements on farmlands.
Federal farm policy:
Refers to programs set forth in past omnibus farm bills (1985, 1990,
and 1996), and the farm bill expected to become law in 2002.
Field crop operations:
An agricultural operation whose principal function is the production of
mainstream crops such as wheat, corn, peanuts, cotton, and soybean.
Forestry operations:
An agricultural operation whose principal function is the development
of woodlands.
Grazing operations:
An agricultural operation whose principal function is raising animals
in nonconfined situations.
Ground water quality:
Refers to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of
groundwater. Groundwater quality and quantity may be impacted by
agricultural production.
Invasive species:
Alien (non-native) species of plants, animals, and pests whose
introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental
harm or harm to human health.
Large confined animal feeding operations:
An agricultural operation with over 1,000 animal units whose principal
function is keeping and raising animals in confined situations where
feed is brought to animals.
Small confined animal feeding operations:
An agricultural operation with 1,000 or fewer animal units whose
principal function is keeping and raising animals in confined
situations where feed is brought to animals.
Soil erosion:
Refers to the impact of agricultural production on the wearing away of
land surface caused by wind and moving water.
Specialty crop operations:
An agricultural operation whose principal function is the production of
farm commodities other than livestock and field crops, including all
fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops.
Surface water quality:
Refers to chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of surface
water. Surface water quality and quantity may be impacted by
agricultural production.
Native species:
Refers to the impact of agricultural production on species native to a
state or local area.
Urban sprawl:
Refers to the conversion of land surrounding urban areas to non-
agricultural or non-natural uses.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP):
USDA program authorized in 1990 which offers payment for the
restoration of wetlands that have been previously drained and converted
to agricultural uses. USDA acquires easements for thirty years or
perpetuity based on the agricultural value of the land and offers cost-
share payments for restoration costs.
Wildlife habitat:
Refers to the impact of agricultural production on wildlife habitat and
species.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP):
USDA program authorized in 1996 which provides financial incentives to
develop habitats for fish and wildlife on private land. USDA provides
cost-share for the wildlife habitat development and requires landowners
to enter into five- to ten-year agreements.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Linda Libician:
(214) 777-5709:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Gary Brown, Tom Cook, and
Joanna McFarland made key contributions to this report. Important
contributions were also made by Wendy Ahmed and Luann Moy.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Food Security Act of 1985 introduced the conservation
compliance program to combat soil erosion. This program requires
farmers to implement approved soil conservation systems on highly
erodible land in order to receive certain USDA benefits. Conservation
compliance applies to over 140 million acres of highly erodible land.
[2] Board on Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences, Soil and Water
Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture (1993).
[3] Conservation Reserve Program: Alternatives Are Available for
Managing Environmentally Sensitive Cropland [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-95-42], Feb. 21, 1995.
[4] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Policy:
Taking Stock for the New Century (September 2001).
[5] For example, while depletion of surface water sources is a major
environmental concern in the Pacific region, it is less of a concern in
regions such as the Corn Belt.
[6] The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and
implementing regulations prohibit large livestock and poultry
operations greater than 1,000 animal units from receiving EQIP funding
for construction of animal waste management facilities.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext 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
[hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://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:
