U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Additional Flexibility Needed to Deal with Farmlands Received from the Department of Agriculture Gao ID: GAO-07-1092 September 18, 2007Over the past two decades, provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, among others, have allowed the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency in partnership with the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to add farmlands found to have important resources to the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Farm Service Agency transferred such farmlands to the Service through outright ownership ("fee simple") or through conservation easements. Individual farmlands are managed by the nearest refuge office. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent of farmland received by the Service, (2) the extent to which the Service is currently managing its farmlands, and (3) alternatives for managing these lands. To answer these objectives, GAO visited five refuges and surveyed managers responsible for a random sample of 98 farmlands.
Since 1986, the Service reports that it has received at least 1,400 conservation easement and fee-simple farmlands covering 132,000 acres, but the actual number is unknown because the Service's records are incomplete. Scattered across 38 states, these farmlands range in size from less than 1 acre to more than 2,200 acres; most are smaller than 50 acres. In addition, GAO identified farmlands that were not reported by the Service headquarters or regional offices. Therefore, the numbers reported here represent a conservative estimate of the total acreage received from the Farm Service Agency. The Service is generally not managing a majority of its farmlands. In the past 5 years, only 13 percent have been inspected annually, on average. The Service is thus not adequately ensuring landowners' compliance with easement restrictions. GAO observed ongoing easement violations, including farming encroachment. Few refuge offices track changes in land ownership, and basic maintenance has seldom been completed. Several factors have hindered the Service's farmland management. First, refuge officials do not emphasize managing most of the lands because they do not believe they contribute to the refuges' mission. Second, uncertainty about the extent or scope of some easements makes management activity difficult. Third, constrained resources and declining staff hinder completion of management activities. Nevertheless, GAO found that farmlands most closely aligned with refuge goals receive considerably more attention. The Service possesses limited alternatives for managing its farmlands. Alternatives include (1) resetting refuge priorities to ensure that farmlands are given management attention, (2) requesting additional resources, and (3) paying little or no management attention to the farmlands. The Service has in most cases chosen the third alternative, and refuge officials indicated that this approach is unlikely to change. Because these lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, under current law the Service cannot dispose of unwanted farmlands, regardless of their value to the refuge system's mission. Consequently, the Service may need additional flexibility on a limited and short-term basis to resolve the issue of unwanted farmlands.
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-07-1092, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional Flexibility Needed to Deal with Farmlands Received from the Department of Agriculture
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1092
entitled 'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional Flexibility Needed
to Deal with Farmlands Received from the Department of Agriculture'
which was released on September 20, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2007:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Additional Flexibility Needed to Deal with Farmlands Received from the
Department of Agriculture:
Management of Farmlands:
GAO-07-1092:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1092, a report to the Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Over the past two decades, provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985,
among others, have allowed the Department of Agriculture‘s Farm Service
Agency in partnership with the Department of the Interior‘s U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) to add farmlands found to have important
resources to the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Farm Service
Agency transferred such farmlands to the Service through outright
ownership (’fee simple“) or through conservation easements. Individual
farmlands are managed by the nearest refuge office.
GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent of farmland received by the
Service, (2) the extent to which the Service is currently managing its
farmlands, and (3) alternatives for managing these lands. To answer
these objectives, GAO visited five refuges and surveyed managers
responsible for a random sample of 98 farmlands.
Figure: Farming Enroachment in Violation of a Wetland Easement, April
2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
What GAO Found:
Since 1986, the Service reports that it has received at least 1,400
conservation easement and fee-simple farmlands covering 132,000 acres,
but the actual number is unknown because the Service‘s records are
incomplete. Scattered across 38 states, these farmlands range in size
from less than 1 acre to more than 2,200 acres; most are smaller than
50 acres. In addition, GAO identified farmlands that were not reported
by the Service headquarters or regional offices. Therefore, the numbers
reported here represent a conservative estimate of the total acreage
received from the Farm Service Agency.
The Service is generally not managing a majority of its farmlands. In
the past 5 years, only 13 percent have been inspected annually, on
average. The Service is thus not adequately ensuring landowners‘
compliance with easement restrictions. GAO observed ongoing easement
violations, including farming encroachment (see photo below). Few
refuge offices track changes in land ownership, and basic maintenance
has seldom been completed. Several factors have hindered the Service‘s
farmland management. First, refuge officials do not emphasize managing
most of the lands because they do not believe they contribute to the
refuges‘ mission. Second, uncertainty about the extent or scope of some
easements makes management activity difficult. Third, constrained
resources and declining staff hinder completion of management
activities. Nevertheless, GAO found that farmlands most closely aligned
with refuge goals receive considerably more attention.
The Service possesses limited alternatives for managing its farmlands.
Alternatives include (1) resetting refuge priorities to ensure that
farmlands are given management attention, (2) requesting additional
resources, and (3) paying little or no management attention to the
farmlands. The Service has in most cases chosen the third alternative,
and refuge officials indicated that this approach is unlikely to
change. Because these lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, under current law the Service cannot dispose of unwanted
farmlands, regardless of their value to the refuge system‘s mission.
Consequently, the Service may need additional flexibility on a limited
and short-term basis to resolve the issue of unwanted farmlands.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Service ensure that its records for all its
farmlands are accurate and complete and that it develop a proposal to
Congress seeking authority for additional flexibility in dealing with
farmlands the Service determines may not be in the best interest of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. In commenting on a draft of this
report, the Department of the Interior concurred with GAO‘s
recommendations.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1092].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Service Has Received at Least 1,400 Farmlands Covering 132,000
Acres, but the Actual Number Is Unknown:
The Service Is Generally Not Managing the Majority of Its Farmlands:
The Service Has Limited Alternatives for Managing Its Farmlands:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Survey of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Farmland
Management:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Executive Orders and Legislation Relevant to the Farm Service
Agency's Inventory Program:
Table 2: Size of Farmlands Received by the Service:
Table 3: Estimated Travel Times between the Managing Refuge Offices and
Their Farmlands:
Table 4: Selected Survey Questions:
Table 5: Numbers and Percentages of Properties Inspected and Not
Inspected in the Past 2 Years, by Size, Distance, and Number of
Properties, and Odds and Odds Ratios Derived from Them:
Table 6: Confidence Intervals Associated with the Estimated Percentage
of Properties Inspected, by Size, Distance, and Number of Properties:
Figures:
Figure 1: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions:
Figure 2: Example of an Easement Placed on Farm Property:
Figure 3: Concentration of Service Farmlands by State:
Figure 4: Number of Farmlands Received by the Service, by Calendar
Year:
Figure 5: Estimated Frequency of Inspections from Calendar Year 2002
through 2006:
Figure 6: Farming Activities in Violation of a Wetland Easement, April
2007:
Figure 7: Location of the Farmlands That Michigan's Shiawassee National
Wildlife Refuge Is Responsible for Managing:
Figure 8: Old Farmhouse in New York, Renovated to Serve as a Refuge
Office, April 2007:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 18, 2007:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable Todd Tiahrt:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Since the early 1900s, public lands have been set aside to protect
natural ecosystems, provide habitat for wildlife, and offer Americans
recreational opportunities. In the mid-1960s, Congress consolidated
many of these lands into the National Wildlife Refuge System, a vast,
ecologically diverse and valuable network of lands administered by the
Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
Today, this system comprises 548 wildlife refuges covering 96 million
acres, of which more than 17 million acres are located in the
continental United States.[Footnote 1] The mission of the refuge system
is to "administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans."[Footnote 2] The system includes land that has always been
federally owned, as well as land that has been acquired from other
parties, including state governments and private entities.
Through the Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill) and subsequent
legislation, some land was added to the refuge system through a
partnership with the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service
Agency.[Footnote 3] This agency was established in part to provide
loans to farmers who were otherwise unable to secure enough funding to
operate their farms. If a farmer was unable to repay such a loan,
however, the Farm Service Agency sometimes foreclosed on the loan and
acquired the farm property. Properties thus acquired went into the Farm
Service Agency's inventory, with the goal that they would eventually be
sold back into private ownership. Because of a distressed farm economy
at the time, the Farm Service Agency had over a million acres of
inventory properties when the 1985 Farm Bill became law. Provisions of
the Farm Bill and subsequent legislation authorized the Farm Service
Agency to acquire land or interests in land for conservation purposes.
Under these authorities, the Farm Service Agency placed conservation
protections on its inventory properties that contained important
resources, which it defined as wetlands, riparian zones,[Footnote 4]
floodplains, coastal barriers, and other areas of high ecological
quality or important fish and wildlife habitat. In carrying out these
authorities, the Farm Service Agency generally consulted with the
Service to determine, among other things, which properties should be
protected. A memorandum of understanding signed in 1987 implements this
and other environmental management responsibilities of the two
agencies. Given the significant number of inventory properties in the
mid-1980s, the Service reviewed thousands of these properties over the
following decade and if important resources were identified on any
portion of a property, the Service recommended that the Farm Service
Agency protect that portion.
The Service recommended placement of conservation protections on
certain lands, but the Farm Service Agency made the final decision,
often negotiating with the Service on the specific number and location
of acres on a property that would be protected. Such protections
usually consisted of placing a perpetual easement on the property
before selling it back into private ownership or, in certain cases,
transferring outright ownership in fee simple to another federal or
state agency, although preference was given to the Service. An easement
is a nonpossessory interest in land. With an easement, the original
landowner retains possession of the land, but, depending on which
resources are being protected, the easement places restrictions on the
land's use. All of the easements prohibit landowners from further
developing the land subject to the easement, and many do not allow any
agricultural activities or alteration of the habitat. Not all of the
properties that the Service recommended for protection were of
equivalent ecological value, however. In some cases, for example, the
Service recommended protecting a site whose soil or other
characteristics indicated that it once was or could again become a
wetland, even if the site was no longer a wetland at the time because
of alteration of the habitat from farming practices, such as draining
or leveling the land. In addition, the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills
restricted the agency's authority to establish easements under the
program.[Footnote 5]
In addition to helping the Farm Service Agency assess inventory
properties for important resources, in most instances the Service
agreed to serve as the manager of the easement properties. Other
federal or state agencies and private nonprofit organizations could
also assume this duty,[Footnote 6] but the Farm Service Agency gave
priority to the Service. Moreover, Service policy held that it would
become the easement manager of farmlands[Footnote 7] it had recommended
for protection, unless another federal or state easement manager had
been identified. It was not uncommon for a federal or state agency,
including the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or a
state land management agency, to receive fee-simple lands or easement
management responsibilities, although the majority of the farmlands
were accepted by the Service. All farmlands received by the Service
from the Farm Service Agency--whether through an easement or fee-simple
ownership--were to be administered as part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, with management responsibility for each farmland
generally falling to the nearest refuge office. Service guidance
stipulates that refuge offices are responsible for management
activities, including regularly inspecting farmlands to check for
violations, determining whether landowners are complying with all the
easement restrictions, and taking enforcement actions on violations.
Because the lands, or the interests in the lands, are government
property, the Service may take civil or criminal action against
violators for the "destruction" of government property.[Footnote 8]
Refuge offices are also responsible for maintaining contact with
landowners, particularly new landowners; conducting maintenance,
including marking easement boundaries and sometimes installing or
maintaining fencing; and in some cases doing ecological restoration,
such as restoring wetlands.
After enactment of the 1985 Farm Bill, the Service accepted management
responsibilities for farmlands that were sometimes situated miles from
the nearest refuge and others that, after years of being farmed, were
ecologically degraded. From the outset, some refuge offices had
concerns about receiving certain farmlands. Refuge officials were often
not involved in the initial assessment of the inventory properties or
in the decision to accept management responsibility as part of the
refuge system. Particularly in cases where the farmlands were widely
scattered or a long way from the nearest refuge office, refuge
officials were concerned because of the potential costs of managing
such far-flung parcels. Service policy, however, held that the relative
size of a farmland or its proximity to an existing refuge should not be
an overriding consideration in recommending a property for an easement
or fee-simple acquisition; rather, according to a memorandum from the
Director of the Service in 1988, the Service should make every effort
to protect all lands identified as having important resources,
regardless of acreage. In addition, some procedural and coordination
problems between the two agencies were never fully resolved. For
example, the Service was not always notified of the Farm Service
Agency's final decision on its recommendations for protection, and in
some cases it was several years after a recommendation was made that
the property was removed from inventory and an easement placed on the
land. Also, in many cases the Farm Service Agency did not legally
survey the land to outline precise boundaries.
In contrast, in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States, which
comprises portions of the states of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North
Dakota, and South Dakota, farmlands received from the Farm Service
Agency have been managed much like other easements the Service has
acquired there. The Service has had a long-standing easement program in
this region to protect wetlands and grasslands for the benefit of
migratory waterfowl. It has run a regular program to manage all of its
easement acquisitions in the region, including farmlands received from
the Farm Service Agency, largely through routine aerial surveillance
and on-the-ground inspections of suspected violations. Today the
Service has more than 28,000 perpetual easements in the Prairie Pothole
Region, covering more than 2.3 million acres, including more than
68,000 acres of easements from the Farm Service Agency. Because of the
unique nature of this program, we excluded the farmlands found in the
Prairie Pothole Region from our review. Concurrent with this report, we
are reporting separately on the Service's land acquisitions in this
region.
For this report, outside of the Prairie Pothole Region, we examined (1)
the extent of farmland received by the Service from the Farm Service
Agency, (2) the extent to which the Service is currently managing its
farmlands, and (3) alternatives for managing these lands.
To address the objectives of this report, we visited and collected
documentation from five refuges located in five different regions. We
also interviewed officials at and collected documentation from the
Service's headquarters and eight regional offices, as well as the Farm
Service Agency's headquarters and four of its state offices.
Additionally, we drew a random sample of 98 farmlands, obtained from a
list provided by the Service, and conducted a telephone survey with the
51 refuge office managers responsible for these lands about the
management activities they have undertaken on the lands during the
years 2002 through 2006. We received responses from 100 percent of our
sample, and the results can be projected to the population of
documented farmlands, with an overall margin of error of ±10 percentage
points at the 95 percent confidence level unless otherwise noted.
Specifically, to determine the extent of the Service's acquisition of
farmlands, we obtained and reviewed property records from the Service's
headquarters and regional offices and the refuge offices that we
visited. We assessed the reliability of the data and found it to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We were informed
by some regional realty officials, however, that the database was
probably incomplete. Consequently, we contacted each regional office to
determine if the offices maintained additional farmland records outside
of the centralized database. Three Service regions provided us with
additional farmland records that were not contained in the database. To
determine the extent to which the Service is currently managing its
farmlands, we reviewed relevant agency guidance for managing easement
and fee-simple lands. Through our site visits and survey, we collected
information on the Service's management activities, including
information on inspections, enforcement, contacts with landowners,
maintenance, and restoration, and on factors affecting their management
of farmlands. Finally, to determine alternatives for managing these
lands, we examined the Service's management challenges and discussed
them with Department of the Interior officials, including officials
from the Service's Realty and Refuge Offices, and the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Solicitor. We performed our work from
September 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Appendixes I and II present a more
detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
The Service's records indicate that it has received at least 1,400
easement and fee-simple farmlands from the Farm Service Agency since
1986, but the actual number is unknown because the Service's farmland
records are incomplete. According to the Service's records, the
farmlands are scattered across 38 states and range in size from less
than 1 acre to more than 2,200 acres, although most are smaller than 50
acres. The majority of the lands were acquired between 1986 and the mid-
1990s; acquisitions over the past 10 years have been minimal. The
Service is responsible for managing more than 132,000 farmland acres,
of which about half are included in the Service's centralized land
records database. We learned of the remaining half from three regional
offices, because the lands had not been entered into this centralized
database. Roughly 90 percent of the lands have easements on them, and
about 10 percent are owned in fee simple. Most of the lands were
received to protect wetlands, but some were meant to protect other
resources, including floodplains or specific wildlife habitats. In
addition, we identified farmlands that were not in the Service's
database or reported to us by the regional offices, and we therefore
conclude that the figures we report represent a conservative estimate
of the total farmland acreage received from the Farm Service Agency.
Specifically, at several refuges we visited, we found that the refuge
office kept files on additional easement farmlands. At one of the
refuges we visited, for example, we identified 5 additional easements
and another 31 potential, or unconfirmed, easements. Moreover, in some
instances, because of incomplete records, the Service may be unaware of
certain farmlands that it is in fact responsible for managing. For
example, in one region, a realty official told us that a landowner
recently called the Service with concerns about an easement on his
land, but the Service was unaware of the easement because no record of
it existed with the Service. After reviewing records at the county
courthouse in which the land was located, the official was able to
confirm that an easement had indeed been placed on the land.
The Service is generally not managing the majority of the farmlands it
received from the Farm Service Agency. Specifically, it has inspected
only an estimated 13 percent of its farmlands annually, on average,
over the last 5 years and, as a result, may be unaware of violations
and unable to ensure compliance with the restrictions on its easement
lands. At four of the five refuges we visited, we observed violations
on at least one of the refuge's easement lands, such as farming
encroachment, grazing, or removal of vegetation. Few refuge offices
have tracked changes in land ownership to ensure that new landowners
are aware of easements, and very little maintenance or restoration work
has been completed on the farmlands. Often, not even basic maintenance,
such as maintaining fencing, has been completed; yet when easement
restrictions prohibit activities such as grazing, fencing may be
critical to ensure cattle do not enter and graze the area. We found
that the Service's management activities on its farmlands are hindered
by the following several factors:
* First, devoting significant management attention to many of the
farmlands has not been emphasized by the refuge offices. Refuge
officials do not believe that these lands contribute significantly to
the refuges' goals or mission, largely because the farmlands are too
small, isolated, or located great distances from the managing refuge
office. For example, over 75 percent of the farmlands are smaller than
100 acres. Several refuge managers commented that they would consider
100 acres the minimum size needed to support ecological viability,
especially given the lands' often isolated nature. Additionally, 83
percent of the farmlands are located an hour or more away from their
respective refuges, making it difficult for managers to visit them.
Because managing the farmlands has not been a high priority, the lands
may not be achieving the conservation purpose for which they were
acquired.
* Second, management of easement lands may be difficult because of
uncertainty surrounding the scope and extent of the easements. For
example, boundaries are not clear to many refuge managers because
detailed surveys were not done when the easements were established on
these lands. When easement boundaries are not well defined, refuge
managers may not be able to determine if a violation is occurring on
the land.
* Third, the Service is operating with constrained resources and
declining refuge staff, and therefore the staff are not able to
complete all the activities they believe are necessary to manage the
farmlands. Over the past several years, refuge staff have been reduced
significantly, and the Service plans to further reduce the refuges'
workforce in the next 3 years under current workforce-planning efforts
aimed at cutting expenses. For an estimated 88 percent of farmlands,
the responsible refuge managers believe that they have not had enough
resources over the past 5 years to manage their farmlands.
While the Service is generally not managing the majority of its
farmlands, in some instances we identified farmlands to which the
refuges are devoting resources and paying a significant amount of
management attention, largely because the lands more closely align with
the refuges' goals. For example, we visited one easement land that
provided an important connection between the refuge boundary and a
critical river running through the area, and the refuge had completed
extensive restoration work.
The Service possesses limited alternatives for managing the farmlands
it has received from the Farm Service Agency because the lands became
part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The alternatives the
Service has had at its disposal generally include (1) resetting refuge
priorities to ensure that farmlands are given management attention, (2)
requesting additional resources, and (3) paying little or no management
attention to the farmlands. Over the past 20 years, in the rare
instances where farmlands significantly contributed to the refuges'
goals and mission, individual refuges made them a priority and obtained
the necessary resources to manage them. These well-managed farmlands
have been the exception rather than the rule, however. The majority of
the farmlands are neglected because they do not contribute
significantly to the goals of the refuges or because they are costly to
manage relative to their real or perceived ecological value. On these
lands, the Service is not meeting its management responsibilities and,
in some cases, may be permitting the destruction of government
property. Although some of these farmlands may have little or no value
to the Service, they are now subject to the National Wildlife Refuge
System's restrictions on land disposal, so the Service generally cannot
dispose of unwanted farmlands. Other federal land management agencies
have authorities that give them more flexibility in managing their
lands, which could serve as models for legislation providing similar
authority to the Service on a limited or short-term basis to resolve
the issue of unwanted farmlands. For example, the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service has the authority to sell certain small,
isolated, low-market-value parcels of its landholdings under specific
conditions.
To ensure that the Service is able to provide an accurate accounting of
its farmlands and has an accurate assessment of its overall farmland
management responsibilities, we are recommending that the Secretary of
the Interior direct the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Service's records of its
farmlands are accurate and complete. In addition, we are recommending
that the Service develop a proposal to Congress seeking authority for
additional flexibility to deal with farmlands that it deems not in the
best interest to continue to include as part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. Factors affecting how significantly individual farmlands
contribute to the mission of the refuge system, along with current and
long-term management costs, will be important considerations for
determining which farmlands may not be in the best long-term interest
of the system. Once such considerations are weighed, the Service can
determine an appropriate proposal for congressional consideration.
Since it could take years for the Service to develop a proposal and
have the proposal acted on by Congress, as well as for the Service to
exercise any new authority that may be provided, we are not making a
recommendation at this time concerning the current level of management
occurring on its farmlands. Nevertheless, we believe that the Service
should be mindful of ensuring a minimum level of management attention
to the farmlands it ultimately retains. In commenting on a draft of
this report, the Department of the Interior concurred with our
recommendations and provided several technical clarifications, which we
have made as appropriate. Appendix III presents the Department of the
Interior's comment letter. The Department of Agriculture did not
provide comments.
Background:
The National Wildlife Refuge System provides habitat for more than
5,000 species of birds, mammals, and fish, and these refuges protect
unique wildlife habitats and species. Under the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, the Service is
responsible for managing each refuge to fulfill the mission of the
system as a whole, as well as to fulfill the specific purposes for
which the individual refuge was established.[Footnote 9] Therefore,
refuges often have additional conservation goals tailored to a specific
purpose, such as protecting the habitat of particular endangered or
threatened species. Individual refuges may consist of contiguous tracts
of land--ranging from less than 1 acre to more than 19 million acres--
or separate tracts of land scattered over one or more states. Each
refuge may encompass land that is (1) completely federally owned; (2)
primarily federally owned, with isolated tracts of nonfederal land; or
(3) in a few refuges, primarily nonfederally owned, with isolated
tracts of federal land. Each refuge is managed by a refuge manager and
other refuge staff, including biologists, law enforcement officers, and
other specialized staff.[Footnote 10] One of the Service's eight
regional offices oversees the activities of each refuge;[Footnote 11]
each region reports to Service headquarters in Washington, D.C. (see
fig. 1).
Figure 1: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
The Service has a process for adding lands to the refuge system: it may
acquire land by purchasing the land itself or purchasing interests in
the land, by accepting donations of land from nonfederal entities, by
accepting land transfers from other federal agencies, or by requesting
a transfer of land from the public domain into the refuge
system.[Footnote 12] The Service can also exchange tracts of land with
nonfederal entities, such as state agencies or private landowners,
although the tracts of land must be comparably valued. With few
exceptions, all lands that become part of the refuge system continue to
be included in the system until otherwise specified by an act of
Congress.[Footnote 13] Typically, when evaluating lands for inclusion
in the refuge system, the Service conducts an assessment of the land,
which includes an in-depth biological evaluation and opportunities for
public participation and also requires approval by the Service Director
or one of the regional directors. The Service keeps an inventory of
acquired lands, or interests in lands, in a centralized database
maintained by realty offices in Service headquarters and regions.
The Service has also added lands to the refuge system through the
partnership it developed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm
Service Agency to help it implement provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill
and subsequent legislation. Even before the 1985 Farm Bill was passed,
the Farm Service Agency had an affirmative responsibility to protect
any of its inventory properties that had wetland or floodplain values.
Two executive orders issued in 1977 called on all federal agencies to
minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to
restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values supported by
floodplains.[Footnote 14] In carrying out their responsibilities,
including acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands, federal
agencies were to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values
of wetlands.[Footnote 15] The 1985 Farm Bill and subsequent legislation
provided the Farm Service Agency the authority to protect any of its
land that contained wetlands and floodplains, in addition to other
important resources. Specifically, the Farm Service Agency had the
authority to place perpetual conservation easements on inventory
properties that contained important resources or to transfer lands in
fee simple to other entities, such as federal, state, or local
government agencies.[Footnote 16] Since the 1985 Farm Bill was enacted,
subsequent legislation substantially changed the amount and type of
lands available for protection. Notably, the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills
restricted the agency's authority to establish easements under the
program. For example, the 1990 Farm Bill limited authorized easements
on certain parcels of lands to no more than 20 percent of the parcel
available for agricultural production. The 1996 Farm Bill removed these
restrictions but imposed strict procedural requirements for
establishing an easement. Table 1 summarizes the major executive orders
and legislation affecting the protection of farmlands.
Table 1: Executive Orders and Legislation Relevant to the Farm Service
Agency's Inventory Program:
Executive orders and legislation: Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain
Management[A];
Date: May 24, 1977;
Major provisions: Ordered federal agencies, in carrying out their
responsibilities, to "take action to reduce the risk of flood loss;
to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare;
and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains.".
Executive orders and legislation: Executive Order 11990 on Protection
of Wetlands[B];
Date: May 24, 1977;
Major provisions: Ordered federal agencies, in carrying out their
responsibilities, to "take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or
degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and
beneficial values of wetlands.".
Executive orders and legislation: Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Farm
Bill)[C];
Date: Dec. 23, 1985;
Major provisions: Authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire
easements in real property for conservation, recreational, and wildlife
purposes as part of farm loan debt restructuring. A portion of a
farmer's outstanding farm loan(s) was canceled when an easement was
acquired by the United States. The Secretary, or any person or federal,
state, or local governmental entity, could be designated as the party
responsible for enforcing the easement. The act also authorized the
Secretary to grant or sell an easement, restriction, development
rights, or equivalent thereof to a unit of local or state government or
to a private nonprofit organization for conservation purposes.
Executive orders and legislation: Agricultural Credit Act of 1987[D];
Date: Jan. 6, 1988;
Major provisions: Authorized the Secretary of Agriculture, under
certain circumstances, to transfer without reimbursement to any federal
or state agency for conservation purposes any real property or interest
in real property (i.e., an easement).
Executive orders and legislation: Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (1990 Farm Bill)[E];
Date: Nov. 28, 1990;
Major provisions: Imposed a number of restrictions on the Secretary of
Agriculture when establishing perpetual wetland conservation easements.
In establishing easements, the Secretary was directed to "avoid, to the
extent practicable, an adverse impact on the productivity of the
croplands." For example, in certain cases, easement acreage was limited
to 10 or 20 percent of the existing cropland, and the buffer area
adjacent to a wetland was generally not to exceed 100 feet in average
width.
Executive orders and legislation: Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Bill)[F];
Date: Apr. 4, 1996;
Major provisions: Modified the restrictions added by the 1990 Farm Bill
and imposed new procedural requirements for the transfer authority
authorized by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. The limitations on
percentage of acreage in the 1990 Farm Bill were replaced with the
limitation that the Secretary of Agriculture should not establish a
wetland conservation easement on an inventoried property that was
cropland on the date the property entered inventory or was used for
farming at any time within 5 years of entering inventory. The new
procedural requirements on the transfer authority included public
notices; consultations with the applicable governor and at least one
elected county official; and the possibility of at least one public
meeting, if requested.
Source: GAO analysis of executive orders and legislation.
Note: The provisions for the Farm Service Agency's farmlands easement
programs are codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 1985(g), 1997, and 2002.
[A] 42 Fed. Reg. 26951, May 25, 1977.
[B] 42 Fed. Reg. 26961, May 25, 1977.
[C] Pub. L. No. 99-198, title XIII, §§ 1314(a)(2)(B) and 1318(a), 99
Stat. 1354, 1530-1 (1985).
[D] Pub. L. No. 100-233, title VI, §§ 612 and 616, 101 Stat. 1568, 1674
and 1682 (1988).
[E] Pub. L. No. 101-624, title XVIII, subtitle A, §§ 1813(h) and 1815,
and title XXIII, § 2388(j), 104 Stat. 3359, 3823-4, 3825-6, and 4053
(1990).
[F] Pub. L. No. 104-127, title VI, subtitle D, §§ 639, 642, and 646,
110 Stat. 888, 1097, 1102, and 1103-4, (1996).
[End of table]
In establishing easements, the Farm Service Agency generally used
boilerplate language that it developed in coordination with the
Service. Largely, it placed very restrictive easements on those
portions of the property that contained important resources. Easement
restrictions prevented the landowner from developing the land,
conducting agricultural practices, altering the vegetation or hydrology
of the land in any way, or otherwise disturbing the land. In some
cases, if the purpose of the easement was to protect a floodplain, then
less-restrictive easement language was used. On these easements, most
agricultural practices were allowed, and the landowner was restricted
primarily from developing the land.
In delineating easement boundaries on a property, the Farm Service
Agency generally established easement areas embedded within noneasement
farmland because the agency was protecting only those portions of the
property encompassing important resources. For example, on a 150-acre
farm, an easement might have protected only the 23 acres that
constituted a buffer to a stream running through the property. Or if
several wetlands were identified on a 320-acre field, only those
wetlands, possibly along with a buffer, might have received protection,
while the remainder of the field could still have been farmed (see fig.
2). As a result, easement areas might consist of multiple,
noncontiguous parcels on the larger farm property.
Figure 2: Example of an Easement Placed on Farm Property:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
The Service Has Received at Least 1,400 Farmlands Covering 132,000
Acres, but the Actual Number Is Unknown:
The Service's records indicate that it has received at least 1,400
easement and fee-simple farmlands from the Farm Service Agency since
1986, but the actual number is unknown. According to its records, the
Service is responsible for managing over 132,000 acres of mostly small
farmlands scattered across 38 states. In addition, we identified
farmlands besides those in the Service's centralized database or
reported to us by the regional offices. Consequently, we conclude that
the figures we report represent a conservative estimate for the total
amount of the Service's farmlands.
Since 1986, the Service Has Received Mostly Small Farmlands Scattered
across 38 States:
According to its records, the Service has received at least 1,400
farmlands from the Farm Service Agency.[Footnote 17] About 90 percent
of the lands are privately owned, with easements on them; the Service
owns the remaining 10 percent in fee simple. The farmlands cover more
than 132,000 acres and range in size from less than 1 acre to more than
2,200 acres. Most of the farmlands, however, are small. Specifically,
more than half the farmlands are smaller than 50 acres, and only about
1 percent are larger than 1,000 acres (see table 2).
Table 2: Size of Farmlands Received by the Service:
Size in acres:
