    Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees' Views on
    How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns
    (22-FEB-02, GAO-02-295).

    Private 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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-295
        ACCNO:   A02691
      TITLE:     Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees'
    Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental
    Concerns
         DATE:   02/22/2002
      SUBJECT:   Agricultural programs
    	     Conservation
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Land management
    	     Natural resources
    	     Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
    	     USDA Conservation Reserve Program
    	     USDA Environmental Quality Incentives
    	     Program

    	     USDA Farmland Protection Program
    	     Wetlands Reserve Program
    	     Wildlife Habit Incentives Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-02-295

    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

                                         1

                                        3 5

                                         9

    23 32 33 34

    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 43

    Objectives and Scope 43
    Survey Methodology 43
    Sampling Errors and Confidence Intervals of Estimates 44
    Controlling for Nonsampling Errors 45
    Methodology for Obtaining Additional Information 45

    Appendix IV Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 76

    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

    6 36 36 37

    37

    Figures

    Figure 1: USDA Conservation Program Payments, Fiscal Year 2000 8 Figure 2:
    Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as Effective in Addressing
    Environmental Concerns 10 Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing
    CRP-Based

    Programs as "Very" or "Extremely" Effective in

    Addressing Environmental Concerns 12 Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of
    Members Viewing WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and FPP as "Very" or "Extremely" Effective
    in Addressing Environmental Concerns 15 Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of
    Members in Each Region

    Viewing CRP-Based Programs as "Very" or "Extremely"

    Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns 16 Figure 6: Estimated
    Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WRP as "Very" or "Extremely"
    Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns 18 Figure 7: Estimated
    Percentage of Members in Each Region

    Viewing EQIP as "Very" or "Extremely" Effective in

    Addressing Environmental Concerns 19 Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of
    Members in Each Region Viewing WHIP as "Very" or "Extremely" Effective in
    Addressing Environmental Concerns 20 Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of
    Members in Each Region

    Viewing FPP as "Very" or "Extremely" Effective in

    Addressing Environmental Concerns 21 Figure 10: Estimated Percentage of
    Members Viewing Programs as Effective in Assisting Different Sizes and Types
    of Agricultural Operations 22

    Figure   11:   Estimated  Percentage   of   Members  Indicating   Provisions

    of CRP General "Somewhat" or "Greatly" Hinder

    Achievement of Environmental Objectives 24
    Figure   12:   Estimated  Percentage   of   Members  Indicating   Provisions

    of CRP Continuous "Somewhat" or "Greatly" Hinder

    Achievement of Environmental Objectives 26
    Figure    13:    Estimated   Percentage    of    Members   Indicating    WRP

    Provisions "Somewhat" or "Greatly" Hinder Achievement

    of Environmental Objectives 27
    Figure    14:   Estimated    Percentage    of   Members    Indicating   EQIP

    Provisions "Somewhat" or "Greatly" Hinder Achievement

    of Environmental Objectives 29
    Figure    15:   Estimated    Percentage   of   Members    Viewing   Programs

    Having "Less Than Enough" or "Much Less Than Enough"

    Technical Assistance 30
    Figure    16:    Estimated   Percentage    of    Members   Citing    Program

    Elements as "Somewhat" or "Very" Important in

    Modifying or Creating New Programs 31
    Figure 17: Actual and Member-Proposed Allocations of Fiscal

    Years 1996-2000 Funds to USDA Conservation Programs 32
    Figure 18: CRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000 38
    Figure 19: WRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000 39
    Figure 20: EQIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000 40
    Figure 21: FPP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000 41
    Figure 22: WHIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000 42

    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

    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
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi�bin/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 Purpose, authorizing legislation Program description

                                    1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions)

    Conservation     To improve soil, water,    Provides annual rental payments
                     and wildlife                               and cost-share
    Reserve Program  resources by taking      assistance to establish permanent
                     cropland out of                             land cover in
    (CRP) General    production and           exchange for taking whole fields
                     converting it to a       of

    Enrollment       conserving use           environmentally sensitive
                                              cropland out of
                                              production for 10-15 years
                     Food Security Act of
    FSA              1985

                                       $9,837

    CRP Continuous Enrollment

    a

    Option FSA

    b

    To improve soil, water, and wildlife Same as CRP General Enrollment except
    allows resources by taking cropland out of enrollment at any time for
    smaller parcels of land production, targeting the most highly that provide
    especially high environmental sensitive land benefits, such as narrow strips
    of land adjacent to

    water bodies, and offers additional incentives

    Food Security Act of 1985

    b

    Conservation To address specific state and nationally Same as CRP General
    Enrollment and CRP Reserve significant soil, water, and wildlife resource
    Continuous Enrollment option except partners Enhancement issues by taking
    cropland out of production with states and targets specific state
    conservation Program (CREP)c objectives and offers additional incentives

    Federal Agriculture Improvement and FSA Reform Act of 1996

       Wetlands     To restore and protect wetlands,  Offers cost-share assistance for  $845
                                   to                          restoration or
    Reserve Program  improve water quality, enhance   purchase of permanent or 30-year
                                wildlife                       easements for
         (WRP)      habitat, reduce soil erosion and the agricultural value of the land
                               flooding,
                       and improve water supply by
                               restoring

         NRCS         marginal agricultural land to
                              its previous
                           wetland condition

    Food Security Act of 1985d

    Environmental To improve soil quality, water quality and Offers incentive
    payments and cost-share Quality Incentives supply, and wildlife habitat on
    lands in assistance under 5-10 year contracts, allocating Program (EQIP)
    agricultural production half of funds to natural resource concerns related

    to livestock production and targeting at least 65 NRCSe Federal Agriculture

    Improvement and percent of state funds to priority areas

    Reform Act of 1996

                                       $1,038

    Wildlife Habitat   To develop wildlife habitat       Offers cost-share assistance    $63
                                                              through 5-10 year

       Incentives                                     agreements to develop and improve
                                                                  wildlife

     Program (WHIP)         Federal Agriculture                    habitat
                             Improvement and
                            Reform Act of 1996
          NRCS

       Farmland    To limit the conversion of         Purchases easements for land       $52
                   land to non-                               development

      Protection        agricultural uses           rights in partnership with state,
                                                           tribal, and local
    Program (FPP)                                government, as well as non-governmental
                   Federal Agriculture           organizations for a minimum duration of
                   Improvement and                              30 years
         NRCS           Reform Act of 1996

    aFSA  took administrative  action in 1997  to allow an option  under the CRP
    permitting enrollment at any time.

    bFunded from CRP General Enrollment.

    cCRP option that uses CRP authority in combination with state resources.

    dAlthough WRP was authorized in 1985, it was not implemented until 1992.

    eFSA has some administrative responsibilities.

    Source: GAO's analysis of USDA's data.

    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

    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.

    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

    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.

    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

    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.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, 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.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.4

    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 (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).

    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

    Note: Shown are environmental concerns that are important for each program.

    Members Indicated that Because of the wide diversity in agricultural
    production settings, Programs Are Not as environmental needs differ across
    regions.5 While members were Effective in Assisting Some generally positive

    about the assistance provided by USDA's conservation

    programs, as figure 5 shows, members in the Northeast and PacificRegions of
    the Country regions, which receive a relatively small portion of total
    conservationand Types of Agricultural funds, regarded CRP General and CRP
    Continuous as less effective in Operations 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

    Note: CREP was not implemented in the Delta and Mountain regions at the time
    of our survey.

    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.

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.

    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.

    Note: We considered members viewing programs as effective as those that
    responded that the programs were "moderately," "very," or "extremely"
    effective.

    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.

    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
    signup 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.

    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.

    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 operations6 "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.

    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.

    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).

    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

    Members Would Like to See Programs Provide Increased Flexibility and
    Emphasis on Local Priorities

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    Conclusions

    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.

    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

    Recommendation for Executive Action

    Agency Comments
    and Our Evaluation

    regulations to incorporate these views would require legislative action, the
    secretary should submit such proposals to the Congress.

    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 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.

    Lawrence J. Dyckman Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    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

    Applications (in thousands)

    Acres (in millions)

    1986 21.0

    1987 125.0

    1988 88.0

    1989 62.0

    1990 38.0

    1991 9.0

    1992 15.0

    1993 18.0

    1994 0a

    1995 0a

    1996 11.0

    1997 2.0

    1998 185.0

    1999 55.0

    2000 60.0

    2001 38.0

    Note: Applications and acres are estimated.�aUSDA did not offer
    enrollment in fiscal years 1994 and 1995.�Source: USDA's Farm Service
    Agency.�

    Table 3: CRP Continuous and CREP Contracts and Acres, Fiscal Years 1997-2001

                              CRP Continuousa          CREPb
              Fiscal year   Contracts Acres       Contracts      Acres
                 1997              11,351 99,559       -              -
                 1998             35,797 571,815     267         3,141
                 1999             26,727 213,489    1,792       26,674
                 2000             27,627 220,201    2,829       51,770
                 2001             37,609 304,906    7,396      103,128
                 Total       139,111 1,409,970      12,284     184,713

    aCRP Continuous was  authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 but was not
    implemented until fiscal year 1997.

    bThe  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.

    Appendix I: Program Enrollment and the Extent to Which Program Applications
    Exceed Funding and Acreage Limits

        Table 4: NRCS Conservation Program Contracts and Acres, Fiscal Years
                                     1992-2001

                       WRPa             EQIPb             WHIPc                FPPd
    Fiscal year  Contracts Acres  Contracts Acres    Contracts     Acres  Easements   Acres
        1992           226 43,428                  --          -        -          -       -
        1993                    --                 --          -        -          -       -
        1994           457 75,017                  --          -        -          -       -
        1995          633 115,071                  --          -        -          -       -
        1996           540 92,405                  --          -        -        161 29,795
        1997          703 127,267  24,812 8,694,205            -        -         25  4,553
        1998        1,080 211,917  20,261 9,312,597    4,600     672,000         154 31,143
        1999          767 119,919  18,785 8,753,229    3,855     721,249           3    270
        2000        2,103 149,915  16,249 7,448,478            -        -          4    241
        2001          898 139,306  17,389 8,544,465    2,274     212,361           7    551
       Total      7,407 1,074,245 97,496 42,752,975    10,729   1,605,610        354 66,553

    aAuthorized in 1985, the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was implemented in
    fiscal year 1992 and did not offer enrollment in fiscal year 1993.

    bThe Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was authorized in the
    Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and implemented in
    fiscal year 1997.

    cThe 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.

    dThe 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.

    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

    Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limitsa

    USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions)

                               EQIP 90,291,131 $1,638

    WRP 647,172

                                  WHIP 254,833 16

    FPP 290,273 256

    Total 91,483,409 $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.

    aIncludes 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.

    Appendix II: Distribution of Payments for USDA's Conservation Programs

    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.

       Appendix II: Distribution of Payments for USDA's Conservation Programs

    Note: Figure  includes payments  in the continental  United States. Payments
    were also made in Hawaii.

    Source: GAO's analysis of USDA's data.

       Appendix II: Distribution of Payments for USDA's Conservation Programs

    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.

    Appendix II: Distribution of Payments for USDA's Conservation Programs

    Note:  Figure includes  payments in  the continental United  States. Source:
    GAO's analysis of USDA's data.

       Appendix II: Distribution of Payments for USDA's Conservation Programs

    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.

    Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Objectives and Scope

    * *

    Survey 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.

    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.

    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

    Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    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 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 Since we used a sample (called a probability sample) of
    committee

    members to develop our estimates, each estimate has a measurable Confidence
    Intervals precision, or sampling error, that may be expressed as a
    plus/minus figure. of Estimates 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.

                  Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    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

    Methodology for Obtaining Additional Information

    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.

    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.

    Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    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.

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    Appendix IV: Results of Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members

    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.

    GAO's Mission

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    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.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
    Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text
    files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
    products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
    using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
    entirety, including charts and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its Web
    site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have
    GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select
    "Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO
    Reports heading.

    Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
    the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, D.C. 20013

    To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    Visit GAO's Document GAO Building

    Distribution  Center  Room 1100,  700 4th  Street, NW  (corner of 4th  and G
    Streets, NW) Washington, D.C. 20013

    To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

    Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

    Federal Programs 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering
    system).

    Jeff   Nelligan,  Managing   Director,   NelliganJ@gao.gov   (202)  512-4800

    Public Affairs U.S.  General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***