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/cgiï¿½bin/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: [email protected], or

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

Jeff   Nelligan,  Managing   Director,   [email protected]   (202)  512-4800

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