    Agriculture Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection
    of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands (21-APR-03, GAO-03-418).

    Annually, over a billion tons of soil erodes from the nation's
    cropland, and thousands of other acres, including wetlands, are
    converted to new cropland. Soil erosion reduces the land's
    productivity and impairs water quality; drained wetlands reduce
    flood control. Under the 1985 Food Security Act, farmers risk
    losing federal farm payments if they do not apply conservation
    practices to reduce erosion or if they drain wetlands. Concerns
    about soil erosion and wetlands conversions continue, however, as
    do concerns about the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
    Natural Resources Conservation Service's implementation of these
    provisions. GAO reviewed field offices' and headquarters'
    implementation and enforcement of the 1985 act's conservation
    compliance provisions.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-418
        ACCNO:   A06644
      TITLE:     Agriculture Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure
    Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands
         DATE:   04/21/2003
      SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring
    	     Internal controls
    	     Land management
    	     Natural resources
    	     Soil conservation

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-03-418

                                           A

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the

    Appendi I x Conservation Provisions Highly Erodible Land Conservation
    (HELC) Provisions

    Q1. During calendar years 1998- 2001, how many status reviews on highly
    erodible land did your field office conduct? More than

    Number None

    1- 10 11- 20

    21- 30 31- 40

    41- 50 50

    of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    8.0 34.0 19.1 14.0 6.9 5. 2 12.8 2, 002

    Q2. In your experience, compared with neighboring counties, how closely
    does your county monitor HELC provisions? Much

    Much more

    More About

    Less less

    Number closely

    closely the same

    closely closely

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    2.1 7.8 88.2 1. 5 0.4 1, 759

    Q3. In your opinion, overall, what level of understanding do farmers in
    your county have about what constitutes a substantial reduction in soil
    erosion?

    Very great Great

    Moderate Some

    Little or no Number

    understanding understanding

    understanding understanding

    understanding of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    1.6 22. 4 44. 8 24.3 6. 9 1, 833

    Q4. In your opinion, what level of understanding do farmers in your county
    have of HELC provisions? Very great

    Great Moderate

    Some Little or no

    Number understanding

    understanding understanding

    understanding understanding

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    1.9 24. 3 48. 0 21.5 4. 4 1, 835

    Q5. In your experience, to what extent are farmers in your county willing
    to comply with HELC provisions? Very great

    Great Moderate

    Some Little or no

    Number extent

    extent extent

    extent extent

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    9.0 53.5 28.3 8.3 1. 0 1,830

    Q6. In your experience, how has farmers' willingness to comply with HELC
    provisions changed since 1996? Neither more Much more

    willing nor Much less

    willing to More willing less willing to

    Less willing to willing to

    Number comply

    to comply comply

    comply comply

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    3.9 36.1 53.9 5.5 0. 5 1,813

    Q7. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the
    following soil- loss tolerance levels (" T")? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1T 28. 9 0. 0 100 10. 0 1,382 2T 23. 3 0. 0 100 15. 0 1,471 3T 24. 1 0. 0
    100 15. 0 1,448 4T 13. 9 0. 0 100 7. 0 1, 263 5T 35. 9 0. 0 100 25. 0
    1,367 Greater than 5T 2.4 0. 0 100 0. 0 834

    Q8. For what percent of the highly erodible acres in your county are
    alternative conservation systems approved? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    44.2 0.0 100 40. 0 1,817

    Q9. Does your field office currently require producers to have a written
    conservation plan for highly erodible land? Number Yes

    No of

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    84.7 15. 3 1,816 Opinions about HEL Conservation

    Q10. In your opinion, should USDA farm commodity program participants be
    required to control soil erosion on their land? Neither yes

    Number Definitely yes

    Probably yes nor no

    Probably no Definitely no

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

    74.8 20.1 3.5 0. 9 0.8 1, 823

    Q11. In general, is it economically feasible for producers in your county
    to reduce the soil erosion on their land to the soil loss tolerance level?

    Neither yes Number

    Definitely yes Probably yes

    nor no Probably no

    Definitely no of

    (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    40.3 42.4 5.1 9. 4 2.9 1, 828

    Q12. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, are the current HELC
    provisions in reducing soil erosion on land in production in your county?
    Extremely Moderately

    Somewhat Slightly or not

    Number effective

    Very effective effective

    effective effective

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    5.4 36. 9 35. 3 15. 9 6. 5 1, 818

    Q13. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, would HELC provisions be
    in reducing soil erosion in your county if no alternative conservation
    systems were allowed?

    Extremely Moderately Somewhat

    Slightly or not Number

    effective Very effective

    effective effective

    effective of

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    5.1 27. 6 27. 9 22. 7 16. 7 1,686

    Q14. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, are sodbuster provisions
    in limiting conversion of native vegetation to cropland? Extremely
    Moderately

    Somewhat Slightly or not

    Number effective

    Very effective effective

    effective effective

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    3.7 17. 7 19. 7 20. 5 38. 5 1,659

    Q15. In your opinion, to what extent do USDA farm commodity and crop
    insurance programs act as incentives to convert native vegetation to
    cropland?

    Very great Great

    Moderate Some

    Little or no Number

    extent extent

    extent extent

    extent of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    11.5 16. 6 15. 9 16. 1 39. 8 1,664

    Q16. Compared with other conservation programs that attempt to achieve
    long- term soil conservation, how effective, if at all, are HELC
    provisions in your county? Much more

    About the Much less

    Number effective

    More effective same

    Less effective effective

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    4.0 26. 3 35. 3 23. 6 10. 8 1,785

    HELC Violations

    Q17. Did your county have any HELC violations in calendar years 1998-
    2001? Number Yes

    No of

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    22.8 77. 2 1,840

    Q18. Of the HELC violations referred to or received by the Farm Service
    Agency (FSA) in your county, what portion are granted a good faith
    exemption by the FSA county committee? All or almost

    None or Number

    all More than half

    About half Less than half

    almost none of

    (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    60.1 7.9 5. 1 3.6 23.4 393

    Q19. How often are decisions to grant HELC good faith exemptions by the
    Farm Service Agency county committees properly supported? Always or

    Most of the About half of

    Some of the Never or

    Number almost always

    time the time

    time almost never

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    28.6 35. 0 5.8 19.6 10.9 311

    Q20. Since January 1, 1997, of the USDA farm program participants who have
    violated HELC provisions in your county, about what portion lost any
    benefits?

    0 to less than 5 to less than 10 to less than

    20 to less than 30 to less than

    Number 5%

    10% 20%

    30% 50%

    50% or more of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    74.9 7.0 2. 2 1.9 3. 2 10.8 371

    Q21. Consider all the tracts of land in the geographical area where your
    office provides assistance. About what percent of these tracts are in
    violation of HELC provisions and have not been reported?

    0 to less than 5 to less than 10 to less than

    20 to less than 30 to less than

    Number 5%

    10% 20%

    30% 50%

    50% or more of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    33.4 23.3 20.7 13.0 7.4 2. 1 377 Legislative Effects

    Q22. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2000 eliminated the provision that
    precluded producers from receiving continuing Conservation Reserve Program
    payments if they converted grassland to cropland, commonly referred to as
    "supersodbuster." Of the grassland that has been converted to cropland in
    your county, what portion do you believe is a result of this change?

    All or almost None or

    Number all

    More than half About half

    Less than half almost none

    of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    1.9 4.7 4. 1 10.6 78.8 1,182

    Q23. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food,
    Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or
    weaken monitoring of HELC compliance ?

    Neither Significantly

    strengthened Significantly

    Number strengthened

    Strengthened nor weakened

    Weakened weakened

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated

    reductions in program benefits for HELC violations 0.8 11.8 61.4 19.3 6. 6
    1, 530

    Instituted variance for compliance violations that are considered
    technical and

    minor in nature 1.8 23.7 58.6 13.6 2. 3 1, 594 Instituted tenant

    exemption 0. 4 8.3 63.8 23.3 4. 3 1, 369 Required additional farm program

    benefits be subject to denial for violations of HELC 4.0 45.9 47.2 1. 9
    1.0 1, 545

    Other (please specify in text box below) 4.1 2. 0 54. 1 11.2 28.6 98

    Q24. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal
    Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or
    weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?

    Neither Significantly

    strengthened Significantly

    Number strengthened

    Strengthened nor weakened

    Weakened weakened

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    Instituted variance for weather, pest, diseases, or other natural
    disasters 2. 0 26. 4 59. 8 10. 2 1. 6 1, 660 Instituted exemption and
    grace period for compliance violations found while providing on- site

    technical assistance 2.1 29.7 51. 6 13. 4 3. 2 1,639 Instituted Farm
    Service Agency variance and grace period for economic hardship relief 0. 8
    21. 1 59. 2 14. 8 4. 1 1, 548

    Instituted provision allowing producers to self- certify compliance with
    their conservation plan when applying for benefits 1. 4 13. 6 46. 8 27. 2
    11. 1 1,625

    Eliminated graduated reductions in program benefits for conservation
    compliance violations 0.5 16.7 62. 9 16. 3 3. 6 1,482

    Eliminated crop insurance payments from the list of benefits subject to
    denial for violations of HELC 0.4 11.5 51. 8 27. 9 8. 3 1,476

    Revised good faith exemption by removing the 1- in- 5 year rule and
    allowed for compliance grace period 0.9 16.2 58. 2 19. 5 5. 1 1,475

    Other (please specify in text box below) 1. 4 1. 4 54.9 11.3 31.0 71

    Wetland Conservation (WC) Provisions

    Q25. During calendar years 1998- 2001, how many wetland conservation
    status reviews did your field office conduct? More than

    Number None

    1- 10 11- 20

    21- 30 31- 40

    41- 50 50

    of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    17.7 51.1 14.7 8.2 2. 9 2.2 3. 4 1,999

    Q26. In your experience, compared with neighboring counties, how closely
    does your field office monitor wetland conservation provisions? Much

    Much more

    More About

    Less less

    Number closely

    closely the same

    closely closely

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    2.9 11.6 83.3 2.0 0. 3 1,578

    Q27. In your opinion, what level of understanding do farmers in your
    county have of wetland conservation provisions? Very great

    Great Moderate

    Some Little or no

    Number understanding

    understanding understanding

    understanding understanding

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    3.3 21. 4 37. 2 27. 6 10.5 1, 640

    Q28. In your experience, to what extent are farmers in your county willing
    to comply with wetland conservation provisions? Very great

    Great Moderate

    Some Little or no

    Number extent

    extent extent

    extent extent

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    6.9 36. 3 34. 0 19. 0 3. 9 1, 633

    Opinions about Wetlands Conservation

    Q29. In your county, how effective are swampbuster provisions at limiting
    the conversion of wetlands to cropland? Extremely Moderately

    Somewhat Slightly or not

    Number effective

    Very effective effective

    effective effective

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    13.4 42. 2 23. 4 14. 4 6. 5 1, 574

    Q30. In your opinion, compared with large wetlands in your county, how
    important is the protection of small wetlands? Much more

    More About the

    Less Much less

    Number important

    important same

    important important

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    5.0 15. 4 48. 1 19. 5 11. 9 1,588

    Q31. In your opinion, should USDA farm program participants be required to
    follow wetland conservation provisions on their land?

    Neither yes Number

    Definitely yes Probably yes

    nor no Probably no

    Definitely no of

    (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    52.9 33.5 6.4 5. 7 1.5 1, 617 Wetland Conservation Violations

    Q32. Did your county have any wetland conservation violations in calendar
    years 1998- 2001? Number Yes

    No of

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    27.4 72. 6 1,628

    Q33. Since January 1, 1997, of the USDA farm program participants who have
    violated wetland conservation provisions in your county, about what
    percent lost any benefits? 0 to less than 5 to less than

    10 to less than 20 to less than

    30 to less than Number

    5% 10%

    20% 30%

    50% 50% or more

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    79.6 2.9 1. 5 0.7 0. 7 14.5 407

    Q34. Of the wetland violations referred to or received by the Farm Service
    Agency (FSA) in your county, about what portion are granted a good faith
    exemption by the FSA county committee?

    All or almost None or

    Number all

    More than half About half

    Less than half almost none

    of (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    53.1 8.2 5. 0 6.7 26.9 401

    Q35. How often are decisions to grant wetland good faith exemptions by the
    Farm Service Agency county committees in your county properly supported?

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    37.7 30. 2 7.5 14.2 10.4 318

    Q36. In your opinion, what level of technical improvements could be made
    to the tools, techniques, or procedures to complete certified wetland
    determinations?

    Very great Great Moderate

    Some Little or no

    Number improvement

    improvement improvement

    improvement improvement

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    11.3 23. 7 28. 3 21. 4 15. 2 434

    Q37. To what extent are certified wetland determinations made on a less
    than whole tract basis? Very great

    Great Moderate

    Some Little or no

    Number extent

    extent extent

    extent extent

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    20.0 20. 5 15. 9 12. 3 31. 2 439

    Q38. Consider the geographical area where you provide assistance. Of the
    tracts that are in violation of wetland conservation provisions, about
    what percent have not been reported?

    0 to less than 5 to less than 10 to less than

    20 to less than 30 to less than

    Number 5%

    10% 20%

    30% 50%

    50% or more of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    48.1 20.2 14.3 6.7 3. 0 7.7 405

    Q39. If you find a converted wetland on lands owned or operated by a USDA
    program participant, how often do you do the following?

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    Notify the person by sending a certified wetland determination, detailing
    the potential violation 52.1 16.1 4. 4 8.1 19.3 409

    Inform the person orally, not in writing, detailing the potential
    violation 28.7 17.1 5. 1 12.8 36.4 415 Work with the person to restore or
    obtain a mitigation exemption for the wetland in order to maintain
    benefits 62. 2 19. 8 4.3 8. 0 5.8 415

    Decide if any other exemption applies to this wetland conversion 52. 6 19.
    3 4.8 10.0 13.3 399

    Legislative Effects

    Q40. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food,
    Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or
    weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?

    Neither Significantly

    strengthened Significantly

    Number strengthened

    Strengthened nor weakened

    Weakened weakened

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated reductions in program
    benefits for wetland conservation violations 1.8 13.5 48.0 28.1 8. 7 392

    Instituted minimal effects exemption 2. 8 26.1 47.5 18.0 5. 6 394

    Instituted mitigation exemption for restoring a prior converted wetland
    5.0 31.7 51.3 8. 6 3.4 382

    Instituted requirement for agreement between NRCS and U. S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service on mitigation plans

    and technical determinations 1.2 26.8 54.6 11.4 6. 0 403 Instituted new
    trigger mechanism for swampbuster violations 5.3 33.3 55.8 3. 5 2.1 339

    Required additional farm program benefits be subject to denial for
    violations of wetland conservation 5.5 58.5 34.5 0. 8 0.8 400

    Revised definition of a wetland to include three conditions that must be
    present 8. 0 44. 1 40. 9 4.8 2. 2 413

    Other (please specify in text box below) 15. 8 10. 5 42. 1 5. 3 26. 3 19

    Q41. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal
    Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or
    weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?

    Neither Significantly

    strengthened Significantly

    Number strengthened

    Strengthened nor weakened

    Weakened weakened

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    Instituted more options for mitigation including enhancement or creation
    of wetlands 3.9 37.6 48.0 7. 8 2.7 410

    Eliminated graduated reductions in program benefits for compliance
    violations 0.8 25.6 54.8 15.0 3. 9 387

    Eliminated the requirement for agreement between NRCS and U. S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service on mitigation plans and technical

    determinations 5. 3 23. 6 54. 5 13.3 3. 3 398 Revised good faith exemption
    by removing the 1- in- 10 year rule and allowed for compliance grace
    period 1.1 15.1 53.7 23.6 6. 6 365

    Other (please specify in text box below) 13. 3 0.0 60.0 0. 0 26.7 15

    Status Reviews

    Q42. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with HELC
    provisions? Extremely Moderately

    Somewhat Slightly or not

    Number effective

    Very effective effective

    effective effective

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    5.6 26. 3 32. 1 23. 0 13. 0 1,939

    Q43. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with
    wetland conservation provisions? Extremely Moderately

    Somewhat Slightly or not

    Number effective

    Very effective effective

    effective effective

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    4.6 24. 1 29. 6 22. 3 19. 4 1,864

    Q44. How effective is coordination between NRCS and FSA in implementing
    compliance with the HELC and wetland conservation provisions, overall?

    Extremely Moderately Somewhat

    Slightly or not Number

    effective Very effective

    effective effective

    effective of

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    9.0 39. 5 28. 7 14. 0 8. 9 1, 966 Status Review Activities

    Q45. In what months of the year does your field office perform
    conservation compliance status reviews? Performing

    Number review

    of (percent)

    respondents

    January 1.7 2, 015 February 3.0 2, 015 March 11. 8 2,015 April 24. 4 2,015
    May 43. 7 2,015 June 45. 7 2,015 July 27. 9 2,015 August 23. 5 2,015
    September 28. 3 2,015 October 22. 2 2,015 November 8.2 2, 015 December 2.8
    2, 015

    Q46. In your duties as an NRCS employee, how satisfied are you with your
    responsibilities for monitoring compliance with HEL and wetland
    conservation provisions?

    Neither Generally

    satisfied nor Generally

    Very Number

    Very satisfied satisfied

    dissatisfied dissatisfied

    dissatisfied of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    8.4 40. 6 27. 9 17. 3 5. 8 1, 956

    Q47. Please describe the reason for your response below. Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    66.7 2,015

    Q48. How do you view HELC provisions in terms of their effect on farm
    profitability in your county? Neither positive nor

    Number Very positive

    Positive negative

    Negative Very negative

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

    2.8 33.4 57.8 5.5 0. 5 1,920

    Q49. When you are doing a status review, does your supervisor encourage or
    discourage identifying tracts/ fields in violation of conservation
    compliance provisions? Neither encourages Strongly Generally

    Slightly nor

    Slightly Generally

    Strongly Number

    encourages encourages

    encourages discourages

    discourages discourages

    discourages of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    22.8 19. 6 2.4 52.5 1. 4 0.9 0. 4 1, 948

    Q50. In the normal course of work, does your supervisor encourage or
    discourage identifying tracts or fields in violation of conservation
    compliance provisions when you are providing technical assistance?

    Neither encourages Strongly Generally

    Slightly nor

    Slightly Generally

    Strongly Number

    encourages encourages

    encourages discourages

    discourages discourages

    discourages of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    15.4 21. 4 5.4 52.8 2. 4 2.2 0. 5 1, 950

    Q51. Compared with other activities in NRCS, what priority does NRCS
    management place on conservation compliance? Neither high

    Number Very high

    Generally high nor low

    Generally low Very low

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

    12.7 38. 3 29. 3 14. 0 5. 7 1, 968

    Q52. Since January 1, 1994, how has NRCS management changed the priority
    for implementing conservation compliance? Neither Significantly

    Generally increased nor

    Generally Significantly

    Number increased

    increased decreased

    decreased decreased

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    3.7 16. 0 44. 3 27. 9 8. 0 1, 907

    Q53. In your opinion, how would increasing the number of annual status
    reviews in your county affect producers' compliance with the conservation
    provisions? Very greatly

    Greatly Moderately

    Somewhat Slightly or not

    increase increase increase

    increase increase

    Number compliance

    compliance compliance

    compliance compliance

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    1.3 5.4 14.7 15.1 63.5 1, 892

    Q54. If a participant does not have sufficient crop residue on most of his
    or her field after planting, how often do you grant an "AM" (minimal or
    technical effect) variance?

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    5.8 13. 7 3.8 31.7 45.0 1, 282

    Q55. During a status review, if you discover that a producer is not
    applying an important practice in his or her conservation system, how
    often do you grant an "AM" variance?

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    4.5 8.3 3. 1 22.3 61.8 1,523

    Q56. When performing status reviews, how often do you check for potential
    wetland conservation violations? Always or

    Most of the About half of

    Some of the Never or

    Number almost always

    time the time

    time almost never

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    64.2 21.3 1.3 6. 5 6.7 1, 870

    Q57. Consider the tracts or fields that are granted a variance or
    exemption based on a status review. How often are these tracts reviewed in
    the year following the variance or exemption?

    Most of the About half of

    Some of the Number

    Always Almost always

    time the time

    time Almost never

    Never of

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    67.5 16. 3 8.3 1. 1 3.2 2. 4 1.2 1, 550

    Compliance Activities

    Q58. When a tract is not in compliance with the HELC and WC provisions,
    how often do you request an FSA- 569 (NRCS Report of HELC and WC
    Compliance)?

    Most of the About half of

    Some of the Number

    Always Almost always

    time the time

    time Almost never

    Never of

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    62.1 18. 5 6.5 1. 1 5.1 4. 2 2.5 1, 670

    Q59. If you discover that a producer is not applying an important practice
    in his or her conservation system during a status review, how often do you
    do the following?

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    Work with the producer to develop a system that will meet the provisions
    73. 2 18. 4 0.8 3. 4 4.1 1, 794

    Identify a variance that will solve the situation for this year 30. 8 22.
    7 5.2 24.3 17.1 1, 700

    Inform the producer that he or she is out of compliance and provide appeal
    rights 52. 8 11. 0 3.2 16.7 16.4 1, 645

    Q60. When you see a USDA participant's tract that includes HEL cropland
    farmed without a conservation system to meet the soil- loss reduction
    requirements, how often do you do the following?

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    Notify the participant immediately, either in person or by mail, that the
    tract may be out of compliance 44.3 23.3 3. 4 13.2 15.9 1, 640

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    Wait to see if the tract is on this year's status review list 7. 7 8.2 2.
    1 9.2 72.8 1, 517

    Request an FSA- 569 from the FSA 21.9 12.4 4. 1 20.9 40.6 1, 528 Notify
    the person, as time and workload permit 24.0 20.9 6. 7 18.2 30.2 1, 481

    Q61. If a farmer has a farmed wetland (FW) with an existing hydrologic
    manipulation, would the farmer be able to do the following?

    Number Yes

    No of

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    Expand the manipulation to remove all remaining hydrology and farm the
    area 0.9 99.1 1, 722

    Maintain the scope and effect of the maintenance performed prior to
    December 23, 1985, but not exceed that level of drainage 98. 2 1.8 1, 733

    Convert the area without penalty to the farmer's USDA benefits 2. 8 97. 2
    1,667

    Q62. If a farmer is in violation of conservation compliance provisions on
    highly erodible land, how likely is it that the NRCS field office will
    automatically grant either a variance or an exemption to the producer in
    the first year?

    As likely as Number

    Very likely Likely

    not Unlikely

    Very unlikely of

    (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    16.0 28. 5 21. 9 20. 4 13. 2 1,603

    Q63. If a farmer is in violation of conservation compliance provisions on
    highly erodible land, how likely is it that the FSA field office will
    automatically grant either a variance or an exemption to the producer in
    the first year? As likely as

    Number Very likely

    Likely not

    Unlikely Very unlikely

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

    32.1 30. 8 17. 5 13. 2 6. 4 1, 619

    Q64. You have received an anonymous complaint that a USDA program
    participant has converted a wetland. On review, you find that the
    conversion is for nonagricultural use. How likely are you to carry out
    these options? As likely as

    Number Very likely

    Likely not

    Unlikely Very unlikely

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

    Do nothing, as NRCS does not have jurisdiction 14. 0 14. 2 9.6 27.3 34.9
    1, 756

    Notify the EPA or the District Corps of Engineers, as this is a potential
    Clean Water Act violation 26.5 30.2 12.2 14.6 16.5 1, 744

    Request an FSA- 569 from FSA 20. 5 17. 4 8.3 21.7 32.0 1, 679

    Q65. Assume that you received the status review list for your county and
    there are tracts on the list that do not have any wetland determinations.
    How likely are you to check the tract in the field to assess any potential
    wetland violations? As likely as

    Number Very likely

    Likely not

    Unlikely Very unlikely

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

    47.8 27.1 8.3 9. 2 7.6 1, 940

    Q66. Assume from the status review list that there are tracts where no
    records exist. How likely are you to check with the FSA office to see if
    the tracts have been reconstituted? As likely as

    Number Very likely

    Likely not

    Unlikely Very unlikely

    of (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent) (percent) respondents

    80.4 14.6 2.0 1. 7 1.3 1, 981 Potential Hindrances

    Q67. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in
    carrying out HELC and WC provisions? Primary

    Number hindrance

    of (percent)

    respondents

    Do not want to assume enforcement role 18. 3 1,283

    Lack of guidance from NRCS 2.3 1, 283 Status reviews are received at an
    inconvenient time 4.5 1, 283

    Not a priority with my supervisor 0.5 1, 283 Lack of staff 39. 7 1,283
    Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps) 1. 9 1, 283

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA 13.3 1, 283

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS 4.8 1, 283

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National
    Appeals Division 4. 5 1,283

    Political influence 2.8 1, 283 Other (Please specify in Question 68
    below.) 7. 5 1,283

    Q68. What other primary hindrance not listed above affects your ability to
    carry out HELC and WC provisions? Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    21.7 1,283

    Q69. What is the second greatest hindrance? Second

    Number hindrance

    of (percent)

    respondents

    Do not want to assume enforcement role 15. 8 1,060

    Lack of guidance from NRCS 5.4 1, 060 Status reviews are received at an
    inconvenient time 11. 4 1,060

    Not a priority with my supervisor 2.4 1, 060 Lack of staff 19. 2 1,060
    Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps) 3. 7 1, 060

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA 13.3 1, 060

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS 9.2 1, 060

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National
    Appeals Division 7. 5 1,060

    Political influence 6.2 1, 060 Other (Please specify in Question 70
    below.) 5. 8 1,060

    No other hindrances 0.0 1, 060

    Q70. What second greatest hindrance not listed above affects your ability
    to carry out HELC and WC provisions? Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    12.9 1,060

    Q71. What is the third greatest hindrance? Third

    Number hindrance

    of (percent)

    respondents

    Do not want to assume enforcement role 16. 3 828

    Lack of guidance from NRCS 6.0 828 Status reviews are received at an
    inconvenient time 9.3 828

    Not a priority with my supervisor 2.7 828 Lack of staff 14. 5 828 Lack of
    appropriate information (for example, maps) 6. 5 828

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA 9. 1 828

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS 6.6 828

    Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National
    Appeals Division 11.8 828

    Political influence 10. 5 828 Other (Please specify in question 72 below.)
    6.6 828

    No other hindrances 0.0 828

    Q72. What third greatest hindrance not listed above affects your ability
    to carry out HELC and WC provisions? Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    13.6 705 HELC and WC Guidance

    Q73. If implemented appropriately, how effective are the basic
    conservation systems in the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) in
    addressing the requirements for soil erosion reduction?

    Extremely Moderately Somewhat

    Slightly or not Number

    effective Very effective

    effective effective

    effective of

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    31.0 51.7 13.4 2.9 1. 1 1,949

    Q74. If implemented appropriately, how effective, are the alternative
    conservation systems in the FOTG in addressing the requirements for soil
    erosion reduction?

    Extremely Moderately Somewhat

    Slightly or not Number

    effective Very effective

    effective effective

    effective of

    (percent) (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    10.1 40. 2 31. 9 12. 7 5. 2 1, 879

    Q75. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in
    the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?

    Needs very Needs

    Needs little or great

    Needs great moderate

    Needs some no

    Number improvement

    improvement improvement

    improvement improvement

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    Conservation compliance 4. 2 9.2 21.9 20.3 44.4 1, 780 Sodbuster
    provisions 5.3 10.6 19.4 19.1 45.6 1, 741

    Swampbuster provisions, overall 7. 2 12. 7 20. 3 18. 5 41.1 1, 672

    Wetland mitigation and minimal effects provisions 11. 0 18. 0 18. 6 17. 1
    35.4 1, 660

    Status reviews provisions 4.5 9. 1 19. 1 21. 0 46.2 1, 782

    Appeals provisions 7.7 12.2 16.1 17.7 46.4 1, 678

    Other 12. 6 4.2 6. 8 8.4 68.1 191

    Q76. For those areas needing improvement, please explain below. Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    23.1 2,015

    Wetlands Mitigation

    Q77. From Janury 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001, did your county have
    any wetlands cases that were mitigated for agricultural purposes under the
    Food Security Act of 1985, as amended?

    Number Yes

    No of

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    13.8 86. 2 2,006

    Q78. When a person is granted a mitigation exemption, how often do you do
    the following? Always or

    Most of the About half of

    Some of the Never or

    Number almost always

    time the time

    time almost never

    of (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    respondents

    Develop a mitigation agreement 83.2 9.3 1. 1 3.0 3. 4 268 Include time
    limits for implementation in the mitigation agreement, including dates and

    sequence of activities 80. 8 13. 5 1.1 1. 9 2.6 266 Conduct follow- up
    inspections until all practices are successfully established 77. 2 14. 6
    1.9 4. 5 1.9 268

    Q79. About how many cases of agricultural wetland violations in your
    county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands from January 1,
    1997 through December 31, 2001? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 1.7 1 17 1 71 1998 1.5 1 15 1 62 1999 1.8 1 40 1 84 2000 1.8 1 35 1
    96 2001 1.7 1 25 1 92

    Q80. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated
    through restoration of the wetlands from January 1, 1997 through December
    31, 2001?

    Number of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 11. 6 1 125 5 72 1998 14. 3 1 320 5 63 1999 14. 9 1 400 4 85 2000 12.
    1 1 350 4 99 2001 10. 5 1 250 4 87

    Q81. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated
    through enhancements, that is improvement of another wetland, from January
    1, 1997 through December 31, 2001? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 1.4 1 2 111 1998 1.1 1 2 111 1999 1.5 1 3 120 2000 2.5 1 20 2 22 2001
    1.5 1 7 128

    Q82. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated
    through enhancements, that is improvement of another wetland, from January
    1, 1997 through December 31, 2001? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 3.1 1 6 310 1998 6.7 120 5 9 1999 7.4 1 35 3 16 2000 6.1 1 30 3 19
    2001 8.9 1 40 3 27

    Q83. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated
    through creation of new wetlands from January 1, 1997 through December 31,
    2001?

    Number of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 2.9 1 17 1 23 1998 3.1 1 20 1 18 1999 8.6 1 140 1 27 2000 3.6 1 45 1
    36 2001 3.3 1 45 1 38

    Q84. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated
    through creation of new wetlands from January 1, 1997 through December 31,
    2001?

    Number of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 12. 2 1 100 4 20 1998 15. 8 1 200 4 19 1999 28. 7 1 400 5 26 2000 21.
    0 1 400 4 36 2001 15. 4 1 200 6 39

    Q85. From January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2001, did your county have
    any wetlands cases that were granted a minimal effect exemption under the
    Food Security Act of 1985, as amended?

    Number Yes

    No of

    (percent) (percent) respondents

    15.2 84. 8 1,950

    Q86. In your county, about how many cases were granted a minimal effect
    exemption for agricultural purposes from January 1, 1997 through December
    31, 2001? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 2. 8 1 22 1 137 1998 3. 3 1 25 2 115 1999 3. 2 1 58 1 134 2000 3. 3 1
    53 2 131 2001 3. 4 1 57 2 133

    Q87. In your county, about how many total acres of wetlands were granted
    minimal effects exemptions for agricultural purposes from January 1, 1997
    through December 31, 2001? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    1997 11. 2 1 200 3 135 1998 13. 1 1 350 3 109 1999 17. 7 1 830 3 125 2000
    16. 8 1 800 3 123 2001 15. 1 1 450 3 121

    General Information

    Q88. What is your title? Having this

    Number title

    of (percent)

    respondents

    Soil Technician 7.2 2, 004 Soil Conservationist 7. 7 2,004

    Natural Resource Conservationist 3. 3 2,004

    District Conservationist 76. 3 2, 004

    Natural Resource Manager 0.4 2, 004

    Conservation Agronomist 1. 0 2,004 Natural Resource Specialist 0. 2 2,004

    Other (Please specify below.) 3.8 2, 004

    Q89. If not listed, what is your title? Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    3.4 2,015

    Q90. How many years have you been conducting conservation compliance
    status reviews? Number

    of Mean Minimum Maximum Median

    respondents

    11.0 0 30 122, 000

    Q91. Since 1996, how often has your office used contractors or third-
    party vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance
    provisions in each of the following areas?

    Always or Most of the

    About half of Some of the

    Never or Number

    almost always time

    the time time

    almost never of

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) (percent)

    (percent) respondents

    Making determinations of highly erodible land or wetlands 0.1 0. 0 0.1 1.
    4 98.4 1, 982

    Developing conservation plans 0. 1 0.1 0. 2 1.8 97.9 1, 976 Conducting
    status reviews 0. 1 0.0 0. 1 0.8 99.1 1, 966

    Other (please specify in question 92 below) 0. 3 1.4 0. 3 2.7 95.3 364

    Q92. In what other area has your office used contractors or third- party
    vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance
    provisions?

    Note: Fewer than 1 percent of the respondents wrote a narrative.

    Q93. Please provide below any suggestions or comments you have to improve
    the way NRCS supports you in performing status reviews and ensuring
    compliance with highly erodible land and wetland conservation provision
    requirements. Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    47.6 2,015

    Q94. Please add any comments or suggestions you have about highly erodible
    land and wetland conservation requirements. Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    41.0 2,015

    Q95. Please add any comments or suggestions you have about this
    questionnaire. Writing

    Number comment

    of (percent)

    respondents

    30.1 2,015

    Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture,
    Nutrition, and Forestry, U. S. Senate

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

    April 2003 AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION

    USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and
    Wetlands

    GAO- 03- 418

    USDA*s Natural Resources Conservation Service has not consistently
    implemented the 1985 Food Security Act*s conservation provisions.
    Inconsistent implementation increases the possibility that some farmers
    receive federal farm payments although their soil erodes at higher rates
    than

    allowed or they convert wetlands to cropland. According to GAO*s
    nationwide survey, almost half of the Conservation Service*s field offices
    do not implement the conservation provisions as required because they lack
    staff, management does not emphasize these provisions, or they are
    uncomfortable with their enforcement role. For example, field offices do
    not always find a farmer in violation for failing to implement an
    important practice, such as crop rotation, and do not always see whether a
    farmer has corrected the problem; they also do not always check for
    wetlands violations.

    The Conservation Service*s weak oversight of its field offices further
    impairs implementation of the provisions. In the process of selecting
    samples of cropland tracts to assess farmers* compliance, the Conservation
    Service disproportionately emphasizes tracts with little potential for
    noncompliance,

    such as permanent rangelands. This selection process leads to inflated
    compliance rates. The Conservation Service also has no automated system to
    promptly inform its field offices of the tracts selected for compliance
    reviews or to enable the offices to efficiently report their review
    results. Therefore, the field offices cannot conduct timely reviews*
    during critical erosion periods* and provide headquarters with up- to-
    date information.

    Finally, the Farm Service Agency, the USDA agency responsible for
    withholding benefits for violations identified by the Conservation
    Service, often waives these noncompliance determinations without adequate
    justification. Without support from the Farm Service Agency, the
    Conservation Service*s field staff have less incentive to issue
    violations.

    Soil Erosion of Cropland by Water in 1999

    Source: USDA*s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

    Annually, over a billion tons of soil erodes from the nation*s cropland,
    and thousands of other acres, including wetlands, are converted to new
    cropland. Soil erosion reduces the land*s productivity and impairs water
    quality; drained

    wetlands reduce flood control. Under the 1985 Food Security Act, farmers
    risk losing federal farm payments if they do not apply

    conservation practices to reduce erosion or if they drain wetlands.
    Concerns about soil erosion and

    wetlands conversions continue, however, as do concerns about the U. S.
    Department of Agriculture*s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
    Service*s

    implementation of these provisions. GAO reviewed field offices* and
    headquarters* implementation and enforcement of the 1985 act*s
    conservation

    compliance provisions. GAO recommends that USDA  increase oversight of
    field

    offices* compliance reviews to improve their accuracy and completeness,
    develop a more representative

    sample of tracts for review,  develop an automated system to manage the
    data needed for

    reviews, and  ensure that noncompliance waivers are supported. USDA
    reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with the recommendations.

    www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 418. To view the full report,
    including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
    information, contact Lawrence J. Dyckman at (202) 512- 3841 or dyckmanl@
    gao. gov.. Highlights of GAO- 03- 418, a report to

    Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
    Forestry, U. S. Senate

    April 2003

    AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION

    USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and
    Wetlands

    Page i GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Letter 1 Results in Brief 4
    Background 7 Many NRCS Field Offices Are Not Implementing the Conservation
    Provisions As Required 14 Weak Oversight Raises Doubts about NRCS*s
    Assertion of a High

    Rate of Compliance 26 Farm Service Agency Frequently Waives NRCS
    Noncompliance Decisions without Adequate Justification 35 Conservation
    Provisions and Other Factors Have Significantly Reduced Soil Erosion and
    Wetlands Conversions, but Progress

    Has Slowed in Recent Years 38 Conclusions 42 Recommendations for Executive
    Action 43 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 43 Appendix I U. S.
    Department of Agriculture*s Conservation Compliance Review Process 47

    Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 49

    Appendix III Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 54

    Appendix IV USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001 62

    Appendix V Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions 68 Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Appendix VI Comments from
    the U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Farm Service Agency 101

    Appendix VII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 105

    Related GAO Products 106

    Tables

    Table 1: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews for Selected States for
    Combined Crop Years 2000- 2001 21 Table 2: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by
    the Farm Service

    Agency for Violations of Conservation Provisions, Crop Years 1993- 2001 37
    Table 3: Number of Field Offices Participating in Our Survey That

    Regularly Conduct Compliance Reviews and the Response Rate 51 Table 4:
    Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews Showing

    Violations and Waivers by State, Crop Year 2000 54 Table 5: Results of
    NRCS*s Compliance Reviews Showing Violations and Waivers by State, Crop
    Year 2001 58 Table 6: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service
    Agency for Violations of Conservation Provisions, Nationwide, Crop Years
    1993- 2001 62 Table 7: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers by the Farm Service

    Agency for Violations of Conservation Provisions by State, Crop Years
    1993- 2001 63 Table 8: Reasons for Reinstating USDA Benefits by State,
    Crop

    Years 1993- 2001 66 Figures

    Figure 1: Tons of Erosion Due to Water and Wind on Cropland, 1997 11
    Figure 2: Wetlands Acres on Cropland, 1992 14

    Page iii GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Figure 3: Percentage of
    NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not Always Review Tracts the Year
    After Granting

    Compliance Waivers, Nationwide and Selected States 16 Figure 4: Percentage
    of NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not Always Issue a Violation When
    a Farmer Fails to Implement an Important Conservation Practice, Nationwide
    and Selected States 17 Figure 5: Percentage of NRCS Field Offices
    Indicating Primary

    Hindrances in Carrying Out Conservation Compliance Provisions 23
    Abbreviations

    FSA Farm Service Agency NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service USDA
    U. S. Department of Agriculture

    This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
    copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
    materials separately from GAO*s product.

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation April 21, 2003 The Honorable
    Tom Harkin Ranking Democratic Member

    Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry United States Senate

    Dear Senator Harkin: Every year more than a billion tons of soil erodes
    from the nation*s cropland while thousands of other acres, including
    wetlands, are converted into new cropland. 1 Soil erosion gradually
    reduces the productivity of the land and impairs water quality by
    depositing sediment and other substances, such as pesticides and excess
    nutrients, into the nation*s waters. When wetlands are drained, the
    ability to control floods and water quality can decrease, fish and
    wildlife habitat can be harmed, and recreational opportunities can be
    lost. To address these problems, the Food Security Act of 1985, as
    amended, (the 1985 act) requires farmers who participate in federal farm
    programs to reduce erosion on highly erodible cropland and, with certain
    exceptions, prohibits the conversion of wetlands to croplands. The 1985
    act requires farmers to conserve highly erodible land and

    wetlands by linking their conservation activities with eligibility for
    federal farm program benefits. These benefits total over $20 billion
    annually from a number of commodity price support and loan programs. To be
    eligible,

    farmers must (1) have developed and implemented plans to apply approved
    conservation systems by 1995 to reduce erosion on highly erodible land
    they farmed in any year from 1981 through 1985 and (2) not have converted
    and farmed certain wetlands. Furthermore, farmers who plant on highly
    erodible land that they did not farm prior to the act*s passage must apply
    a conservation system before planting (under the act*s sodbuster
    provision). In general, farmers cannot plant on naturally occurring
    wetlands that were converted to cropland after the act*s passage

    1 *Wetland* is a generic term used to describe a variety of wet habitats
    such as marshes, bogs, and swamps. In general, wetlands are characterized
    by the frequent and prolonged presence of water at or near the soil
    surface, soils that form under flooded or saturated conditions (hydric
    soils), and plants that are adapted to life in these types of soils
    (hydrophytes). United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC
    20548

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation (under the act*s swampbuster
    provision). The 1985 act*s conservation provisions directed at controlling
    soil erosion cover about 104 million, or

    28 percent, of the nation*s 377 million acres of cropland in production. 2
    The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for
    administering these conservation provisions, enforcing farmers*
    compliance, providing them with technical assistance, and assisting them
    with funding to implement conservation measures. Most of these

    activities fall to the Department*s Natural Resources Conservation Service
    (NRCS), although another USDA agency, the Farm Service Agency, is
    responsible for withholding farm program benefits for noncompliance. To
    determine farmers* compliance, each year NRCS draws a random sample

    of cropland units, known as tracts, for compliance reviews. These tracts
    vary in size from a few acres to several thousand acres. Nationally, 4.5
    million tracts are potentially subject to the act*s conservation
    provisions.

    To conduct a compliance review, NRCS field staff visit a tract to
    determine whether the farmer who owns it is applying approved conservation
    practices and whether these practices are effectively reducing soil
    erosion. The staff also determine whether that tract had any wetlands and
    if it did, whether the farmer drained them. When NRCS officials find
    noncompliance, they can either waive or recommend penalties. NRCS may
    grant a waiver if the violation occurred because of personal hardship or
    adverse weather, or if it was minor or technical. A waiver continues a

    farmer*s eligibility for farm program benefits for 12 months; the farmer
    is to take corrective measures during this time. If a waiver is not
    justified, NRCS staff are to find the farmer in noncompliance and notify
    the local Farm Service Agency office. This office then determines the
    amount of farm program benefits to be withheld. However, a farmer that
    NRCS finds in noncompliance can appeal this determination to the Farm
    Service Agency*s field office. In response, that office may grant its own
    waiver if it believes the farmer acted in good faith* that is, the farmer
    did not intend

    2 The Nation*s total cropland includes about 410 million acres. However,
    about 34 million of these acres are currently idled, having been enrolled
    in USDA*s Conservation Reserve Program. This program provides cost- share
    and annual rental payments to establish permanent land cover in exchange
    for taking environmentally sensitive cropland out of production for 10 to
    15 years. If land enrolled in the program is subsequently taken out of the
    program and farmed again, it is subject to the conservation provisions.

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation to violate the conservation
    provisions. 3 Appendix I provides further information on USDA*s compliance
    review process.

    You asked us to evaluate USDA*s implementation of the conservation
    compliance provisions of the 1985 act. Specifically, you asked us to
    determine (1) how well NRCS*s field offices are carrying out these
    provisions, (2) how effectively NRCS oversees its field offices* efforts
    to carry out these provisions, (3) how often the Farm Service Agency
    waives NRCS*s noncompliance determinations, and (4) to what extent these
    conservation provisions have helped to reduce soil erosion and the loss of
    wetlands.

    To conduct this work, we examined NRCS*s national database on the results
    of compliance reviews for 1998 through 2001 to identify unusual patterns
    in compliance enforcement. Automated data for these reviews were not
    available for prior years. We also surveyed the official* usually the
    district conservationist* responsible for compliance reviews in each

    of NRCS*s approximately 2,500 field offices to obtain information on that
    official*s understanding and implementation of the conservation
    provisions, as well as the official*s views on the effectiveness of these
    provisions. In addition to responding to our survey questions, many of
    these officials also provided us with written comments. We received
    responses from almost 80 percent of the officials surveyed. We also
    conducted work in 20 NRCS field offices located in 19 counties in 5 states

    3 In this report, we use the term *waiver* to refer to variances and
    exemptions given by either NRCS or the Farm Service Agency. An NRCS
    variance continues a farmer*s eligibility for federal farm program
    benefits when the farmer is unable to apply a conservation practice
    because of severe or unusual conditions related to weather, disease, or
    pests; because the farmer experienced an extreme personal hardship or
    unusual occurrence, such as illness or death; or because the deficiency is
    minor and technical in nature. An NRCS exemption maintains a farmer*s
    eligibility for benefits when a violation is identified while NRCS staff
    are providing on- site technical assistance. A Farm Service Agency
    variance continues a farmer*s eligibility when the farmer is unable to
    implement a conservation system because doing so would cause undue
    economic hardship. A Farm Service Agency exemption maintains a farmer*s
    eligibility when the farmer acted in good faith and without intent to
    violate the conservation provisions or when a landlord prevents a tenant
    farmer from implementing an approved conservation system. Similarly, in
    cases in

    which the tenant farmer*s violation is not attributable to actions of the
    landlord, the landlord may receive an exemption that continues the
    landlord*s eligibility for benefits regarding other tracts. The granting
    of a variance or an exemption by NRCS or the Farm Service Agency does not
    negate NRCS's noncompliance determination. The farmer involved is still
    considered to be in violation of the conservation provisions and is
    expected to take corrective actions within 12 months, except in the case
    of NRCS variances given for severe or unusual conditions.

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation (Arkansas, Colorado,
    Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas) to review documentation of compliance
    decisions, including waivers, to determine

    the basis for these decisions. We selected these field offices on the
    basis of such criteria as the relative amount of land covered by the
    office that is subject to the 1985 act*s conservation provisions;
    geographic dispersion;

    and apparent anomalies in USDA*s data related to compliance checks,
    waivers, and penalties assessed. In addition, we examined the Farm Service
    Agency*s database on violations and benefits withheld or waivers granted
    for crop years 1993 through 2001 to determine trends in assessing
    penalties for noncompliance, and we spoke with Farm Service Agency field
    and headquarters staff regarding the reasons for waiving NRCS
    noncompliance determinations. 4 Finally, regarding the environmental
    impacts of the conservation provisions, we reviewed the results of USDA*s
    National Resources Inventory and other relevant studies and spoke with
    officials of various farm and conservation groups.

    We conducted our review from April 2002 through February 2003 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix
    II provides additional information on our scope and methodology. Appendix
    V summarizes the results of our survey. In addition, survey results
    stratified by state are included in a special publication entitled
    Agricultural Conservation: Survey Results on USDA*s Implementation of Food
    Security Act Compliance Provisions (GAO- 03- 492SP), which is available on
    the Internet at

    http:// www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? gao- 03- 492SP. Almost half of
    NRCS*s field offices are not implementing one or more aspects of the
    conservation provisions of the 1985 act as required. Inconsistent
    implementation increases the likelihood that some farmers are still
    receiving federal farm payments even though they let soil erode at higher
    rates than allowed or convert wetlands to cropland. Specifically,

    according to our survey, field offices do not always follow all required
    procedures, such as (1) checking for wetlands violations during a
    compliance review (36 percent), (2) revisiting farms granted a waiver the
    previous year to determine whether the owner has taken measures to

    achieve compliance (16 percent), or (3) finding a farmer in violation for
    failing to implement an important conservation practice (19 percent). Our
    field office visits revealed a similar pattern. For example, in 14 of the
    20

    4 A crop year is the calendar year in which a crop is produced. Results in
    Brief

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation offices we visited, NRCS
    staff did not always conduct compliance reviews when cropland was most
    vulnerable to erosion, as agency guidelines

    require, such as when spring planting occurs; at this time, crop residue
    is at its lowest level and rains may be heavy. A number of factors* such
    as resource constraints, a de- emphasis on the conservation compliance
    provisions relative to other work, and a reluctance to assume the
    enforcement role* may be contributing to the implementation problems
    identified. These problems are compounded by a lack of training and
    unclear policy guidance concerning the implementation of the provisions.
    Finally, our analysis of NRCS*s database on the results of compliance
    reviews underscores the variation in field offices* enforcement among the
    states: the number of waivers and violations issued as a percentage of
    total compliance reviews ranged from none to as much as 15 percent during
    crop years 2000 and 2001. Most reported violations occurred in a
    relatively few states.

    NRCS does not effectively oversee its field offices* implementation of the
    conservation provisions, among other things, calling into doubt its claim
    that 98 percent of the tracts reviewed are in compliance with the act*s
    conservation provisions. First, NRCS*s process for selecting tracts for
    compliance reviews disproportionately emphasizes tracts with little or no
    potential for noncompliance, such as permanent rangelands. Such tracts

    account for about 20 percent of the tracts selected annually. Second, NRCS
    does not have an automated system for promptly informing its field offices
    of the tracts selected for compliance reviews and for enabling the field
    offices to efficiently report the results of these reviews. As a

    consequence, in many cases the field offices do not have the information
    on the tracts to be reviewed until after the critical erosion control
    period has passed; the reviews should have been done during this period.
    Furthermore, without such a system, NRCS lacks accurate, up- to- date
    information for oversight to evaluate the field offices* implementation of
    the conservation compliance provisions. Third, NRCS does not consistently
    collect and analyze the results of the field offices* compliance reviews
    to identify unusual enforcement patterns across regions and states and
    over time. For example, until our review NRCS was not aware that 30 of the
    50 *good faith* waivers granted nationally in 2000 occurred in just

    one state. Similarly, NRCS has not questioned the wide variation in other
    nationwide data on noncompliance determinations and waivers granted, which
    also suggests inconsistencies across the states and field offices in how
    the conservation provisions are being implemented. These inconsistencies
    are borne out by our survey results. Finally, USDA*s Office of Inspector
    General has recently reported that improvements in NRCS*s implementation
    of the conservation provisions are needed to

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation strengthen the agency*s
    ability to provide accurate and reliable assessments of farmers*
    compliance. Importantly, these improvements

    include the need for NRCS to refrain from issuing waivers that are not
    warranted.

    In response to farmers* appeals, the Farm Service Agency waived NRCS*s
    noncompliance determinations in 4,948 of 8,118 cases in which farmers were
    cited with violations, or about 61 percent, from 1993 through 2001.
    Furthermore, because of these waivers, the Farm Service Agency reinstated
    about $40.4 million of the $59.6 million that was to be withheld

    for noncompliance determinations. These appeals were considered and ruled
    upon by local Farm Service Agency county committees. Because committees
    generally consist of farmers elected by other farmers in the county, some
    NRCS staff and conservation groups believe that the committee members are
    predisposed to approve farmers* appeals so as not to penalize a neighbor*s
    eligibility for farm program benefits. In this regard, about one- third of
    NRCS*s field offices indicated that the Farm Service Agency did not
    adequately justify its waiver decisions. Our field

    office visits generally reinforced this assertion. In the five offices we
    visited that had found farmers in violation of the conservation
    provisions, NRCS staff indicated that the Farm Service Agency*s waivers
    were not adequately justified. Furthermore, the minutes of the Farm
    Service Agency*s county committee meetings and other relevant records did
    not clearly describe the basis for waiving NRCS*s noncompliance
    determinations in these cases. Without support from the Farm Service
    Agency, NRCS field office staff said that they have less incentive to find
    farmers out of compliance when warranted.

    According to USDA, conservation groups, and farm organizations, in the 17
    years since the 1985 act, its conservation provisions have contributed to
    substantial reductions in soil erosion and wetlands conversions. For
    example, according to USDA data, soil erosion on land subject to these
    provisions declined by about 35 percent from 1982 through 1997. Wetlands
    conversions for agricultural uses declined even more sharply, from 235,000
    acres per year before 1985 to 27,000 acres per year from 1992 through
    1997. However, because other factors have also influenced farmers*
    behavior, quantifying the impact of the conservation provisions is
    difficult. These other factors include economic incentives for
    agricultural producers to use new farming techniques and equipment that
    are more conserving of land and water resources. Despite the improvements
    made, concerns remain about continued high rates of soil erosion and
    wetlands losses in some regions. Specifically, although annual soil
    erosion on all cropland has declined to 5 tons per acre, annual soil
    erosion on about 27

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation percent of the land subject
    to the conservation compliance provisions still averages 24 tons per acre.
    Furthermore, USDA and other agricultural

    experts indicate that reductions in soil erosion have leveled off in
    recent years and that in some areas of the country soil erosion has even
    increased. In this regard, over 80 percent of NRCS field offices we
    surveyed reported that further reductions in soil erosion are feasible.
    Finally, the conservation provisions may be only marginally effective in
    protecting seasonal wetlands because USDA generally identifies these
    wetlands during the summer months when these lands are less likely to be
    saturated or exhibit other wetlands characteristics.

    In light of the problems we have noted with NRCS*s implementation of the
    1985 act*s conservation provisions, as well as continuing concerns related
    to soil erosion and wetlands conversion, we are making recommendations to
    USDA to improve the quality of NRCS*s compliance reviews and the Farm
    Service Agency*s documentation of its decisions regarding farmers* appeals
    of noncompliance determinations. In commenting on a draft of this report,
    NRCS and the Farm Service Agency concurred with the

    recommendations. The agencies also generally agreed with the report*s
    findings, although NRCS stated that the report focuses too much on
    problems with the agency*s implementation of the conservation compliance
    provisions and not enough on the provisions* positive accomplishments in
    reducing soil erosion and wetlands conversions. NRCS provided oral
    comments; the Farm Service Agency provided written comments, which are
    presented in appendix VI. The agencies also provided technical comments,
    which we have incorporated as appropriate.

    The Food Security Act of 1985 introduced three conservation provisions to
    address environmental problems associated with highly erodible land and
    wetlands. 5 Under the act, farmers must apply conservation systems to

    5 To protect highly erodible land, the 1985 act also introduced the
    Conservation Reserve Program. Background

    Legislative Requirements

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation these lands or risk losing
    benefits. 6 First, under the *conservation compliance* provision, farmers
    must apply conservation systems to lands

    cropped in any year from 1981 through 1985 to substantially reduce soil
    erosion. Second, the *sodbuster* provision applies to highly erodible land
    not farmed prior to the act*s passage. For these lands, farmers must apply

    a conservation system before planting and must control soil erosion to a
    higher level than required under conservation compliance. Third, under the
    *swampbuster* provision, farmers are generally prohibited from converting
    wetlands to cropland. For the purpose of this report, we use the term
    *conservation compliance* to include all three conservation provisions of
    the 1985 act.

    The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 modified the
    conservation compliance provisions, giving USDA discretion to determine
    that a farmer, although in violation, acted in good faith* that is,
    without intending to violate the provisions. 7 In such cases, USDA may
    reduce the farmer*s benefits but the farmer would remain eligible to
    participate in

    federal farm programs if the farmer corrects the violation. 8 In addition,
    the act revised the swampbuster provision to allow a farmer to retain
    eligibility for farm program benefits if the farmer mitigates a violation
    by restoring a wetland converted prior to the 1985 act.

    The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 mandated a
    variety of changes to help farmers comply with the provisions. 9 Among
    other things, the act allowed flexibility in developing and implementing
    conservation systems, and it allowed farmers to self- certify compliance

    6 For the purpose of this report, we use the term *conservation plan*
    interchangeably with *conservation system.* However, strictly speaking, a
    conservation plan is generally the document that describes a conservation
    system. In turn, a conservation system is a combination of one or more
    conservation practices. These practices include structural or vegetative
    measures or management techniques used to enhance, protect, or manage
    natural resources, such as soil. 7 The 1990 act also authorized the
    Wetlands Reserve Program. This program offers costshare

    assistance for wetlands restoration and the purchase of permanent or 30-
    year easements for the agricultural value of the land taken out of
    production.

    8 The 1990 act authorized graduated reductions in program benefits of not
    less than $500 nor more than $5,000 for a violation of conservation
    compliance or sodbuster provisions, or not less than $750 nor more than
    $10,000 for a violation of the swampbuster provision.

    9 The 1996 act also authorized the Environmental Quality Incentives
    Program to provide cost- share and incentive payments, to assist farmers
    in implementing conservation practices on their land for 5 to 10 years.

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation with their conservation
    systems. 10 The act also required USDA field staff who provide technical
    assistance to a farmer and observe a potential

    compliance deficiency on the farmer's tract to, within 45 days, provide
    the farmer with specific information on how to correct the deficiency. If
    the farmer agrees to correct the deficiency and signs an approved
    conservation plan, the farmer is given a waiver. However, if the farmer
    does not implement corrective action within 12 months after the waiver,
    USDA will schedule the tract for a compliance review. In addition, the act
    provided farmers with more flexibility to offset wetlands losses through
    mitigation, including the enhancement of an existing wetland or the
    creation of a new wetland. At the same time, the act made easier the "good
    faith" provisions that the 1990 act had previously added to the Food
    Security Act of 1985. Finally, the 1996 act removed crop insurance from
    the list of benefits that can be denied to farmers who violate the

    conservation provisions. 11 The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment
    Act did not change the conservation compliance provisions. 12 However, the
    act provides that the Secretary of Agriculture*s authority to make
    noncompliance determinations may not be delegated to any private person or
    entity.

    10 For highly erodible land not farmed from 1981 through 1985, under the
    sodbuster provisions, conservation systems must prevent a substantial
    increase in erosion, defined as 25 percent of potential erodibility, and
    hold soil erosion to no more than the rate at which soil can maintain
    continued productivity. For highly erodible land farmed at any time from
    1981 through 1985, under the conservation compliance provisions,
    conservation systems must substantially reduce soil erosion, defined as 75
    percent of the potential erodibility and not more than twice the rate at
    which soil can maintain continued productivity.

    11 Crop insurance is available for a fee (premium) to the producers of
    most crops as protection against significant yield losses from natural
    hazards, such as drought. 12 The 2002 act increased the enrollment ceiling
    for two of the incentive- based conservation programs, namely the
    Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. It also
    increased funding for several other incentive- based programs, including
    the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Finally, this act created
    two new incentivebased programs, the Conservation Security Program and the
    Grasslands Reserve Program. These latter programs are not yet operational.

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation NRCS monitors farmers*
    implementation of the conservation compliance provisions largely through
    compliance reviews. 13 In addition to the

    random sample of tracts that NRCS draws annually for these reviews, field
    offices select other tracts based on referrals from other agencies,
    farmers who receive farm loans, whistleblower complaints, potential
    violations observed by NRCS employees when providing technical assistance,
    and tracts that maintained eligibility due to prior year waivers. In
    conducting these reviews, NRCS staff visit a land tract to determine if
    the relevant farmer is following the conservation system, including
    specific conservation practices, developed and approved for that tract. As
    discussed, the 1985 act requires farmers to develop these systems in order
    to remain eligible for farm program benefits.

    In general, conservation systems are designed to be economically viable
    for a farmer while achieving substantial reductions in soil erosion. These
    systems are composed of one or more conservation practices. Some commonly
    used conservation practices include

     conservation crop rotation* planting low- residue crops such as soybeans
    in one year, followed by a high residue crop, such as corn in the
    following year on the same field, in order to generate an average layer of
    residue from year to year (used on 81 percent of highly erodible
    cropland);  conservation tillage* allowing the crop residue to stay on
    top of the field, rather than being plowed under when planting begins
    (used on 33 percent

    of highly erodible cropland);  terraces* creating an embankment or ridge
    (a terrace) at a right angle to sloping land in order to allow water to
    soak into the soil rather than to

    move down the slope, taking the soil with it (used on 13 percent of highly
    erodible cropland); and  grassed waterways* creating a broad and shallow
    depression, usually

    below a terraced area, that is planted with grasses to mitigate erosion by
    slowing the flow of runoff, holding a bank, and filtering out soil
    particles (used on 9 percent of highly erodible cropland).

    The adoption of a particular conservation practice varies with climate,
    topography, soils, predominant crops, and preexisting production
    practices. For example, local environmental conditions in eastern

    13 NRCS is a decentralized agency; its programs are implemented by its
    state and local offices (covering one or more counties), often in
    partnership with state conservation agencies and local conservation
    districts. Implementation of the

    Conservation Compliance Provisions

    Regional Erosion Concerns

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Nebraska, and western Texas
    require different conservation practices. Eastern Nebraska primarily
    produces corn and soybeans and has a higher

    average rainfall and a more varied topography than western Texas. Thus, to
    control soil erosion from water, farmers in eastern Nebraska use a larger
    number of conservation practices* most frequently conservation crop
    rotation, conservation tillage, terraces, and grassed waterways. In
    western Texas, wheat and cotton are the predominant crops. In this area,
    where soil erosion from wind is the primary concern, most conservation
    practices consist of either applying conservation tillage or creating
    ridges on the field (roughening the surface) to prevent the soil from
    blowing

    away. Figure 1 shows areas of the country with cropland that has a high
    propensity for soil erosion due to water and wind.

    Figure 1: Tons of Erosion Due to Water and Wind on Cropland, 1997 Note:
    Map includes land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.

    According to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, soil erosion is a
    leading cause of water pollution. Soil deposits in streams, rivers,
    drainageways, and lakes degrade water quality by increasing turbidity and
    transporting attached nutrients, pesticides, pathogens, and toxic

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation substances. In addition,
    soil erosion due to wind contributes to particulate matter in the air,
    which can cause respiratory illness and property damage.

    Of the estimated 220 million acres of marshes, bogs, swamps, and other
    wetlands in the contiguous United States during colonial times, over half
    have disappeared, and some remaining wetlands have been degraded. This
    decrease is due, primarily, to agricultural activities and development;

    wetlands were once regarded as unimportant areas to be filled or drained
    for these purposes. Pressure to use wetlands for such purposes continues,
    but in recent times, wetlands have become valued for a variety of
    ecological functions that they perform, including

     providing vital habitat for wildlife and waterfowl, including about half
    of the threatened and endangered species;  providing spawning grounds for
    commercially and recreationally valuable

    fish and shellfish;  providing flood control by slowing down and
    absorbing excess water

    during storms;  maintaining water quality by filtering out pollutants
    before they enter

    streams, lakes, and oceans; and  protecting coastal and upland areas from
    erosion.

    Recognizing the value of wetlands, in 1989, the administration set a
    national goal to protect against additional loss. Specifically, the first
    Bush administration established the national goal of *no net loss* of
    wetlands. Subsequently, the Clinton administration expanded the goal to
    achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands per year by 2005.

    In January 2001, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the U. S. Army Corps
    of Engineers (Corps) has no authority under the Clean Water Act to
    regulate certain isolated, intrastate, nonnavigable waters, including some

    wetlands. 14 However, even if a wetland is no longer within federal
    jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, it may still be protected under
    other federal or state laws. For example, in a January 2003 Advance Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency

    14 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U. S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, 531 U. S. 159 (2001). The Court specifically addressed Clean
    Water Act jurisdiction over isolated waters that are intrastate and
    nonnavigable where the sole basis for asserting such jurisdiction is the
    actual or potential use of the waters as habitat for migratory birds. The

    Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers are considering
    the implications of the ruling for Clean Water Act jurisdiction over other
    isolated, intrastate, nonnavigable waters. See 68 Fed. Reg. 1991 (Jan. 15,
    2003). Wetlands Conversion Concerns

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation and the Corps stated that
    the federal government remains committed to wetlands protection through
    the Food Security Act*s swampbuster

    requirements, among other programs. 15 In this regard, NRCS officials
    indicated to us that they do not anticipate any change in how they
    implement the swampbuster provisions; in part, these provisions are
    directed at the protection of isolated, intrastate wetlands that occur on
    cropland, including *prairie potholes* in the upper Midwest. 16 Figure 2
    shows areas of the country with wetlands on cropland, including permanent,
    seasonal, and prior- converted wetlands (cropped wetlands

    drained or filled prior to the 1985 act*s conservation compliance
    provisions).

    15 68 Fed. Reg. 1991, 1995 (Jan. 15, 2003). 16 Prairie potholes are
    freshwater depressions and marshes, often less than 2 feet deep and 1 acre
    in size, that were created by glaciers thousands of years ago. These
    wetlands are used as breeding areas for migratory waterfowl. In the United
    States, the Prairie Pothole Region encompasses parts of Montana, North
    Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota. Less than half of the original
    20 million acres of these prairie wetlands remain.

    Page 14 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Figure 2: Wetlands Acres on
    Cropland, 1992

    According to our survey, almost half of NRCS field offices do not follow
    all required procedures in implementing the conservation compliance
    provisions, including, for example, checking for wetlands violations
    during a compliance review and finding a farmer in violation when the
    farmer fails to implement an important conservation practice. The
    inconsistent implementation of the conservation provisions increases the
    likelihood that some farmers are still receiving federal farm payments
    even though they let soil erode at higher rates than allowed or convert
    wetlands to cropland. Our field office visits revealed similar problems.
    Furthermore, the field offices may not be consistently enforcing the
    provisions, according to our analysis of NRCS*s database on the results of
    compliance reviews: the number of waivers and violations issued as a
    percentage of total compliance reviews varied widely from state to state.
    Problems in the field offices* implementation of the conservation
    compliance provisions occur for a number of reasons, such as the lack of
    periodic training on how to conduct these reviews. Many NRCS Field

    Offices Are Not Implementing the Conservation Provisions As Required

    Page 15 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Our survey results indicate
    that 48 percent, or 903, of the field offices, are not implementing one or
    more provisions for conducting compliance

    reviews included in NRCS*s National Food Security Act Manual or other
    related guidance, as shown below:

     Nationwide, more than one- third, or 670, of the field offices, on
    average, do not check for wetlands violations when conducting compliance
    reviews. The lack of attention to potential wetlands violations varied by
    state, ranging from 15 percent to 63 percent of the field offices in each
    state; 18 states exceeded the national average of 36 percent.
    Nationwide, 16 percent, or 250, of the field offices do not always review

    tracts during the year after granting a compliance waiver to determine
    whether the farmer had taken measures to achieve compliance. The extent to
    which field offices do not follow this procedure varied considerably from
    state to state.

    Figure 3 shows that the range varied from 4 to 39 percent for the selected
    states. 17 17 We selected these states on the basis of such criteria as
    the amount of land that is subject

    to the conservation provisions and geographic dispersion. Many NRCS Field
    Offices

    Do Not Follow All Required Steps in Assessing Compliance

    Page 16 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Figure 3: Percentage of
    NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not Always Review Tracts the Year
    After Granting Compliance Waivers, Nationwide and Selected States Note:
    GAO*s survey results.

     Nationwide, about 19 percent, or 324, of the NRCS field offices do not
    always find a farmer in violation when the farmer fails to implement an
    important conservation practice, as required by NRCS guidance. Figure 4
    shows that from 4 percent to 38 percent of the field offices in selected
    states failed to cite farmers for a major violation.

    Page 17 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Figure 4: Percentage of
    NRCS Field Offices Indicating They Do Not Always Issue a Violation When a
    Farmer Fails to Implement an Important Conservation Practice, Nationwide
    and Selected States

    Note: GAO*s survey results.

    Our field office visits revealed similar problems as shown below:  In 14
    of the 20 offices, staff did not always conduct compliance reviews

    during critical soil erosion periods as required by NRCS*s guidance;
    during these periods, the soil is most susceptible to water or wind
    erosion. Critical periods may include, for example, April, May, and June*
    when planting occurs, crop residue is at its lowest level, and rainfalls
    may be heavy. For example, in one office in Texas, none of the 25
    compliance reviews done during the 4- year period we examined were
    conducted during the spring* the critical water erosion period. In another
    office in Texas, none of the 11 compliance reviews done in 2001 that we
    reviewed were conducted during the critical wind erosion period* January
    through April. According to staff in the 14 offices, NRCS headquarters and
    state

    Page 18 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation office delays in providing
    the lists of randomly selected tracts for compliance reviews generally
    prohibited field office staff from conducting

    the reviews within critical erosion periods. 18  In five Nebraska field
    offices, staff improperly granted waivers in 28 of the 60 minor or
    technical waiver cases we reviewed. According to NRCS guidance, staff may
    grant minor or technical waivers for conservation deficiencies if these
    deficiencies have little impact on erosion control. However, these 28
    waivers were granted to farmers who had failed to implement a major soil-
    conserving practice, such as maintaining terraces or sufficient crop
    residue, thereby potentially allowing severe waterrelated soil erosion to
    occur. 19  In one Texas field office, NRCS staff did not properly conduct
    a

    compliance review on a 9,878- acre tract in 2000. After the owner sold 166
    acres of the tract for a commercial cattle- feeding operation in 1999, the
    Farm Service Agency assigned new tract numbers to both the 166 acres and
    the remaining 9, 712 acres of the original tract in order to ensure proper
    accounting for farm benefits. Nevertheless, NRCS requires that a
    compliance review be conducted on all land included under the original
    tract number. However, staff in the field office reviewed the 166- acre
    tract only, not the other 9,712 acres, and yet reported the original tract
    as being

    in compliance.  Staff in one Colorado field office* responsible for
    conducting compliance

    reviews on about 40 tracts from 1998 through 2001* could find no evidence
    that these reviews had been done after a thorough search of their physical
    and electronic records. In contrast, these officials were able to produce
    documentation for reviews conducted in the years prior to 1998.

    Officials in this office indicated that it is doubtful that the reviews
    for 1998 through 2001 were done. Nevertheless, this office had reported
    that all the tracts were in compliance during these years.

    We also identified other types of situations in which field staff missed
    opportunities to identify and correct noncompliance. First, according to
    NRCS guidance, the agency*s field staff are required to report potential
    instances of noncompliance identified when they visit a farm to provide
    conservation technical assistance. In these cases, the guidance requires

    18 In September 2002, USDA*s Office of Inspector General reported a
    similar problem in three Kansas field offices. See U. S. Department of
    Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Natural Resources Conservation
    Service Compliance with Highly Erodible Land Provisions, Audit Report No.
    10099- 8- KC (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 10, 2002). 19 In one of these
    offices, field staff granted the minor and technical waiver in 2 or more
    consecutive years for 16 of the tracts.

    Page 19 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation that the staff issue a 12-
    month waiver to allow the farmer time to take corrective measures, while
    continuing the farmer*s eligibility for farm

    program benefits. 20 However, fewer than 40 percent of NRCS field offices
    reported that supervisors either generally or strongly encouraged them to
    identify tracts in noncompliance when providing technical assistance.
    During crop years 2000 and 2001, of the approximately 2.1 million
    technical assistance visits NRCS made, it identified deficiencies and
    issued waivers in only 22 instances. According to NRCS headquarters and
    field staff, the agency*s field staff are reluctant to identify
    deficiencies and issue waivers because they believe doing so would deter
    farmers from seeking technical assistance in the future; others cited NRCS
    guidance as unclear on when and how to issue a waiver for a deficiency
    discovered during

    technical assistance visits. Second, NRCS field offices do not always
    include a sample of tracts related to farmers who participate in the Farm
    Service Agency*s Farm Loan Program in their annual compliance reviews, as
    NRCS guidance

    requires. 21 According to NRCS, in addition to the headquarters list of
    tracts selected for compliance reviews that includes farmers who receive
    farm program benefits and produce crops on highly erodible land, the field
    offices are to conduct compliance reviews on a 5 percent sample of the
    loan program participants who are producing crops on highly erodible land.
    This 5 percent sample is taken to ensure oversight over farmers who
    participate in the loan program but do not otherwise receive farm program
    benefits. However, we found that in half of the 20 NRCS offices we

    visited, NRCS and Farm Service Agency field staff did not ensure that they
    included this sample of borrowers in each of the years we examined.

    Finally, NRCS field staff do not always maintain documentation supporting
    their decisions and do not always correctly report the results of their
    compliance reviews as required by the National Food Security Act Manual.
    For example, in 7 of the 20 offices we visited, the compliance review case
    file contained a worksheet documenting the decision but no evidence to
    show when the review was conducted, whether crop residue measurements were
    taken, or what on- site conditions were observed.

    20 See NRCS, National Food Security Act Manual, third edition. 21 See
    NRCS, National Food Security Act Manual, third edition, and the Farm
    Service Agency*s Farm Loan Program handbooks.

    Page 20 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation During crop years 2000 and
    2001, 5 percent of all compliance reviews resulted in waivers or
    violations, according to NRCS*s database on the

    results of compliance reviews. 22 However, as table 1 shows, this
    percentage varied significantly from state to state. For example, four
    states* Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma* experienced
    significantly more waivers and violations as a percentage of reviews
    conducted than the national average, while 10 states* Alabama, Arkansas,
    Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, South Dakota,
    Texas, and Virginia* experienced fewer. This variation suggests that
    NRCS*s field offices are not consistently enforcing the conservation
    compliance provisions. Similarly, of the 1,810 waivers and violations
    issued during crop years 2000 and 2001, more than 80 percent occurred in
    only 10 states* Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
    Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin; these 10 states
    represent only 36 percent of all reviews, suggesting again a lack of
    enforcement consistency across states.

    22 Detailed information regarding waivers and violations was unavailable
    for crop years 1998 and 1999 because NRCS did not collect these data.
    Significant Variation in the

    Number of Waivers and Violations May Indicate Inconsistent Enforcement
    among States

    Page 21 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Table 1: Results of NRCS*s
    Compliance Reviews for Selected States for Combined Crop Years 2000- 2001
    State Tracts reviewed for

    compliance Tracts with NRCS waivers Tracts with

    violations Total waivers and violations

    Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts

    reviewed

    Alabama 559 1 6 7 1.3 Arkansas 588 2 5 7 1.2 Colorado 883 15 4 19 2.2
    Georgia 691 7 2 9 1.3 Iowa 2,942 283 130 413 14.0 Maryland 235 1 0 1 0.4
    Michigan 409 1 2 3 0.7 Mississippi 849 33 0 33 3.9 Nebraska 1,907 158 115
    273 14.3 North Carolina 1,229 14 5 19 1.5 North Dakota 1,659 11 246 257
    15.5 Oklahoma 706 74 2 76 10.8 Pennsylvania 374 14 7 21 5.6 South Dakota
    906 2 2 4 0.4 Texas 1,923 17 3 20 1.0 Virginia 376 5 1 6 1.6 Washington
    400 5 14 19 4.8 Wisconsin 1,460 59 30 89 6.1 Remaining 32 states 16,871
    306 228 534 3.2

    Total 34,967 a 1,008 b 802 c 1,810 5.2

    Source: NRCS. Note: GAO*s analysis of NRCS*s data. a Total compliance
    reviews include tracts of 13, 025 and 13,544 in 2000 and 2001,
    respectively, that

    were randomly selected by NRCS headquarters. The total also includes
    tracts added by NRCS field offices based on referrals from other agencies
    (e. g., tracts owned by employees of other USDA agencies), whistleblower
    complaints, tracts owned by Farm Loan Program participants, and tracts
    that maintained eligibility for farm benefits because of prior year
    waivers. These additional tracts numbered 4,234 and 4,164 in 2000 and
    2001, respectively.

    b *Waivers* refers to NRCS variances and exemptions. An NRCS waiver does
    not change the fact that the agency has made a noncompliance
    determination. The farmer receiving the waiver is still considered to have
    committed a violation that must be corrected, unless the waiver was given
    for severe or unusual conditions related to weather, disease or pests. C
    Total tracts with violations largely reflect NRCS*s preliminary
    noncompliance determinations, as of

    the date these data were compiled. Many of these determinations were
    subsequently reversed by NRCS-- through granting variances or exemptions--
    on appeal from the affected farmers. Because NRCS*s data on tracts with
    violations reflect a number of preliminary determinations that were
    subsequently reversed by NRCS, the total number of violations reported for
    crop years 2000- 2001 in this table is greater than the total number shown
    for these years in Table 2. This latter table, based on Farm Service
    Agency data, shows the actual number of tracts with violations referred by
    NRCS to the Farm Service Agency for action.

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation The Soil and Water
    Conservation Society and the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition* two
    conservation groups* maintain that the wide state- to- state

    differences may indicate inconsistent application or differing
    interpretations of conservation compliance procedures. We also hold this
    view. These groups also noted that some of these differences may be
    explained by the differences in topography, local weather conditions, and
    farmers* ability to comply with the conservation provisions. More detailed
    information on the results of NRCS*s compliance reviews is contained in
    appendix III.

    Our survey and field office visits identified key reasons for the problems
    in implementing the conservation compliance provisions. As figure 5 shows,
    on the basis of our survey results, field offices reported lack of staff,
    reversal of noncompliance decisions, and unwillingness to assume an
    enforcement role as the primary hindrances in carrying out the provisions.
    Several Factors, Including

    Lack of Training, Contribute to Problems in Implementing Conservation
    Compliance

    Page 23 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Figure 5: Percentage of
    NRCS Field Offices Indicating Primary Hindrances in Carrying Out
    Conservation Compliance Provisions

    Notes: GAO*s survey results. *Other* includes lack of NRCS guidance; lack
    of appropriate information, such as maps; compliance reviews that are not
    a priority with supervisor; sample tracts that are received at
    inconvenient times; and, external influences.

    *Reversal of noncompliance decisions* includes decisions overturned by
    NRCS or USDA*s National Appeals Division and waivers issued by the Farm
    Service Agency. However, Farm Service Agency officials noted that the
    issuance of a *good faith* waiver by their agency does not, technically
    speaking, represent a reversal of the noncompliance determination. They
    explained that although the farmer involved remains eligible for farm
    program benefits, the farmer has committed a violation and

    must undertake corrective measures within 12 months or risk losing these
    benefits at that time. Nevertheless, for the purpose of our work, we made
    a distinction: a compliance review either results in a violation, leading
    to the loss of a farmer*s eligibility for farm program benefits, or a
    waiver, allowing a farmer to continue his/ her eligibility. In addition,
    244 field staff elaborated on one of these hindrances* the

    undesirability of the enforcement role* in their written comments to our
    survey. For example, some wrote that it is difficult to provide assistance
    to farmers most of the year in the small communities where the field staff
    live and work and then have to cite some of the same farmers for
    noncompliance, which may result in the loss of their farm program
    benefits.

    In this regard, our past work has noted this cultural conflict in NRCS
    between its regulatory role under the 1985 act and its traditional role of

    Page 24 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation advising and helping
    farmers. 23 Specifically, for the past 70 years, NRCS*s role, including
    that of its predecessor organization, the Soil Conservation

    Service, has largely been to work cooperatively with farmers to provide
    technical assistance and foster voluntary conservation. With the addition
    of the 1985 conservation compliance provisions, NRCS is often in the
    conflicting position of acting as advisor to and regulator of farmers. Our
    past evaluation and many of the studies we reviewed found that this
    internal conflict contributes to the reluctance of the agency*s field
    office staff, with whom most contacts with farmers take place, to cite
    farmers

    with violations in their conservation plans because such violations could
    cause farmers to lose their farm program benefits. In addition to the
    primary hindrances noted by the survey respondents, 36 percent of
    respondents reported that since the mid- 1990s, the agency*s management
    has de- emphasized the conservation compliance provisions. Instead, NRCS
    has shifted its emphasis to providing technical assistance and to
    enrolling farmers in incentive- based conservation programs that provide
    cost- share and other financial assistance. For example, in January 2003,
    NRCS headquarters officials indicated that over the past 20 years,

    the number of conservation programs that the agency is responsible for
    implementing has doubled from 6 to 12. Furthermore, the funding for many
    of these programs has increased markedly in recent years, with a
    corresponding increase in workload for the agency*s staff. However,
    according to these officials, NRCS staff level has declined by about 25
    percent in the last 20 years. 24 These problems, which may be difficult to
    address, are exacerbated by a

    lack of training on the conservation compliance provisions and a need for
    further clarification of NRCS*s written guidance. Periodic training has
    generally not been available since the mid- 1990s, which has led to errors
    in assessing and reporting on compliance. For example, in 11 of the 20
    field offices we visited, staff had not received periodic training on how
    to

    conduct these reviews and, as a result, these field staff did not always
    correctly report the results of their compliance reviews.

    23 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Soil and Wetlands Conservation:
    Soil Conservation Service Making Good Progress but Cultural Issues Need
    Attention, GAO/ RCED- 94- 241 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 27, 1994). 24 At
    present, NRCS has about 11, 000 employees. About three- fourths of these
    employees

    are located in the agency*s approximately 2,500 field offices.

    Page 25 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Similarly, nearly 80
    percent of the 114 survey respondents who provided written comments on
    training issues noted the lack of recent training on

    highly erodible land and wetlands conservation provisions, including
    conducting compliance reviews. For example, one respondent commented that
    he received excellent training in the conservation compliance provisions
    when they were first implemented in the early 1990s but that many of the
    younger employees have not received such training. Another respondent, who
    had transferred from one state to another noted differences in how the
    compliance reviews were conducted and suggested that staff needed training
    to ensure that reviews are conducted uniformly. In discussing this issue
    with NRCS headquarters officials in January 2003, they acknowledged that
    periodic training has not been provided in recent years and agreed that
    this lack of training is a problem.

    Moreover, more than 50 percent of survey respondents reported that NRCS*s
    National Food Security Act Manual (the guidance manual) needs
    clarification in key areas of conservation compliance* highly erodible
    cropland, sodbuster, swampbuster, compliance reviews, and appeals of
    noncompliance decisions. USDA*s Office of Inspector General has also
    reported on the need for clarification in NRCS*s written guidance for
    implementing the conservation compliance provisions. For example, in a
    September 2002 report, the Inspector General noted that weaknesses in
    guidance manual procedures had reduced the effectiveness of NRCS
    administration of the highly erodible land provisions and the agency*s
    ability to accurately evaluate producers* compliance with these
    provisions. 25 The weaknesses noted include incorrect procedural
    crossreferences, inconsistent guidelines for applying the provisions, and
    inconsistent instructions for executing the provisions. For example, the
    Inspector General noted that the guidance manual does not provide specific
    guidance on the action required if a farmer and field office personnel
    disagree over the conservation practices to be included in the farmer*s
    conservation plan. In reviewing these types of cases in Kansas, the
    Inspector General found that farmers were generally granted a special
    problem waiver in lieu of a noncompliance determination, although the
    guidance manual provides that this type of waiver is authorized only when
    a farmer is actively applying an approved conservation plan. In another

    25 See U. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General,
    Natural Resources Conservation Service Compliance with Highly Erodible
    Land Provisions, Audit Report No. 10099- 8- KC (Washington, D. C.: Sept.
    10, 2002). This audit was undertaken in NRCS and Farm Service Agency
    offices in Kansas.

    Page 26 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation case, the Inspector General
    found that although the guidance manual allows *properly trained
    personnel* to make visual estimates of crop

    residue during on- site compliance reviews, the manual does not specify
    the training necessary or who will determine whether the person doing a
    review is qualified to make the estimate.

    The Inspector General also noted a need for NRCS to better coordinate with
    the Farm Service Agency to ensure consistency among their respective
    policies and procedures concerning the compliance provisions. For example,
    the Inspector General found that although the NRCS guidance manual states
    that the Farm Service Agency rules applicable to the agency*s Farm Loan
    Program require annual compliance reviews for 5

    percent of borrowers producing commodity crops on highly erodible
    cropland, the manual does not explain how this sample should be drawn.
    Similarly, relevant Farm Service Agency handbooks do not provide this

    guidance either. As a consequence, the Inspector General found that sample
    selection methods were inconsistent across the field offices examined,
    leading to inefficiencies such as the inclusion of farmers whose loans are
    not affected by the compliance provisions. The Inspector General also
    found that farmers are not subject to a mandatory compliance review at the
    time a loan is requested, yet once a loan is closed, it is unlikely the
    loan will be called because of a conservation compliance violation. In
    light of these findings, the Inspector General recommended that NRCS

    undertake certain actions to clarify its written guidance and to better
    coordinate its guidance with guidance issued by the Farm Service Agency.
    In a letter signed by its Acting Deputy Chief for Programs, NRCS accepted
    these recommendations and promised corrective actions by August 2003.

    NRCS does not effectively oversee its field offices* implementation of the
    conservation provisions, among other things, calling into doubt its claim
    that 98 percent of the tracts reviewed are in compliance with the act*s
    conservation provisions. First, NRCS*s process for selecting tracts for
    compliance reviews disproportionately emphasizes tracts with little or no
    potential for noncompliance, such as permanent rangelands. Such tracts

    account for about 20 percent of the tracts selected annually. Second, NRCS
    does not have an automated system for promptly informing its field offices
    of the tracts selected for compliance reviews and for enabling the field
    offices to efficiently report the results of these reviews. As a

    consequence, in many cases, the field offices do not have the information
    on the tracts to be reviewed until after the critical erosion control
    period Weak Oversight

    Raises Doubts about NRCS*s Assertion of a High Rate of Compliance

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation has passed; the reviews
    should be done during these periods. Third, NRCS does not consistently
    collect and analyze the results of the field offices*

    compliance reviews to identify unusual enforcement patterns across regions
    and states and over time. For example, NRCS was not aware, until our
    review, that 30 of the 50 *good faith* waivers granted nationally in 2000
    occurred in just one state. Finally, USDA*s Office of Inspector General
    has noted that improvements in NRCS*s implementation of the conservation
    provisions are needed to strengthen the agency*s ability to provide
    accurate and reliable assessments of farmers* compliance. Importantly,
    these improvements include the need for NRCS to refrain

    from issuing waivers that are not warranted. NRCS*s process for selecting
    land tracts for compliance reviews gives a disproportionate emphasis to
    tracts that have little potential for noncompliance, potentially inflating
    the farmers* compliance rate reported by the agency. To conduct the
    compliance reviews, NRCS randomly selects about 13,000 tracts of land from
    a Farm Service Agency database containing more than 4.5 million tracts of
    land owned or leased by farmers receiving USDA program benefits. Of the
    4.5 million tracts, 1.7 million are designated as highly erodible land,
    and the remaining 2.8 million are designated as potential wetlands. Of the
    13,000 sample tracts, about 60 percent are selected for highly

    erodible land. The remaining 40 percent are selected from tracts that have
    the potential to contain wetlands. This latter group of tracts is
    separated into two groups* hydric and nonhydric. The hydric group includes
    tracts located in counties where more than 20 percent of the soil is
    classified as hydric* that is, the land is flooded long enough during a
    growing season to support plants that can grow in water or in soil too
    waterlogged for most

    plants to survive. The remaining tracts are placed in the nonhydric group.
    In general, tracts placed in this group have a very low potential to be
    subject to the conservation compliance provisions concerning wetlands. For
    example, many of these tracts are located in arid parts of the country and
    include permanent rangelands. Nevertheless, NRCS draws a relatively large
    sample from the nonhydric group* amounting to about 20 percent of the
    13,000 sample tracts overall* even though the applicability of the

    conservation compliance provisions to these tracts is very unlikely. The
    inclusion of nonhydric tracts for which the conservation compliance
    provisions have little applicability tends to inflate the farmer
    compliance rate reported by NRCS. In 2001, this rate was reported as 98
    percent compliance. For example, 73 field offices providing written
    comments to NRCS*s Compliance

    Sample Includes Tracts with Little Potential for Noncompliance

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation our survey reported that
    many tracts selected for compliance reviews were not subject to the
    conservation provisions because the tracts did not

    contain wetlands or highly erodible land or because the tracts contained
    rangeland, timber, or permanent cover grass. The results of our field
    office work tended to reinforce this conclusion. For example, we found
    that 36 tracts selected for the wetlands compliance review contained no
    wetlands. Moreover, some of these tracts consisted of permanent rangeland,
    which is not subject to the conservation provisions. Nevertheless, the
    field offices involved reported these tracts as being in compliance, even
    though the conservation provisions were not applicable to them. A number
    of NRCS officials told us that it would be more

    appropriate for the agency to reduce the number of nonhydric tracts
    reviewed in favor of increasing the number of highly erodible land and
    hydric tracts reviewed.

    Another potential issue concerning the sample of tracts selected by NRCS
    for review concerns the size of that sample. For example, two groups with
    whom we spoke, the Wildlife Management Institute and the Sustainable
    Agriculture Coalition, assert that the sample size is too small to serve
    as a deterrent to farmers who may be violating the conservation compliance
    provisions. They note that this sample size has dropped from 42,000 in
    1997 to about 13,000 annually beginning in 1998; the latter number
    represents about one- quarter of 1 percent of the 4.5 million tracts
    potentially subject to the conservation provisions nationwide. 26 However,
    these groups have not questioned the statistical validity of the sample
    drawn for projecting to the universe of all farmers associated with these
    4.5 million tracts. In response, NRCS officials told us that they reduced
    the sample size because of resource constraints; higher- priority work
    related to its other programs; and the absence of demonstrated, widespread
    noncompliance in past reviews. In addition, they maintain that this lower
    number of reviews is adequate and statistically valid for projecting
    nationally. However, at the same time, they note that the sample is not
    large enough to project on a state- by- state basis.

    26 The actual number of compliance reviews done each year was somewhat
    higher. For example, in 2000 and 2001, the total tracts reviewed were 17,
    259 and 17,708, respectively. The total for 2000 includes 13, 025 tracts
    selected randomly by NRCS headquarters and an additional 4, 234 tracts
    added by NRCS field offices on the basis of referrals from other

    agencies (e. g., tracts owned by employees of other USDA agencies),
    whistleblower complaints, tracts owned by Farm Loan Program participants,
    and tracts that maintained eligibility for farm benefits because of prior
    year waivers. Similarly, the total for 2001 includes 13,544 tracts
    selected randomly and an additional 4,164 tracts added by NRCS field
    offices.

    Page 29 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation NRCS does not have a
    nationwide, automated system, such as a web- based system, for promptly
    informing its field offices of the tracts selected for

    compliance reviews and for enabling the field offices to efficiently
    report the results of these reviews. As a consequence, in many cases, the
    field offices do not have the information on the tracts to be reviewed
    until after the critical erosion control period during which the reviews
    should have been done. As a result, NRCS does not have a comprehensive
    picture of erosion during critical periods. Furthermore, without such a
    system,

    NRCS lacks accurate, up- to- date information for oversight to evaluate
    the field offices* implementation of the conservation compliance
    provisions.

    According to NRCS officials, the agency had a nationwide, automated system
    in the mid- 1990s that it used to promptly inform its field offices of
    tracts selected for review and to receive the results of these reviews.
    However, NRCS discontinued using this system in 1998 because it was
    unsatisfactory for other agency operations, such as developing
    conservation plans for farmers or taking applications for USDA*s various

    incentive- based conservation programs. In place of the original system,
    NRCS implemented a new system that more efficiently collects information
    related to these other operations. 27 However, the new system does not
    provide a means to efficiently disseminate and collect

    information on compliance reviews. At present, NRCS uses a cumbersome,
    multi- step process to disseminate and collect information on compliance
    reviews that does not allow for the efficient sharing of information.
    Specifically, in order to disseminate information on tracts selected for
    review, NRCS headquarters must first provide its state offices with the
    list of selected tracts. The state offices then sort and transmit this
    information to supervisory area field offices, which, in turn, sort and
    transmit the information to individual field offices. 28 This process
    generally tends to delay the transmittal of information on tracts selected
    for reviews to the field offices that must do these reviews until after
    the critical erosion control periods in which the

    27 NRCS eliminated the earlier system in favor of a new system, known as
    the Performance and Results Measurement System. This system is used to
    collect data on the number of farmers assisted, types of assistance
    provided, conservation practices planned and installed, and program
    results or outcomes. The system was piloted in fiscal year 1999 and is now
    fully operational. 28 NRCS*s field structure includes state, area
    (encompassing several field offices), and field

    offices. Some smaller states do not have area offices. In general, field
    offices correspond to a county. NRCS Lacks an Automated

    System to Promptly Inform Its Field Offices of Tracts Selected for
    Compliance Reviews

    Page 30 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation reviews should be done have
    passed, such as during the spring planting period when the residue (ground
    cover) from previous crops is low, rains

    may be heavy, and the soil is being disturbed for planting. For example,
    in 2000, NRCS*s Texas state office received information from NRCS
    headquarters on the tracts selected for review on March 31, but did not
    transmit this information to area offices until April 26, 2000. The area
    office for west Texas did not transmit the selected tracts to its field
    offices until May 2, 2000. As a result of the delays at each step in this
    process, the west Texas field offices did not receive the list of tracts
    for compliance reviews until well after the critical erosion control
    period, which ended in early April.

    The current process for disseminating and collecting information on
    compliance reviews also interferes with timely compliance checks that
    should be done in the fall, such as at the time when winter wheat is sown.
    For example, NRCS requires its field offices to complete compliance
    reviews no later than the early fall, which is before the critical erosion
    period in some areas of the country associated with crops planted in late
    fall. NRCS requires reporting by early fall in order to allow time for it
    to

    enter the information on the results of these reviews into its compliance
    review database before the end of the calendar year. 29 As with the
    dissemination of information from headquarters to the field offices on the
    tracts to be reviewed, the roll up of the results of these compliance
    reviews must repeat the multi- step process in reverse: field office to
    supervisory area office; area office to state office; and state office to
    headquarters. In some cases, the results of the reviews are provided in
    electronic files attached to emails; in others, the field offices provide
    the results in paper documents that the receiving office must enter into
    an electronic file before it can be passed on to the next level. USDA*s
    Office of Inspector General has also reported on the need for more

    timely compliance reviews to strengthen the agency*s ability to provide
    accurate and reliable assessments of farmers* compliance. In its September
    2002 report, the Inspector General concluded that compliance reviews are
    not always performed during critical erosion control periods because of
    the untimely distribution of compliance review tract selection lists to
    NRCS state and field office personnel. For example, in Kansas,

    29 According to NRCS officials, NRCS*s state offices must report the
    results of compliance reviews to headquarters by December 1. To ensure
    this deadline is met, field offices are generally required to report the
    results of their reviews to their area offices in October, and,

    in turn, the area offices must report these results to the state offices
    by early November.

    Page 31 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation where the critical wind
    erosion control period is March 1 through April 15, the list of tracts
    selected for compliance reviews in 2000 was not received in one field
    office until April 19 of that year. Moreover, guidance from the

    NRCS*s Kansas state office on how to download and use the 2000 compliance
    review list was not issued to its field offices until April 27. As a
    consequence, it was impossible for these field offices to perform the
    required compliance reviews during the critical erosion control period.
    NRCS headquarters and field staff acknowledge the need for a nationwide,

    automated system, such as a web- based system, for promptly informing the
    agency*s field offices of the tracts selected for compliance reviews and
    for enabling these offices to report the results of their reviews as they
    are completed. In general, these staff referred to the current process for
    disseminating and collecting this information as piecemeal and
    inefficient. Furthermore, in a letter responding to the Inspector
    General*s September

    2002 report, the agency*s Acting Deputy Chief for Programs stated that
    NRCS would reengineer its compliance review process, including the
    development of new software, to provide for a more timely distribution of
    the status review lists. This official stated that this action would be
    taken by August 2003. However, in January 2003, NRCS headquarters
    officials

    indicated that uncertainties regarding the agency*s appropriation for
    fiscal year 2003 would preclude NRCS from taking this action by August
    2003. 30 In addition, these officials said that the reengineering of the
    agency*s compliance review process must be weighed against other agency
    priorities for available funding. At present, NRCS officials said the
    timeframe for completing this reengineering is uncertain, although they
    indicated that the agency*s plan is, at some point, to web- base the data
    entry for compliance reviews. 31 30 As of January 2003, USDA, as well as
    most of the federal government, was operating under a continuing
    resolution. 31 According to NRCS officials, the agency plans to include a
    conservation compliance

    database in a module of its Integrated Accountability System. Eventually,
    the associated data entry would be web- based. As of early February 2003,
    this project plan was pending and subject to receipt of adequate
    appropriations. Regarding cost, NRCS officials noted that the cost of the
    planned actions will be relatively low and it is included as an indistinct
    cost element in a larger accountability system appropriation request for
    fiscal year 2003. In the meantime, these officials advised us that NRCS is
    undertaking measures in fiscal year 2003 to improve the compliance review
    process, including earlier dissemination of information on the tracts to
    be reviewed and several policy changes. However, given the recentness or
    pending status of these developments, we were unable to assess their
    impact.

    Page 32 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation NRCS has not established
    and maintained a consistent methodology for collecting and summarizing
    compliance review data so that it can (1)

    reliably compare farmers* compliance with conservation provisions from
    year to year and (2) assess its field offices* conduct of compliance
    reviews. According to Office of Management and Budget Circular A- 123,
    agencies are required to implement management controls such as policies
    and procedures to reasonably ensure that programs achieve their intended
    results; laws and regulations are followed; and reliable and timely
    information is obtained, maintained, reported, and used for decision
    making. From 1993 through 1997, NRCS collected detailed information about
    the results of its compliance reviews to identify trends and anomalies in
    monitoring farmers* compliance with the conservation provisions. NRCS
    analyzed data at the state level and reported information such as the
    percentage of farmers in noncompliance, the types of waivers granted, and
    the soil erosion rates both before and after the application of
    conservation practices. However, in January 2003, NRCS headquarters
    officials said that beginning in 1998 the agency significantly reduced the
    information it gathers because staff reductions and an increasing workload
    associated with its other programs made the collection of this information
    burdensome. In addition, these officials noted that after the conservation
    systems required under the compliance provisions were in place by the mid-
    1990s, NRCS placed less emphasis on collecting data related to compliance
    reviews. For example, NRCS no longer collects soil erosion rates before
    and after conservation practices have been applied and has only
    periodically collected information on the

    types of waivers granted. Furthermore, although NRCS still collects the
    results of the field offices* compliance reviews, it no longer analyzes
    these results to determine consistency across regions and states and over
    time.

    As a result of these changes, NRCS is no longer able to determine whether
    the conservation provisions are being consistently applied across states
    and over time. For example, until we brought it to their attention, NRCS
    headquarters staff were unaware that 30 of the 50 good faith waivers
    granted nationally in crop year 2000 occurred in just one state. In
    another case, NRCS was unaware that of the approximately 2.1 million
    technical assistance visits that its staff made to farms during crop years
    2000 and 2001, as discussed, these staff identified deficiencies and
    issued waivers in only 22 instances. NRCS Does Not

    Consistently Collect and Analyze Monitoring Data

    Page 33 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation In addition to improving
    the timeliness of compliance reviews, as discussed, USDA*s Office of
    Inspector General has noted other areas in

    need of improvement regarding NRCS*s implementation of the conservation
    provisions. For example, in reports issued in August and September 2002,
    the Inspector General cited specific examples in Kansas where special
    problem waivers were approved for circumstances that did not appear to
    meet the established criteria. 32 NRCS may grant this type of waiver to a
    farmer if a violation occurred because of personal hardship or adverse
    weather, or if the violation was minor, or if it was technical. The
    Inspector General also noted cases where potential compliance
    deficiencies, identified by NRCS field staff when providing conservation
    technical assistance to a farmer, were not subject to follow up status
    reviews.

    Regarding the use of special problem waivers, the Inspector General found
    cases where NRCS area and state office personnel authorized these waivers
    because of agency procedural errors even though the farmers involved were
    not actively applying approved conservation plans or systems, as required
    by the conservation provisions and the agency*s guidance manual. For
    example, in one case, the Inspector General found that a farmer received a
    waiver for 2 consecutive years on the basis of a minor procedural issue
    although the district conservationist found the farmer to be in
    noncompliance with the sodbuster provision. The waiver was recommended by
    the area office on the basis of the local field office*s failure to
    complete in- office paperwork related to the compliance reviews within
    prescribed time frames although this missed internal deadline had no
    bearing on the district conservationist*s noncompliance determination. The
    Inspector General concluded that special problem waivers were being used
    inappropriately to prevent farmers from being found to be noncompliant
    with the conservation compliance provisions. As a result, according to the
    Inspector General, the farmers involved were allowed to continue to
    receive USDA farm program benefits even though they were

    violating the conservation provisions. Concerning compliance deficiencies
    noted during the on- farm provision of conservation technical assistance,
    the Inspector General found cases in 32 See U. S. Department of
    Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Natural Resources Conservation
    Service: Effectiveness of Status Review Process in Kansas, Audit Report
    No. 10099- 9- KC (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 8, 2002) and Natural Resources
    Conservation

    Service: Compliance with Highly Erodible Land Provisions, Audit Report No.
    10099- 8- KC (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 10, 2002). USDA*s Office of
    Inspector

    General Has Also Noted the Need to Improve the Reliability of NRCS*s
    Assessments of Farmers*

    Compliance

    Page 34 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation one field office where,
    although the NRCS staff had seen violations during the provision of this
    assistance, these staff did not include the farmers

    involved on a list of producers who would be determined to be noncompliant
    if all noted deficiencies were not corrected. In general, this occurred in
    cases where a farmer requested, but did not receive, costshare assistance
    for planned conservation practices under other USDA programs.
    Specifically, the Inspector General found that this office*s philosophy
    was that the farmer should not be penalized, despite the existence of
    compliance violations, for voluntary efforts to apply conservation
    measures. However, NRCS*s national guidance manual is clear in these
    cases: (1) NRCS should inform the farmer of actions or practices needed
    when potential compliance deficiencies are noted while providing routine
    technical assistance. (2) The farmer is then required to agree to correct
    the deficiency, sign a conservation plan within 45 days, and implement the
    necessary conservation system within 1 year to remain compliant and
    eligible for farm program benefits. (3) NRCS should conduct a compliance
    review after a year to determine if the farmer took the necessary actions.
    Again, because of the problems noted, the Inspector General concluded that
    farmers who were potentially noncompliant with the conservation compliance
    provisions remained eligible for USDA farm program benefits.

    In response to the Inspector General*s findings, NRCS agreed to take
    corrective actions. For example, the NRCS Kansas state office indicated
    that it will review all special problem waiver requests on an ongoing
    basis and approve waivers only for those situations that meet the criteria
    for special problems established in national guidance. The state office
    also concurred that potential compliance deficiencies observed while
    providing routine technical assistance are subject to a follow- up
    compliance review, regardless of the presence or absence of cost- share
    assistance; the state office promised a clarifying directive to all of its
    field offices by January 1, 2003, if it found that this problem was
    occurring in other offices.

    Page 35 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation The Farm Service Agency
    frequently waives NRCS*s noncompliance determinations but does not always
    adequately support its decisions.

    From 1993 through 2001, the Farm Service Agency waived NRCS*s
    noncompliance determinations in 4,948 of 8,118 cases in which farmers were
    cited with violations, or about 61 percent, in response to farmers*
    appeals. Of the 4,948 appeals leading to waivers, 3,966, or 80 percent,
    were considered by the Farm Service Agency*s local county committees,
    which found that the farmers had acted in good faith* that is, they did
    not intend to violate the conservation provisions. 33 Regarding the role
    of the county committees, 41 NRCS field offices providing written comments
    in response to our survey noted that because the committee members are
    fellow farmers, they are predisposed to approve farmers* appeals so as not
    to penalize a neighbor*s eligibility for farm program benefits. In
    addition, about one- third of our NRCS survey respondents indicated that
    the Farm Service Agency does not adequately justify its waiver decisions.
    In Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa, half of the survey respondents shared this
    view. Without support from the Farm Service Agency, some NRCS field office
    staff said that they have less incentive to conduct compliance reviews and
    issue violations when warranted. In addition, in discussing this issue
    with NRCS headquarters officials in January 2003, they expressed surprise
    when informed of the frequency with which the Farm Service Agency waives
    NRCS*s noncompliance determinations.

    Our field office visits reinforced the assertion that the Farm Service
    Agency does not adequately justify its waiver decisions. In the five
    offices we visited that had found farmers in violation of the conservation
    provisions, NRCS officials indicated that the Farm Service Agency*s
    waivers were not adequately justified. Furthermore, our review of the
    minutes of the Farm Service Agency*s county committee meetings and other
    relevant records revealed that these documents did not clearly explain the
    basis for waiving NRCS*s noncompliance determinations in 34 of the 48
    waivers we examined. For example, in 2001, in one office in Nebraska, we
    found that the county committee waived 8 NRCS noncompliance determinations
    for a single farmer, even though NRCS had already waived 16 violations for
    this farmer from 1999 through 2001.

    33 In the remaining 982 appeals, the Farm Service Agency reinstated the
    benefits by issuing tenant and landlord waivers in 729 and 253 cases,
    respectively. Tenants may maintain eligibility for benefits if the
    violation occurred because the actions of the landlord prevented the
    tenant*s implementation of the conservation system. If a landlord owns
    tracts operated by more than one tenant, the landlord will be eligible for
    benefits on all tracts except those tracts where a tenant violates the
    conservation compliance provisions. Farm Service Agency

    Frequently Waives NRCS Noncompliance Decisions without Adequate
    Justification

    Page 36 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation However, the committee*s
    minutes and other documentation did not clearly state the reason for these
    waivers.

    Because of the waivers granted by its county committees, the Farm Service
    Agency reinstates most benefits that farmers would otherwise be ineligible
    to receive. As shown in table 2, for crop years 1993 through 2001, of the
    $59.6 million in benefits that were to be denied because of compliance
    violations, about $40.4 million was reinstated after the Farm Service
    Agency considered farmers* appeals and made its final ruling. The table
    also shows that the benefits actually denied as a percentage of benefits
    to be denied has generally declined over time. More detailed information
    on the benefits denied farmers for conservation compliance violations is
    contained in appendix IV.

    Page 37 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Table 2: USDA Benefits
    Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for Violations of Conservation
    Provisions, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Dollars in thousands

    Crop year

    Tracts reviewed for compliance a Tracts with

    violations Farmers with violations

    Benefits to be denied

    before appeals

    Benefits reinstated by Farm Service

    Agency b Benefits reinstated

    by others c Benefits denied

    Percentage of benefits

    denied

    1993 53,878 2,085 2,860 $17,211 $10,416 $2,067 $4,483 26.0 1994 49,314
    1,639 2,483 14,845 9,415 1,803 3,625 24.4 1995 44,983 633 940 2,838 1,639
    224 975 34.4 1996 49,986 498 632 2,302 967 405 930 40.4 1997 49,636 183
    277 2,305 1,622 279 403 17.5 1998 15,385 205 268 3,895 1,988 1,175 731
    18.8 1999 14,136 180 245 4,959 4,241 355 362 7.3 2000 17,259 153 197 4,870
    4,168 39 634 13.0 2001 17,708 118 170 6,385 5,941 155 289 4.5

    Total 312,285 5,694 8,072 $59,610 $40,397 $6,502 $12,432 20.9

    Source: GAO. Notes: GAO*s analysis of the Farm Service Agency*s data.
    Benefits denied include price and income support payments, conservation
    payments, disaster payments, guaranteed loans, and crop insurance (through
    1996). Benefits denied do not include

    $361,441 that could not be directly associated with specific tracts. Data
    in table do not include benefits denied participants in the peanut-
    marketing quota program or tobacco- marketing quota program, which are
    reported in pounds. The benefits denied total 2.1 million pounds for
    peanuts and 3. 6 million pounds for tobacco.

    The decline in the number of tracts and farmers with violations over time
    is attributable, in part, to the reduction in the number of compliance
    reviews being performed each year. Other factors, as noted in the results
    of our survey and field office visits, as well as in reports issued by
    USDA*s Inspector General, likely include a misuse of waivers, decreasing
    management emphasis on conservation compliance relative to NRCS*s other
    responsibilities, and a continuing reluctance to assume the enforcement
    role called for by the compliance provisions. a Compliance reviews are
    conducted by NRCS.

    b Includes $33.9 million reinstated because of good faith waivers and $6.5
    million reinstated because of tenant and landlord waivers. c Includes
    benefits reinstated by NRCS State Conservationists, USDA*s National
    Appeals Division, and judicial courts after considering related farmers*
    appeals.

    In discussing the waiver issue with Farm Service Agency officials in
    January 2003, they noted that the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
    Reform Act of 1996 eliminated graduated payment reductions as a penalty
    for conservation compliance violations, except for sodbuster. Thus, the
    agency*s county committees currently have few options when considering a
    farmer*s appeal of a noncompliance determination. According to these

    officials, the committees are faced with an *all or nothing* decision:
    either the committee must grant a good faith waiver, continuing the
    farmer*s

    Page 38 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation eligibility for benefits
    and giving the farmer 12 months to get back into compliance, or deny the
    appeal, making the farmer ineligible for farm

    program benefits. These officials added that the decision to grant a good
    faith waiver is, by its nature, subjective, not technical; despite the
    violation, the committee must decide whether the farmer acted in good
    faith and without intent to violate the conservation provisions. However,
    as discussed, one- third of our NRCS survey respondents indicated that the
    Farm Service Agency*s waivers are not adequately justified, and some field
    staff commented that the granting of these waivers acts as a disincentive
    to them to make future noncompliance determinations when warranted.

    According to USDA, conservation groups, and farm organizations, in the 17
    years since the 1985 act, its conservation provisions have contributed to
    substantial reductions in soil erosion and wetlands conversions. However,
    other factors, such as economic incentives for farmers to use new farming
    techniques and equipment that are more conserving of land and water
    resources, have also contributed. In addition, reductions in soil erosion
    and wetlands conversions have leveled off in recent years, and in some
    areas of the country, soil erosion has even increased.

    According to NRCS*s National Resources Inventory, substantial reductions
    in soil erosion occurred during the 1980s and 1990s as the conservation
    provisions were being implemented. 34 The nation*s soil erosion on all
    cropland* both highly erodible and nonhighly erodible cropland* fell from
    3.1 billion tons, or about 7 tons per acre, in 1982 to 1.9 billion tons,
    or about 5 tons per acre, in 1997, the most recent year for which data are

    available. 35 The soil erosion rate on highly erodible cropland* land that
    is subject to the conservation provisions* declined by 35 percent from
    1982 through 1997. In 1982, the average annual soil erosion rate
    attributable to water on these lands was about 8 tons per acre, but by
    1997, the rate was about 5 tons per acre. 34 The National Resources
    Inventory is conducted in 5- year intervals by NRCS to assess the

    conditions of land cover and use, soil erosion, farmland, wetlands, and
    other natural resource characteristics on nonfederal rural land in the
    United States. In general, the inventory covers some 800,000 sample sites
    on this nonfederal land (about 75 percent of the nation*s land area). The
    inventory results are used for formulating policy and

    developing natural resource programs at the national and state levels. 35
    The results of NRCS*s most recent National Resources Inventory, covering
    the 5- year period ending in 2002, have not yet been published.
    Conservation

    Provisions and Other Factors Have Significantly Reduced Soil Erosion and
    Wetlands Conversions, but Progress Has Slowed in Recent Years

    Page 39 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Less soil erosion helps
    maintain soil productivity. 36 According to NRCS, from 1982 through 1997,
    the percentage of cropland on which long- term soil productivity is being
    depleted declined from 67 percent to 55 percent. Similarly, for the same
    period, the percentage of highly erodible cropland on which long- term
    soil productivity is being depleted declined from 45

    percent to 33 percent. Furthermore, reducing soil erosion on cropland has
    benefits for the general public that may be substantial, such as improving
    water and air quality. For example, according to a 2001 USDA study, the
    societal benefits of reducing erosion through conservation compliance
    exceed $1.4 billion per year. 37 However, the proportion of this soil
    erosion reduction that can be

    attributed to conservation compliance provisions is difficult to assess
    because other factors have affected farmers* decisions. For example, some
    farmers adopted erosion- reducing conservation tillage practices over this
    period because these practices can reduce their crop production costs,
    resulting in increased profits. During this time, new machinery and
    technology allowed farmers to plant their crops with less tillage, thereby
    saving time and money, while also keeping soil- conserving crop residue on
    the field. In addition, conservation programs, such as USDA*s
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program, provided farmers with financial
    assistance to encourage them to adopt conservation practices. Finally,
    federal, state, and local laws addressing other environmental concerns
    might have also encouraged the adoption of conservation practices. Thus,
    even in the absence of the conservation compliance

    36 Soil productivity is the quality of a soil that enables it to provide
    nutrients in adequate amounts and proper balance for crop production. Soil
    productivity is maintained when the rate of erosion does not exceed the
    ability of the soil to regenerate itself through natural processes. 37 See
    U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agri-
    Environmental

    Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape, Report No.
    AER- 794 (Washington, D. C.: January 2001). According to this report, the
    estimate of $1.4 billion in benefits includes improved surface water
    quality, which increases the public's enjoyment of water- based recreation
    and decreases the cost to municipalities, industry, and other public and
    private sectors. However, the estimate understates the true value of
    reduced soil erosion because other benefits, such as the increases in
    waterfowl populations or the survival of endangered species and decreases
    in the cost that air- borne soil imposes on industries and scenic views,
    have not been included.

    Page 40 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation provisions, some farmers
    would have employed conservation practices, and some of this soil erosion
    reduction would have been achieved. 38 Nevertheless, while conservation
    progress has been substantial, USDA

    considers soil erosion a continuing problem and believes that progress in
    reducing soil erosion has slowed in recent years. In this regard, soil
    erosion on about 27 percent, or 28 million acres, of the cropland subject
    to the 1985 act*s provisions is still much higher than on cropland
    generally*

    an average of 24 tons per acre annually compared with the national average
    of about 5 tons per acre. In addition, about 50 million of the nearly 273
    million acres of the nation's cropland that is not subject to conservation
    compliance is experiencing a high rate of erosion and loss in long- term
    soil productivity, according to USDA. Regarding the slowing in progress
    noted, the Conservation Technology Information Center, a nonprofit
    conservation organization that reports biennially on farmers* use of
    conservation tillage practices, found in 2002 that this usage continued a
    slight decline that began in 1998 after increasing during the period 1990
    through 1997. The center also reported that farmers slightly increased
    their use of intensive tillage practices* which result in higher soil
    erosion levels than when conservation tillage is used.

    NRCS field offices believe that further reductions in soil erosion are
    possible. Over 80 percent of our survey respondents reported that further
    declines in soil erosion are economically feasible for farmers to achieve.
    In addition, in counties where high levels of soil erosion are permitted
    by

    alternative conservation systems, 74 percent of the field offices reported
    that further reductions in erosion are feasible. 39 38 We also note that
    the Conservation Reserve Program has been a significant factor in

    reducing the overall levels of soil erosion achieved. This program was
    enacted in conjunction with the conservation compliance and sodbuster
    provisions in the Food Security Act of 1985 as part of an overall strategy
    to reduce soil erosion. Currently, about

    34 million acres of cropland are enrolled in the program; many of these
    acres were highly erodible prior to enrollment. The program reduces
    erosion by taking this cropland out of production and requiring that a
    permanent vegetative cover be established on it.

    39 In 1988, NRCS revised its technical guidance to provide farmers greater
    flexibility in complying with the conservation provisions. For example,
    the option of alternative conservation systems was introduced. Alternative
    systems are available in areas in which it is not economically feasible
    for farmers to reduce soil erosion to levels low enough to maintain the
    long- term productivity of the land. Nevertheless, alternative systems
    achieve

    some reduction in soil erosion. Changing resource conditions and the
    introduction of new farming and conservation technologies may now make it
    economically feasible for farmers using alternative systems to achieve
    further reductions in soil erosion.

    Page 41 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation With respect to wetlands,
    wetlands conversions due to agriculture fell sharply from an average of
    235,000 acres per year before the 1985

    provisions (from 1974 through 1983) to an average of 27,000 acres per year
    after the provisions (from 1992 through 1997), according to USDA. However,
    as with provisions to reduce soil erosion, factors other than the wetlands
    conservation provisions may be responsible, in part, for the reductions.
    According to a USDA study, about half of the original, naturally occurring
    wetlands in the continental United States had been drained by 1985 and
    many of the remaining wetlands might not have been converted because these
    wetlands were not economically feasible to

    convert. 40 Furthermore, according to the American Farm Bureau
    Federation*s Senior Director of Government Relations, the positive effects
    of the wetlands conservation provisions cannot be determined without

    knowing how other federal, state, and local regulations affect wetlands
    conversions. However, a 2001 USDA report cites the large decline in
    wetlands conversions and credits the conservation compliance provisions
    with discouraging the conversion of as much as 3.3 million acres of
    wetlands. 41 In addition, the Director of the Wildlife Management
    Institute stated that the wetlands provisions have been very effective in
    protecting permanent and semipermanent wetlands. However, this official
    said that the provisions are only marginally effective in protecting
    temporary and seasonal wetlands because USDA generally identifies these
    wetlands during the summer months when the wetlands are often smaller or
    completely dry and less likely to exhibit other wetlands characteristics.
    Officials in the Department of the Interior*s Fish and Wildlife Service
    also noted that the wetlands provisions are less effective for temporary
    or seasonal wetlands for this reason. 42 40 See U. S. Department of
    Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agri- Environmental

    Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape, Report No.
    AER- 794 (Washington, D. C.: January 2001). 41 See U. S. Department of
    Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agri- Environmental

    Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape, Report No.
    AER- 794 (Washington, D. C.: January 2001). 42 NRCS officials indicated
    that the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, requires NRCS

    to conduct wetlands determinations during the growing season, which
    generally includes the summer months. However, we note that the growing
    season also generally includes the spring months after planting, when
    temporary and seasonal wetlands are more likely to be wet.

    Page 42 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation The compliance review
    process serves as NRCS*s principal tool for monitoring farmers* adherence
    to the 1985 act*s conservation compliance

    provisions. In field offices and in headquarters, however, NRCS*s use of
    this tool has fallen short. Improper implementation of the conservation
    provisions increases the likelihood that some farmers are still receiving
    federal farm payments even though they let soil erode at higher rates than
    allowed or convert wetlands to cropland.

    As the results of our survey and field office visits indicate, NRCS*s
    field offices often do not implement one or more of the key conservation
    compliance provisions designed to control erosion or prevent wetlands
    conversion. Provisions that are often neglected include checking for
    wetlands violations, revisiting farms granted compliance waivers the
    previous year, and citing farmers with violations for failing to implement
    important conservation measures. Because of these implementation problems,
    NRCS cannot be assured that its field offices* reports of farmers*
    compliance with the conservation provisions are accurate. A number of
    conditions contribute to these implementation problems, such as resource
    constraints, the lack of management emphasis, and a reluctance to assume
    an enforcement role. Even under these conditions, however,

    implementation could be improved if field office staff received clearer
    guidance and training so that they better understood their roles and
    responsibilities in implementing the compliance provisions, as well as the
    importance of these provisions.

    Moreover, flaws in NRCS*s oversight monitoring make questionable USDA*s
    claim that 98 percent of the nation*s cropland tracts subject to the
    conservation provisions are in compliance. First, NRCS*s sample of tracts
    selected for compliance reviews reduces confidence in this claim. Twenty
    percent of the sample reviewed includes tracts that are not subject to the
    conservation provisions, such as permanent rangelands. Nevertheless,

    NRCS reports these tracts in compliance. Second, the current system for
    providing the field with information, and receiving information from it,
    does not enable field offices to visit tracts when the land is most
    vulnerable to erosion and to observe the effectiveness of farmers*
    compliance efforts. Third, NRCS is collecting less information about the
    results of the compliance reviews than it has in the past, making it
    difficult to compare farmers* compliance with the conservation provisions
    from

    year to year. Finally, although the information yielded by the compliance
    reviews may not be fully credible, it does suggest inconsistent
    enforcement. For example, 10 states issued most of the waivers and
    violations in crop years 2000 and 2001. However, NRCS has not used this
    information to investigate the enforcement issues raised. Conclusions

    Page 43 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Lastly, the Farm Service
    Agency waived NRCS*s noncompliance determinations about 61 percent of the
    time during crop years 1993

    through 2001. We found little documentation in the files to support these
    waivers. The frequency and questionableness of these waivers undermines
    NRCS*s enforcement efforts. Without support from the Farm Service Agency,
    NRCS*s field office staff have less incentive to issue violations when
    warranted.

    To improve USDA*s implementation of the conservation compliance provisions
    of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and to better protect the
    highly erodible croplands and wetlands covered by those provisions, we
    recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS to

     increase oversight of field offices* conduct of compliance reviews to
    improve the accuracy and completeness of the reviews;  periodically
    provide training for field office staff on how compliance

    reviews should be conducted;  develop a more representative sample of
    tracts selected for compliance

    reviews that excludes land that is not subject to the compliance
    provisions;  establish and maintain a consistent methodology for
    collecting, analyzing,

    and summarizing data to identify patterns and trends in enforcement across
    regions and states and over time; and  develop a nationwide, automated
    system, such as a web- based system, for

    efficiently managing information needed to conduct compliance reviews and
    report results.

    In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the
    Administrator of the Farm Service Agency to ensure that decisions by the
    Farm Service Agency*s field offices to waive NRCS*s findings of
    noncompliance are justified and documented.

    We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
    We received oral comments from NRCS officials, including the Deputy Chief
    for Strategic Planning and Accountability and the Director for Operations
    Management and Oversight. We also received written comments from the Farm
    Service Agency.

    NRCS officials concurred with our recommendations and indicated that they
    have begun steps to implement them. These officials also said that
    Recommendations for

    Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    Page 44 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation they generally agreed with
    the report*s findings but found the tone of the report to be overly
    negative. Specifically, these officials said that the

    report focuses too much on problems with the agency*s implementation of
    the conservation compliance provisions and not enough on the provisions*
    positive accomplishments in reducing soil erosion and wetlands
    conversions.

    We do not believe that the report is overly critical. NRCS*s written
    guidance sets an expectation that its field staff consistently follow a
    set of procedures to determine farmers* compliance with the conservation
    provisions. On the basis of our survey responses from over 2,000 NRCS
    field offices, we found that nearly half of these offices do not
    consistently follow one or more of these procedures when conducting
    compliance reviews. Moreover, our field office visits revealed a similar
    pattern, thus reinforcing the survey results. Regarding the provisions*
    positive accomplishments, the report discusses the substantial reductions
    in soil erosion and wetlands conversions attributed to the provisions by
    USDA and others. The report also presents data on the extent of these
    accomplishments.

    NRCS officials also objected to our characterization of NRCS*s role in
    implementing the conservation compliance provisions as having an
    *enforcement* component. These officials said that NRCS is not an
    enforcement agency. They explained that NRCS makes technical
    determinations of farmers* compliance or noncompliance with the
    conservation provisions and that the decision to withhold farm program
    benefits for noncompliance rests with the Farm Service Agency. While we
    understand NRCS*s sensitivity to this issue, we nevertheless believe it is
    accurate to describe its role in the provisions* implementation as
    including an enforcement component.

    The conservation compliance provisions require that farmers who receive
    federal assistance meet standards for environmental quality. By setting
    such standards for agricultural activity, the provisions represent a
    departure from USDA's traditional role of implementing soil and water
    conservation programs that are voluntary and incentive based. NRCS is the
    lead agency for administering the conservation compliance provisions. Its
    responsibilities include the performance of compliance reviews to verify
    farmers' implementation of the conservation systems required by the
    provisions. These reviews are an integral step in the enforcement of

    the provisions. A determination of noncompliance, potentially leading to a
    farmer's loss of eligibility for farm program benefits, rests with NRCS.
    This responsibility exists and is intrinsic to enforcement even if another

    Page 45 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation agency must take action, on
    the basis of NRCS's finding and recommendation, to withhold this
    eligibility.

    The Farm Service Agency also agreed with the report*s recommendations. In
    addition, the agency generally agreed with the report*s findings, but it
    downplayed the significance of our finding that the agency*s county
    committees waived 61 percent of the NRCS noncompliance determinations made
    during 1993 through 2001. For example, the agency said that its waivers do
    not negate or overrule an NRCS determination that

    a violation occurred. The agency noted that although a *good faith* waiver
    granted by a county committee allows a violating farmer to continue
    receiving program benefits, the farmer must still take corrective action
    within 1 year, incurring any associated costs. In addition, the Farm
    Service Agency noted that the issuance of good faith waivers has aided the
    restoration of converted wetlands and the implementation of conservation
    systems on highly erodible land tracts that were brought back into
    compliance. According to the agency, it could be argued that many of these
    tracts would not have been brought back into compliance if eligibility for
    benefits had not been reinstated under the good faith waiver. The agency
    added that the overall purpose of the conservation provisions is not to
    deny benefits, but rather to achieve conservation compliance.

    We agree with the Farm Service Agency*s assessment that the purpose of the
    conservation provisions is not to deny farmers benefits. However, the Farm
    Service Agency*s written guidance requires that county office committees
    grant good faith waivers judiciously and only when supported by conclusive
    evidence indicating that the farmer did not intend to violate the
    provisions. In addition, NRCS officials were concerned at the extent to
    which the Farm Service Agency waives NRCS*s noncompliance

    determinations. These officials expressed the view that many of these
    waivers are not justified and that the high number of waivers tends to
    undermine NRCS*s implementation of the conservation compliance provisions,
    thus giving its field staff less incentive to issue violations when
    warranted. NRCS and the Farm Service Agency also provided technical
    corrections,

    which we have incorporated into the report as appropriate. The Farm
    Service Agency*s written comments are presented in appendix VI. As agreed
    with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we
    plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of
    this letter. We will then send copies to interested congressional
    committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Director, Office of

    Page 46 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Management and Budget; and
    other interested parties. We will make copies available to others on
    request. In addition, the report will be

    available at no charge on GAO*s Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. If you
    have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-
    3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.

    Sincerely yours, Lawrence J. Dyckman Director, Natural Resources

    and Environment

    Appendix I: U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Conservation Compliance
    Review Process

    Page 47 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Note: GAO*s analysis of U.
    S. Department of Agriculture*s (USDA) compliance review process. a In
    addition to the random sample of tracts identified, NRCS field offices
    select additional tracts for

    review on the basis of referrals from other agencies (e. g., tracts owned
    by employees of other USDA agencies), tracts associated with farmers who
    receive farm loans, whistleblower complaints, tracts with potential
    violations observed by NRCS employees when providing technical assistance;
    and tracts associated with farmers granted a waiver the prior year.

    Appendix I: U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Conservation Compliance
    Review Process

    Appendix I: U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Conservation Compliance
    Review Process

    Page 48 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation b We use the term *waiver*
    in this case to refer to variances and exemptions given by NRCS. A
    variance continues a farmer*s eligibility for federal farm program
    benefits when the farmer is unable to apply a conservation system or
    practice because of severe or unusual conditions such as weather,

    disease, or pests; because the farmer experienced an extreme personal
    hardship or unusual occurrence, such as illness or death; or because the
    deficiency is minor and technical in nature. An exemption maintains a
    farmer*s eligibility for benefits when a violation is identified while
    NRCS staff are providing on- site technical assistance. The 1- year period
    to correct the deficiency does not apply to the severe or unusual
    conditions waiver. c Farmer has 30 days to request a field review for
    reconsideration or mediation of NRCS*s initial

    noncompliance decision. If the farmer does not exercise this option within
    the 30- day period, NRCS*s noncompliance determination becomes final and
    NRCS refers the matter to FSA for further action. d The benefits to be
    withheld from a farmer may include price and income support payments,

    conservation payments, disaster payments, and access to guaranteed loans.
    e Farmer may appeal FSA*s ineligibility determination first to the local
    FSA county committee and

    then, if necessary, to USDA*s National Appeals Division. If the farmer
    disagrees with the National Appeals Division*s decision, the farmer may
    file suit in federal district court. f We use the term *waiver* in this
    instance to refer to variances and exemptions given by the local

    FSA county committees. A variance continues a farmer*s eligibility when
    the farmer is unable to implement a conservation system because doing so
    would cause undue economic hardship. An exemption maintains the farmer*s
    eligibility when the farmer acted in good faith and without intent to
    violate the conservation provisions or when a landlord prevents a tenant
    farmer from implementing an approved conservation system. Similarly, in
    cases in which the tenant farmer*s violation is not attributable to
    actions of the landlord, the landlord may receive an exemption that
    continues the landlord*s eligibility for benefits regarding other tracts.
    The 1- year period to correct the deficiency does not apply to the tenant
    and landlord waivers.

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Page 49 GAO- 03- 418
    Agricultural Conservation At the request of the Ranking Democratic Member
    of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, we
    reviewed USDA*s

    implementation of the conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
    1985. Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) how well NRCS*s field
    offices are carrying out these provisions; (2) how effectively NRCS
    oversees its field offices* efforts to carry out these provisions; (3) how
    often FSA waives NRCS*s noncompliance determinations; and (4) the extent
    to which these conservation provisions have helped to reduce soil erosion
    and the loss of wetlands.

    To determine how well NRCS*s field offices are carrying out the
    conservation provisions, and how effectively NRCS*s headquarters oversees
    its field offices* efforts to carry out these provisions, we examined
    NRCS*s national database on the results of compliance reviews for crop
    years 1998 through 2001 to identify unusual patterns in compliance
    enforcement. Automated data for these reviews were not available for years
    prior to 1998. We also examined the guidance that NRCS*s field offices use
    to monitor farmers* compliance with the conservation provisions, including
    relevant laws; the Code of Federal Regulations, title 7, part 12; and
    agency guidance, including NRCS*s

    National Food Security Act Manual and related state amendments and
    bulletins.

    We also surveyed staff* usually the district conservationist* responsible
    for compliance reviews in each of NRCS*s 2,549 field offices that
    conducted compliance reviews during the period 1998 through 2001 to obtain
    information on that official*s understanding and implementation of the
    conservation provisions, as well as the official*s views on the
    effectiveness of these provisions. To obtain the views of each field
    office official, we developed an electronic questionnaire that was posted
    on

    GAO*s home page on the Internet. In developing the questionnaire, we met
    with officials in NRCS*s headquarters to gain a thorough understanding of
    highly erodible land and wetlands conservation issues. We also shared a
    draft copy of the questionnaire with these officials who provided us
    comments including technical corrections. We then pretested the
    questionnaire with two NRCS district conservationists in Texas, and one in
    Maryland and Virginia. During these visits, we asked the officials to fill
    out the survey over the Internet. After completing the survey, we
    interviewed the respondents to ensure that (1) the questions were clear
    and

    unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, (3) the questionnaire did
    not place an undue burden on the agency officials completing it, and (4)
    the questionnaire was independent and unbiased. On the basis of the

    feedback from the pretests, we modified the questions as appropriate.
    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and

    Methodology

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Page 50 GAO- 03- 418
    Agricultural Conservation Information about accessing the questionnaire
    was provided via E- mail for those NRCS staff selected to participate in
    the survey. The survey was

    activated, and staff informed of its availability on September 10, 2002;
    it was available until October 2, 2002. To ensure security and data
    integrity, we provided each NRCS field official with a password that
    allowed him or her to access and complete a questionnaire for the local
    office. No one else could access that questionnaire or edit its data. We
    also provided these officials with a pledge of confidentiality to ensure
    their candor in completing the survey.

    We received responses from 2,015, or 79 percent, of the officials
    surveyed. Table 3 shows the number of field offices that participated in
    our survey and each state*s response rate. The results of our survey are
    summarized in appendix V. 1 For survey results stratified by state, see a
    special publication entitled Agricultural Conservation: Survey Results on
    USDA*s Implementation of Food Security Act Compliance Provisions (GAO- 03-
    492SP), which is available on the Internet at

    http:// www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? gao- 03- 492SP. 1 In addition to
    responding to our survey questions, many of these officials also provided
    us with written comments. Because of the volume of these written comments
    as well as the need to ensure the confidentiality of individual responses,
    these comments have not been included in appendix V.

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Page 51 GAO- 03- 418
    Agricultural Conservation Table 3: Number of Field Offices Participating
    in Our Survey That Regularly Conduct Compliance Reviews and the Response
    Rate

    State Field offices surveyed Field offices responding Percent response
    rate

    Alabama 62 50 80.6 Alaska 4 4 100.0 Arizona 14 12 85.7 Arkansas 63 45 71.4
    California 49 33 67.3 Colorado 55 44 80.0 Connecticut 1 1 100.0 Delaware 1
    1 100.0 Florida 42 31 73.8 Georgia 84 61 72.6 Hawaii 5 5 100.0 Idaho 39 28
    71.8 Illinois 97 77 79.4 Indiana 79 63 79.7 Iowa 108 81 75.0 Kansas 109 94
    86.2 Kentucky 91 73 80.2 Louisiana 49 45 91.8 Maine 12 11 91.7 Maryland 22
    15 68.2 Massachusetts 7 6 85.7 Michigan 60 48 80.0 Minnesota 83 69 83.1
    Mississippi 80 66 82.5 Missouri 104 80 76.9 Montana 61 45 73.8 Nebraska 82
    73 89.0 Nevada 7 5 71.4 New Hampshire 6 5 83.3 New Jersey 7 4 57.1 New
    Mexico 35 24 68.6 New York 47 39 83.0 North Carolina 86 72 83.7 North
    Dakota 56 50 89.3 Ohio 76 61 80.3 Oklahoma 79 62 78.5 Oregon 27 21 77.8
    Pennsylvania 46 40 87.0 Rhode Island 2 1 50.0 South Carolina 42 29 69.0
    South Dakota 65 54 83.1

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Page 52 GAO- 03- 418
    Agricultural Conservation State Field offices surveyed Field offices
    responding Percent response rate

    Tennessee 71 55 77.5 Texas 201 157 78.1 Utah 21 15 71.4 Vermont 8 6 75.0
    Virginia 54 41 75.9 Washington 34 26 76.5 West Virginia 32 23 71.9
    Wisconsin 61 52 85.2 Wyoming 23 12 52.2

    Total 2,549 2,015 79.1

    Source: GAO.

    We also visited 20 NRCS field offices located in 19 counties in 5 states
    (Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas) to discuss
    implementation of the compliance provisions with relevant staff and to
    review documentation of compliance decisions, including waivers, in order
    to determine the basis for these decisions. We selected these field
    offices on the basis of such criteria as the amount of highly erodible
    cropland covered by the office that is subject to the conservation
    provisions, geographic dispersion, and apparent anomalies in USDA data
    related to compliance reviews, waivers, and penalties assessed (such as an
    office that appears to issue an inordinately large number of waivers).
    Specifically, in these field offices, we spoke with the district
    conservationist and/ or other staff and reviewed documentation on file,
    including Form AD- 1026 (referrals for highly erodible land and/ or
    wetlands determinations); aerial photography; conservation assistance
    notes; conservation plans; soil loss computations; status review results;
    and correspondence, including requests for waivers.

    In addition, we reviewed relevant studies prepared by USDA*s Office of
    Inspector General and the Congressional Research Service, as well as our
    own past reports. We also reviewed annual Food Security Act status
    (compliance) reviews prepared by NRCS or FSA, and interviewed officials
    from these agencies in the field and headquarters. Furthermore, we
    reviewed USDA*s Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan
    for Fiscal Year 2002 and NRCS*s Initial Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2003 and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 to determine

    what performance goals and measures USDA has established for soil erosion
    reduction and wetlands conservation. To determine how often FSA waives
    NRCS*s noncompliance decisions, we

    examined FSA*s database on violations and benefits withheld or waivers

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Page 53 GAO- 03- 418
    Agricultural Conservation granted for crop years 1993 through 2001 to
    determine trends in assessing penalties for noncompliance. We also spoke
    with FSA field and

    headquarters staff regarding the reasons for waiving NRCS*s noncompliance
    determinations and reviewed relevant documentation, including the minutes
    of county committee meetings, correspondence files, and appeal files. In
    addition, we reviewed FSA guidance, including its manual on highly
    erodible land conservation and wetlands conservation

    provisions. Finally, to determine the extent to which the conservation
    provisions have helped to reduce soil erosion and loss of wetlands, we
    reviewed the results of USDA*s National Resources Inventory and other
    related studies. In addition, we spoke with officials from USDA*s Economic
    Research Service; the Department of the Interior*s Fish and Wildlife
    Service; farm organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation
    and American Soybean Association; and conservation groups, including Ducks
    Unlimited, the Soil and Water Conservation Society, the Sustainable
    Agriculture Coalition, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

    We conducted our review from April 2002 through February 2003 in
    accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Although we did not
    independently assess the accuracy and reliability of the USDA data we
    used, we reviewed the data for reasonableness among regions and compared
    them with data in other USDA reports.

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 54 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Table 4:
    Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews Showing Violations and Waivers by
    State, Crop Year 2000

    Tracts with violations State Not applying conservation practices on highly

    erodible land Wetlands violation Total

    Alabama 3 1 4 Alaska 0 0 0 Arizona 0 0 0 Arkansas 3 2 5 California 0 0 0
    Colorado 0 0 0 Connecticut 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 0 Georgia 1 0
    1 Hawaii 0 0 0 Idaho 2 0 2 Illinois 58 4 62 Indiana 5 1 6 Iowa 58 0 58
    Kansas 4 5 9 Kentucky 0 0 0 Louisiana 2 0 2 Maine 0 1 1 Maryland 0 0 0
    Massachusetts 0 0 0 Michigan 1 0 1 Minnesota 5 19 24 Mississippi 0 0 0
    Missouri 10 3 13 Montana 0 0 0 Nebraska 52 1 53 Nevada 0 0 0 New Hampshire
    0 0 0 New Jersey 2 0 2 New Mexico 1 0 1 New York 9 1 10 North Carolina 0 0
    0 North Dakota 4 173 177 Ohio 2 0 2 Oklahoma 0 0 0 Oregon 1 0 1

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 55 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Tracts with
    NRCS waivers Weather diseases

    pests Economic

    or personal hardship

    Minor or technical Technical

    assistance Conditionally

    applying conservation practices

    Exemption for a specific

    tract Total Total

    tracts with waivers

    and violations

    Tracts reviewed for compliance a

    Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts

    reviewed

    1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 284 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 24 4.2 1 0 0 0
    1 0 2 7 322 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 4 449 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
    0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 337 0.9
    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5 7 199 3.5 14 0 45 0 10 2 71 133 1,184
    11.2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 8 489 1.6 0 1 143 0 32 0 176 234 1,512 15.5 7 2 0 0 0 0
    9 18 899 2.0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 762 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 242 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    1 53 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 207
    1.0 3 0 33 0 2 7 45 69 572 12.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 426 0.2 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 17
    838 2.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 832 0.2 3 30 44 2 0 8 87 140 1,031 13.6 0 0 0 0 0
    0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 45 4.4 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 6 76
    7.9 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 13 266 4.9 0 2 4 0 0 0 6 6 553 1.1 5 0 5 0 0 0 10 187
    890 21.0 2 0 0 2 1 0 5 7 357 2.0 0 0 8 0 3 0 11 11 370 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
    105 1.9

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 56 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Tracts with
    violations State

    Not applying conservation practices on highly

    erodible land Wetlands violation Total

    Pennsylvania 4 0 4 Rhode Island 0 0 0 South Carolina 1 0 1 South Dakota 1
    0 1 Tennessee 1 0 1 Texas 1 0 1 Utah 0 0 0 Vermont 0 0 0 Virginia 0 0 0
    Washington 7 0 7 West Virginia 0 0 0 Wisconsin 6 0 6 Wyoming 0 0 0

    Total 244 211 455 b

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 57 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Tracts with
    NRCS waivers Weather diseases

    pests Economic

    or personal hardship

    Minor or technical Technical

    assistance Conditionally

    applying conservation practices

    Exemption for a specific

    tract Total Total

    tracts with waivers

    and violations

    Tracts reviewed for compliance a

    Waivers and violations as a

    percentage of tracts reviewed

    5 1 4 0 1 0 11 15 165 9.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 330 0.3 0 1
    1 0 0 0 2 3 430 0.7 0 0 1 0 5 0 6 7 361 1.9 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 7 942 0.7 0 0 0
    0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 42 2.4 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 158 1.9 0 1 1 0 0 1
    3 10 185 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 1 1 26 0 1 0 29 35 625 5.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    0 79 0

    59 41 332 7 58 20 517 972 17,259 5. 6

    Source: NRCS. Notes: GAO*s analysis of NRCS*s data. Violations occur when
    a farmer does not apply conservation practices on highly erodible land or
    the farmer*s tract contains a potential wetlands violation. Waivers allow
    farmers to maintain eligibility for federal farm benefits when they are
    unable to apply a conservation practice because the farmer was prevented
    by severe or unusual conditions such as weather, disease, or pests;
    because the farmer acted in good faith, and without intent to violate the
    conservation provisions; because the farmer experienced an extreme
    personal hardship or unusual occurrence, such as illness or death; because

    failures were minor and technical in nature; because the farmer was
    identified in noncompliance by NRCS while providing on- site technical
    assistance; or because the farmer was conditionally applying practices
    until the approved conservation practices are completed. An on- site visit
    is not required when an exemption for a specific tract is approved. a
    Tracts reviewed for compliance includes 13,025 tracts randomly selected by
    NRCS headquarters and another 4,234 tracts added by NRCS field offices on
    the basis of referrals from other agencies,

    whistleblower complaints, and tracts that maintained eligibility for farm
    benefits based on previous year waivers. b Total tracts with violations
    largely reflects NRCS*s preliminary noncompliance determinations, as of

    the date these data were compiled. Many of these determinations were
    subsequently reversed by NRCS* through granting variances or exemptions*
    on appeal from the affected farmers. Tracts referred b; y NRCS to FSA are
    only those tracts for which NRCS sustains its preliminary noncompliance
    determination.

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 58 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Table 5:
    Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews Showing Violations and Waivers by
    State, Crop Year 2001

    Tracts with violations State Not applying conservation

    practices on highly erodible land Wetlands violation Total

    Alabama 2 0 2 Alaska 0 0 0 Arizona 0 0 0 Arkansas 0 0 0 California 1 0 1
    Colorado 4 0 4 Connecticut 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 Florida 0 1 1 Georgia 1 0
    1 Hawaii 0 0 0 Idaho 0 0 0 Illinois 33 2 35 Indiana 4 0 4 Iowa 72 0 72
    Kansas 7 0 7 Kentucky 0 0 0 Louisiana 0 0 0 Maine 3 0 3 Maryland 0 0 0
    Massachusetts 0 0 0 Michigan 1 0 1 Minnesota 8 15 23 Mississippi 0 0 0
    Missouri 1 1 2 Montana 0 0 0 Nebraska 57 5 62 Nevada 0 0 0 New Hampshire 0
    0 0 New Jersey 0 0 0 New Mexico 2 0 2 New York 3 0 3 North Carolina 5 0 5
    North Dakota 3 66 69 Ohio 3 0 3 Oklahoma 2 0 2

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 59 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Tracts with
    NRCS waivers Weather, diseases,

    pests Economic

    or personal hardship

    Minor or technical Technical

    assistance Conditionally

    applying conservation practices

    Exemption for a specific

    tract Total Total

    tracts with waivers

    and violations

    Tracts reviewed for compliance a

    Waivers and violations as a

    percentage of tracts reviewed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 275 0.7

    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
    1 2 235 0.9 2 0 5 3 1 0 11 15 434 3.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 15 6.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 88 1.1 1 1 2 0 1 0 5 6 354 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
    3 0 5 0 0 0 8 8 190 4.2

    14 1 42 0 13 0 70 105 1,162 9.0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 506 1.4 3 0 96 1 7 0 107
    179 1,430 12.5 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 12 916 1.3 1 0 8 0 1 0 10 10 938 1.1 0 0 0 0
    1 0 1 1 244 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 55 5.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 126 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0
    0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 202 0.5 2 0 7 0 0 1 10 33 509 6.5 1 0 2 0 0 29 32
    32 423 7.6 2 0 3 2 0 0 7 9 881 1.0 7 0 1 0 0 0 8 8 918 0.9 19 8 32 0 0 12
    71 133 876 15.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
    0

    3 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 91 5.5 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 6 244 2.5 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 13 676 1.9 0
    0 0 1 0 0 1 70 769 9.1 1 0 2 2 0 0 5 8 347 2.3 54 0 6 2 1 0 63 65 336 19.3

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 60 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Tracts with
    violations State Not applying conservation

    practices on highly erodible land Wetlands violation Total

    Oregon 4 0 4 Pennsylvania 3 0 3 Rhode Island 0 0 0 South Carolina 1 0 1
    South Dakota 1 0 1 Tennessee 1 0 1 Texas 2 0 2 Utah 0 0 0 Vermont 1 0 1
    Virginia 1 0 1 Washington 6 1 7 West Virginia 0 0 0 Wisconsin 22 2 24
    Wyoming 0 0 0

    Total 254 93 347 b

    Appendix III: Results of NRCS*s Compliance Reviews, by State, Crop Years
    2000 and 2001 Page 61 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Tracts with
    NRCS waivers Weather, diseases,

    pests Economic

    or personal hardship

    Minor or technical Technical

    assistance Conditionally

    applying conservation practices

    Exemption for a specific

    tract Total Total

    tracts with waivers

    and violations

    Tracts reviewed for compliance b

    Waivers and violations as a percentage of tracts reviewed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
    104 3.8

    0 0 3 0 0 0 3 6 209 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 266 0.4

    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 476 0.2 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 6 440 1.4 3 0 8 0 0 0 11 13 981 1.3
    0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 50 10.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 218 1.4 1 0
    1 0 0 0 2 9 215 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 27 2 1 0 30 54 835 6.5 0 0 0
    0 0 0 0 0 94 0

    121 13 271 14 26 46 491 838 17,708 4. 7

    Source: NRCS. Notes: GAO*s analysis of NRCS*s data. Violations occur when
    a farmer does not apply conservation practices on highly erodible land or
    the farmer*s tract contains a potential wetlands violation. Waivers allow
    farmers to maintain eligibility for federal farm benefits when they are
    unable to apply a conservation practice because the farmer was prevented
    by severe or unusual conditions such as weather, diseases, or pests;
    because the farmer acted in good faith, and without intent to violate the
    conservation provisions; because the farmer experienced an extreme
    personal hardship or unusual occurrence, such as illness or death; because

    failures were minor and technical in nature; because the farmer was
    identified as being in noncompliance by NRCS while providing on- site
    technical assistance; or because the farmer was conditionally applying
    practices until the approved conservation practices are completed. An on-
    site visit is not required when an exemption for a specific tract is
    approved. a Tracts reviewed for compliance includes 13,544 tracts randomly
    selected by NRCS headquarters and another 4,164 tracts added by NRCS field
    offices on the basis of referrals from other agencies,

    whistleblower complaints, and tracts that maintained eligibility for farm
    benefits based on previous year waivers. b Total tracts with violations
    largely reflects NRCS*s preliminary noncompliance determinations, as of

    the date these data were compiled. Many of these determinations were
    subsequently reversed by NRCS* through granting variances or exemptions*
    on appeal from the affected farmers. Tracts referred by NRCS to FSA are
    only those tracts for which NRCS sustains its preliminary noncompliance
    determination.

    Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Page 62 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Table 6: USDA Benefits
    Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for Violations of Conservation
    Provisions, Nationwide, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Dollars in thousands Highly erodible land provisions Wetlands provisions
    Crop year Tracts with

    violations Farmers with

    violations Benefits

    to be denied

    before appeals Benefits

    denied Tracts with violations

    Farmers with violations

    Benefits to be denied

    before appeals Benefits

    denied Total

    benefits denied

    1993 1,893 2,592 $12,748 $3,005 192 268 $4,463 $1,478 $4,483

    1994 1,530 2,303 10,692 2,243 109 180 4,153 1,382 3,625

    1995 605 892 2,674 968 28 45 0 0 968

    1996 402 491 1,266 492 96 141 1,036 439 931

    1997 150 215 1,391 334 33 62 913 69 403

    1998 167 220 1,932 301 38 48 1,962 430 731

    1999 134 177 2,381 238 46 61 2,296 111 349

    2000 118 160 3,617 404 35 36 1,253 231 635

    2001 85 137 5,477 150 33 32 908 139 289 Total 5,084 7,187 $42,178 $8,135
    610 873 $16,984 $4,279 $12,414

    Source: FSA. Notes: GAO*s analysis of FSA*s data. The total benefits
    denied includes price and income support payments, conservation payments,
    disaster payments, guaranteed loans, and crop insurance (through 1996).
    This total does not include an additional $361,441 in benefits denied that
    were not tied directly to specific tracts in FSA*s data.

    Data in table do not include benefits denied participants in the peanut-
    marketing quota program or tobacco- marketing quota program, which are
    reported in pounds. The benefits denied total 2.1 million pounds for
    peanuts and 3. 6 million pounds for tobacco.

    Totals may differ from results presented in other tables in this report
    because of rounding.

    Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Page 63 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Table 7: USDA Benefits
    Denied Farmers by the Farm Service Agency for Violations of Conservation
    Provisions by State, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Dollars in thousands

    Tracts potentially subject to review in 2002 a Tracts with violations
    State/

    Highly erodible land Potential

    wetlands Total Tracts

    reviewed for compliance b Highly

    erodible land Wetlands Total

    Farmers with violations

    Benefits to be denied

    before appeals Benefits

    denied Percentage

    of benefits denied Alabama 38,466 52,097 90,563 7,530 620 9 629 794 $2,210
    $416 18.8

    Alaska 210 187 397 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Arizona 254 7,490 7,744 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Arkansas 5,766 75,770 81,536 3,758 9 5 14 25 1,033 637 61.7

    California 5,400 43,950 49,350 2,758 0 2 2 2 36 36 100.0

    Colorado 41,948 21,347 63,295 9,520 88 0 88 71 1,231 283 23.0

    Connecticut 1,378 2,557 3,935 307 5 0 5 4 3 3 100.0

    Delaware 203 6,197 6,400 377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Florida 4,228 22,647 26,875 1,399 2 2 4 4 4 4 100.0

    Georgia 20,967 78,813 99,780 6,586 24 16 40 60 1,260 587 46.6

    Hawaii 18 365 383 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Idaho 22,787 17,389 40,176 5,475 11 2 13 18 208 10 4.8

    Illinois 101,018 187,292 288,310 18,619 355 32 387 657 5,195 869 16.7

    Indiana 58,906 130,275 189,181 9,663 105 38 143 221 512 228 44.5

    Iowa 128,783 124,755 253,538 21,076 926 62 988 1,703 20,559 2,136 10.4

    Kansas 105,010 130,065 235,075 16,830 764 8 772 995 1,493 1,058 70.9

    Kentucky 124,700 112,022 236,722 13,072 69 2 71 111 220 81 36.8

    Louisiana 4,499 56,098 60,597 2,371 0 3 3 0 115 0 0

    Maine 2,492 5,863 8,355 1,055 1 14 15 12 78 2 2.6

    Maryland 8,208 11,071 19,279 2,389 16 1 17 24 101 7 6.9

    Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Page 64 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Dollars in thousands

    Tracts potentially subject to review in 2002 a Tracts with violations
    State/

    Highly erodible land Potential

    wetlands Total Tracts

    reviewed for compliance b Highly

    erodible land Wetlands Total

    Farmers with violations

    Benefits to be denied

    before appeals Benefits

    denied Percentage

    of benefits denied Massachusetts 901 4,444 5,345 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Michigan 17,644 96,036 113,680 4,113 25 4 29 47 755 506 67.0

    Minnesota 40,691 150,473 191,164 9,270 23 124 147 162 2,304 829 36.0

    Mississippi 30,675 54,595 85,270 7,120 65 3 68 89 1,237 47 3.8

    Missouri

    89,090 83,219 172,309 13,808 611 28 639 751 2,291 645 28.2

    Montana 74,522 89,434 163,956 14,562 6 0 6 3 150 15 10.0

    Nebraska 86,604 83,594 170,198 15,710 209 58 267 474 6,366 1,797 28.2

    Nevada 761 1,213 1,974 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    New Hampshire

    376 1,759 2,135 124 3 0 3 1 1 1 100.0

    New Jersey 2,174 4,269 6,443 584 23 0 23 6 37 10 27.0

    New Mexico 6,953 10,256 17,209 2,151 4 0 4 4 9 8 88.9

    New York 27,314 27,072 54,386 5,582 43 2 45 83 246 80 32.5

    North Carolina 57,574 143,368 200,942 12,164 240 7 247 404 691 152 22.0

    North Dakota 48,626 100,820 149,446 11,006 53 17 70 100 1,320 103 7.8

    Ohio 46,647 117,532 164,179 7,118 49 8 57 60 1,047 69 6.6

    Oklahoma 45,658 81,545 127,203 9,098 196 7 203 313 1,508 334 22.1

    Oregon 6,318 16,264 22,582 2,433 18 3 21 27 345 66 19.1

    Pennsylvania 49,590 11,639 61,229 5,937 53 4 57 48 62 55 88.7

    Rhode Island 51 336 387 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    South Carolina

    10,016 56,056 66,072 3,513 23 1 24 33 426 304 71.4

    South Dakota 28,528 119,738 148,266 8,992 14 38 52 55 1,281 101 7.9

    Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Page 65 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Dollars in thousands

    Tracts potentially subject to review in 2002 a Tracts with violations
    State/

    Highly erodible land Potential

    wetlands Total Tracts

    reviewed for compliance b Highly

    erodible land Wetlands Total

    Farmers with violations

    Benefits to be denied

    before appeals Benefits

    denied Percentage

    of benefits denied Tennessee 78,913 98,542 177,455 9,980 35 8 43 29 42 17
    40.5

    Texas 81,264 200,918 282,182 17,282 32 4 36 69 1,477 341 23.1

    Utah

    1,618 14,047 15.665 765 3 1 4 4 41 13 31.7

    Vermont

    1,645 4,671 6,316 568 8 0 8 4 10 10 100.0

    Virginia 37,565 46,600 84,165 7,409 112 4 116 153 193 67 34.7

    Washington 17,106 23,195 40,301 5,064 31 4 35 61 1,078 25 2.3

    West Virginia 3,815 9,538 13,353 1,146 2 0 2 3 3 3 100.0

    Wisconsin 81,812 80,161 161,973 11,640 206 89 295 386 2,421 356 14.7

    Wyoming 5,167 11,330 16,497 1,425 1 0 1 2 124 124 100.0

    Total 1,654,859 2,828,914 4,483,773 312,285 5,084 610 5,694 8,072 $59,723
    $12,435 20.8

    Sources: NRCS and FSA. Notes: GAO*s analysis of NRCS and FSA data.
    Compliance reviews are conducted by NRCS. To conduct these reviews, NRCS
    randomly selects a sample of land tracts from an FSA database containing
    more than 4.5 million tracts of land owned or leased by farmers receiving
    USDA program benefits. Of the 4.5 million tracts, 1.7 million are

    designated as highly erodible land, and the remaining 2.8 million are
    designated as potential wetlands. Nationwide, about 60 percent of the
    sample tracts are selected from highly erodible land. The remaining 40
    percent are selected from tracts that have the potential to contain
    wetlands. This latter group of tracts is separated into two groups* hydric
    and nonhydric. The hydric group includes tracts located in counties where
    more than 20 percent of the soil is classified as hydric* that is, the
    land is flooded long enough during a growing season to support plants that
    can grow in water or in soil too waterlogged for most plants to survive.
    The remaining tracts are placed in the nonhydric group.

    Benefits denied include price and income support payments, conservation
    payments, disaster payments, guaranteed loans, and crop insurance (through
    1996). Benefits denied do not include $361,441 that could not be directly
    associated with specific tracts. Data in table do not include benefits
    denied participants in the peanut- marketing quota program or

    tobacco- marketing quota program, which are reported in pounds. The
    benefits denied total 2.1 million pounds for peanuts and 3. 6 million
    pounds for tobacco. Totals may differ from results presented in other
    tables in this report because of rounding.

    Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Page 66 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation a Summary data on tracts
    potentially subject to review during 1993 through 2001 were not available.
    Data depicted is for 2002 only to provide a frame of reference as to the
    total number of tracts in each

    state potentially subject to review. However, the number of tracts subject
    to review would not change significantly from one year to the next. Prior
    to 1996, USDA did not identify tracts with the potential for wetlands. b
    Summary data on the number of tracts reviewed for each state during 1993
    through 2001 is

    depicted. However, these data do not distinguish between highly erodible
    land and potential wetlands.

    Table 8: Reasons for Reinstating USDA Benefits by State, Crop Years 1993-
    2001 Farm Service Agency reinstatements NRCS and other

    reinstatements a State Tenant waivers Landlord waivers

    Good faith waivers on highly erodible

    land Good faith

    waivers on wetlands

    NRCS reversed

    because of appeal

    decision Misaction/ misinformation

    Marketing quota card or price support loan issued before

    violation determination Other

    Alabama 21 8 285 20 5 0 41 47 Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    0 Arkansas 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 1 California 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado 0 2 35 0 4
    0 0 1 Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 0 0
    0 0 0 0 Georgia 0 0 22 13 0 0 11 2 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idaho 6 0 13 1 0
    0 0 0 Illinois 44 37 296 47 27 0 0 106 Indiana 0 1 30 91 8 0 0 30 Iowa 579
    117 1,331 157 43 2 0 108 Kansas 30 14 33 5 14 0 0 10 Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0
    0 0 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maine 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Maryland 0 0 14 0 0 0
    0 7 Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan 0 0 35 3 0 6 0 0 Minnesota 0 0
    14 37 15 5 0 17 Mississippi 0 0 31 3 0 0 0 0 Missouri 6 24 17 36 50 0 0 43
    Montana 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 Nebraska 1 28 292 257 0 1 0 88

    Appendix IV: USDA Benefits Denied Farmers Because of Conservation
    Compliance Violations, Crop Years 1993- 2001

    Page 67 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Farm Service Agency
    reinstatements NRCS and other reinstatements a State Tenant

    waivers Landlord waivers Good faith

    waivers on highly erodible

    land Good faith

    waivers on wetlands

    NRCS reversed

    because of appeal

    decision Misaction/ misinformation

    Marketing quota card or price support loan issued before

    violation determination Other

    Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0
    0 0 0 New Mexico 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 New York 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 North Carolina
    6 0 164 0 17 0 14 100 North Dakota 0 6 75 81 0 0 0 7 Ohio 0 1 23 4 0 0 0 1
    Oklahoma 22 10 95 0 9 0 0 7 Oregon 0 0 6 18 1 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0
    0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 7 South
    Dakota 9 2 9 73 0 0 0 20 Tennessee 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 Texas 0 0 57 34 0 0 0
    19 Utah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia 2 0 28 0 0 0 8 2
    Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 3 2 75
    33 55 0 0 47 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Total 729 253 3,048 918 249 14 76 671

    Source: FSA. Note: GAO*s analysis of FSA*s data. a Includes reinstatements
    because of decisions made by NRCS*s State Conservationists, USDA*s
    National Appeals Division, and judicial courts on farmers* appeals.

    Page 68 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 69 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 70 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 71 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 72 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 73 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 74 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 75 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 76 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 77 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 78 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 79 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 80 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 81 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 82 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 83 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 84 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 85 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 86 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 87 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 88 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 89 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 90 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 91 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 92 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 93 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 94 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 95 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 96 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 97 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 98 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 99 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix V: Results of Survey on the Implementation and Effectiveness of
    the Conservation Provisions

    Page 100 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Farm
    Service Agency Page 101 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Appendix
    VI: Comments from the U. S.

    Department of Agriculture*s Farm Service Agency

    Note: GAO*s comments supplementing those in the report*s text appear at
    the end of this appendix.

    Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Farm
    Service Agency Page 102 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation See comment
    2.

    See comment 1.

    Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Farm
    Service Agency Page 103 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation

    Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture*s Farm
    Service Agency Page 104 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation The
    following are GAO*s comments on the U. S. Department of

    Agriculture*s letter dated March 4, 2003. 1. We agree that the purpose of
    the conservation compliance provisions is not to deny farmers benefits.
    However, the FSA*s guidance requires that county office committees grant
    good faith waivers judiciously and only when supported by conclusive
    evidence indicating that the farmer did not intend to violate the
    provisions. In addition, NRCS officials were concerned at the extent to
    which the FSA waives NRCS*s noncompliance determinations. These officials
    expressed the view that many of these waivers are not justified and that
    the high number of waivers tends to undermine NRCS*s implementation of the
    conservation provisions, giving its field staff less incentive to issue
    violations when warranted.

    2. Table 2 of the report shows that the FSA denied about $19.2 million of
    benefits to farmers during crop years 1993 through 2001; this amount
    represents the difference between the totals for the *Benefits to be
    denied before appeals* and the *Benefits reinstated by Farm Service
    Agency*

    columns of the table. However, the table also shows that this total was
    further reduced by about $6.5 million worth of benefits that were
    reinstated by others including NRCS, USDA*s National Appeals Division, and
    judicial courts. Thus, substantially less than approximately $20 million
    worth of benefits were permanently denied. GAO*s Comments

    Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    Page 105 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation Lawrence J. Dyckman (202)
    512- 3841 James R. Jones, Jr. (202) 512- 9839 In addition to the
    individuals named above, Gary Brown, Thomas Cook,

    Tyra DiPalma- Vigil, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Katherine Tang, and Cleofas
    Zapata made key contributions to this report. Important contributions were
    also made by Alice Feldesman, Luann Moy, Minette Richardson, and Rebecca
    Shea. Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff

    Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

    Related GAO Products Page 106 GAO- 03- 418 Agricultural Conservation
    Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees* Views on How USDA
    Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns. GAO- 02-

    295. Washington, D. C.: February 22, 2002.

    Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions Needed to
    Strengthen Program and Financial Accountability. GAO/ RCED- 00- 83.
    Washington, D. C.: April 7, 2000.

    Soil and Wetlands Conservation: Soil Conservation Service Making Good
    Progress but Cultural Issues Need Attention. GAO/ RCED- 94- 241.
    Washington, D. C.: September 27, 1994.

    Farm Programs: Conservation Compliance Provisions Could Be Made More
    Effective. GAO/ RCED- 90- 206. Washington, D. C.: September 24, 1990.
    Related GAO Products

    (360194)

    The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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 at no cost
    is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
    and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
    archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
    you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
    documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
    Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
    To have GAO e- mail

    this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
    *Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
    GAO Reports heading.

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
    Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

    TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

    Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
    fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
    512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
    4800

    U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
    C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

    GAO Reports and Testimony

    Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
    Programs Public Affairs
    *** End of document. ***