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. ***