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


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-295 
entitled 'Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees’ Views 
on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns' which 
was released on February 22, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
Senate: 

February 2002: 

Agricultural Conservation: 

State Advisory Committees’ Views on How USDA Programs Could Better 
Address Environmental Concerns: 

GAO-02-295: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Committee Members Noted Some Programs Better Address Specific Concerns 
and Some Regions and Types of Operations Are Not as Effectively 
Assisted: 

Members Noted Some Program Elements Hinder Achievement of Environmental 
Objectives and Would Like More Flexibility: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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

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

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Objectives and Scope: 

Survey Methodology: 

Sampling Errors and Confidence Intervals of Estimates: 

Controlling for Nonsampling Errors: 

Methodology for Obtaining Additional Information: 

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

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: USDA’s Conservation Programs: 

Table 2: CRP General Enrollment Applications and Acres, Fiscal Years 
1986-2001: 

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

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

Table 5: Eligible Acres That Exceeded Program Limits and USDA Estimate 
of Funding Required to Enroll Acres in USDA Conservation Programs As of 
October 2001: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: USDA Conservation Program Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as Effective 
in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing CRP-Based Programs as 
“Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and 
FPP as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental 
Concerns: 

Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing CRP-
Based Programs as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing 
Environmental Concerns: 

Figure 6: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WRP as 
“Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing EQIP 
as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental 
Concerns: 

Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WHIP 
as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental 
Concerns: 

Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing FPP as 
“Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

Figure 10: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as 
Effective in Assisting Different Sizes and Types of Agricultural 
Operations: 

Figure 11: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP 
General “Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental 
Objectives: 

Figure 12: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP 
Continuous “Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental 
Objectives: 

Figure 13: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating WRP Provisions 
“Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives: 

Figure 14: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating EQIP Provisions 
“Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives: 

Figure 15: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs Having 
“Less Than Enough” or “Much Less Than Enough” Technical Assistance: 

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Members Citing Program Elements as 
“Somewhat” or “Very” Important in Modifying or Creating New Programs: 

Figure 17: Actual and Member-Proposed Allocations of Fiscal Years 1996-
2000 Funds to USDA Conservation Programs: 

Figure 18: CRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

Figure 19: WRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

Figure 20: EQIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

Figure 21: FPP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

Figure 22: WHIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

Abbreviations: 

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program: 

CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: 

EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentives Program: 

FPP: Farmland Protection Program: 

FSA: Farm Service Agency: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture: 

WHIP: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: 

WRP: Wetlands Reserve Program: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 22, 2002: 

The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Richard Lugar: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: 
United States Senate: 

Farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners own and manage more
than two-thirds of the continental United States’ 1.9 billion acres and 
thus are the primary stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat. 
Because of this important responsibility, how private land is used is 
increasingly being recognized as vital to the protection of the 
nation’s environment and natural resources. For example, state water-
quality agencies report that agricultural production is a leading 
contributor to impaired water quality; similarly, habitat loss 
associated with agriculture has been a factor in the declining 
populations of many wildlife species, including many threatened or 
endangered native species. Recognizing the critical role played by
private landowners, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to implement numerous programs aimed at improving the 
stewardship practices on these lands. USDA currently has more than 70 
million acres of privately owned land enrolled in programs that offer 
landowners financial incentives to implement conservation practices to
protect or improve soil and water quality and wildlife habitat. USDA’s 
conservation efforts are intended to address specific environmental 
concerns, target funding toward state and local environmental priority
areas, and include partnerships with state or local entities to leverage
limited funding. USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the federal
government’s largest single conservation program, has an enrollment of
almost 34 million acres and makes annual payments of about $1.5 billion
on these acres. 

Administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency, CRP compensates landowners 
for taking certain highly erodible cropland or environmentally 
sensitive land out of agricultural production. Most of CRP’s 34 million
acres were enrolled through CRP General Enrollment, which USDA 
implemented in 1986. Alternative CRP enrollment options--CRP Continuous 
Enrollment, implemented in 1997, and the Conservation Reserve 
Enhancement Program (CREP), implemented in 1998--are specifically 
targeted to high-priority conservation practices that yield significant 
environmental benefits. As of October 2001, enrollment in CRP 

Continuous and CREP totaled 1.6 million acres. Other USDA programs, 
including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the 
Farmland Protection Program, are administered by USDA’s Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These programs, which NRCS state 
conservationists manage, compensate landowners for activities such as 
restoring and protecting wetlands, implementing conservation and 
wildlife practices on land currently used for agricultural production, 
and preventing the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses near 
urban areas. 

State technical committees advise the NRCS state conservationists on 
implementing NRCS-administered conservation programs in each state. 
These committees include representatives from federal, state, local, 
and Indian tribal governments, as well as representatives from 
organizations knowledgeable about conservation issues, and are chaired 
by the NRCS state conservationists. The committees are responsible for 
such activities as recommending guidelines for evaluating conservation 
practices, determining eligible conservation practices for state 
priority areas, and making suggestions on program selection processes. 

The future of USDA conservation programs has been the subject of 
extensive debate within the environmental and agricultural communities 
and in the Congress. This debate has centered on increasing the 
environmental and natural resource benefits resulting from the programs 
by allocating more funding to them, modifying them, or creating new 
programs. Pursuant to this debate, the omnibus farm bill is expected to 
become law in 2002. 

In this context, you asked us to obtain the views of members of state 
technical committees on (1) the effectiveness of USDA’s conservation 
efforts in addressing environmental concerns related to agriculture and 
(2) any program elements that hinder the achievement of environmental 
objectives related to agriculture, as well as program characteristics 
that current or new programs might include to better meet these 
objectives. Also, you asked us to provide information on program 
participation and the extent to which applications for program 
participation exceed program funding as well as the geographic 
distribution of payments for each program. This information is provided 
in appendixes I and II, respectively. 

To provide information on the views of members of state technical 
committees for our first two objectives, we mailed a questionnaire to 
all NRCS state conservationists and a sample of 1,470 committee members 
and received 996 responses. We drew the sample from the 2,124 state 
technical committee members in all 50 states and two territories. The 
sample was stratified by geographic region and the organizations the 
members represent, and the overall survey results are generalizable to 
the entire population. All percentage estimates from the survey have 
sampling errors of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less, unless 
otherwise noted. The survey solicited views on the effectiveness of CRP 
General Enrollment, CRP Continuous Enrollment, CREP, Wetlands Reserve 
Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program, and Farmland Protection Program. For CREP and the 
Farmland Protection Program, which are relatively new programs, our 
results include only those states where the programs were implemented 
at the time of our survey. Our nationwide survey results are in 
appendix IV. In addition, survey results stratified by region and 
organization are included in a special publication entitled 
Agricultural Conservation: Survey of USDA State Technical Committee 
Members (GAO-02-371SP), which is available on the Internet at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgibin/getrpt?gao-02-371SP]. 

We conducted our work from March 2001 through November 2001 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. More 
detailed information on our scope and methodology is contained in 
appendix III. 

Results in Brief: 

State technical committee members indicated that while USDA’s 
conservation programs are generally effective, some targeted programs 
are more effective than others in addressing specific environmental 
concerns. In addition, members believed that program effectiveness 
varies by region and type of agricultural operation. Of particular 
significance, members viewed CRP Continuous Enrollment and CREP, which 
target such specific environmental concerns as improving water quality 
and protecting native species, as more effective in addressing these 
concerns than CRP General Enrollment, which addresses environmental 
concerns more generally. These results are consistent with other 
analyses, such as a 1993 National Academy of Sciences study, which 
found that targeting programs to specific environmental concerns—as 
done by CRP Continuous Enrollment and CREP—is a promising way to 
increase program effectiveness. While USDA has taken steps to increase 
enrollment in the more targeted CRP programs, as of October 2001, 
enrolled acreage totaled only 1.6 million of the 34 million CRP acres. 
Committee members also viewed other programs as effective in addressing 
environmental concerns. For example, members viewed the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
as effective in improving water quality and wildlife habitat, 
respectively. Members from the Northeast and Pacific regions regard CRP 
General Enrollment as significantly less effective in addressing their 
agro-environmental concerns than do respondents from the Corn Belt and 
Plains regions. These results may reflect the concentration of CRP 
funding in the Corn Belt and Plains regions. Members also indicated 
that programs are less effective in addressing the needs of specialty 
crop operations (such as fruit and vegetable farms) and livestock and 
poultry operations compared to their effectiveness for field crop 
operations (such as wheat, corn, and cotton farms). 

Committee members cited several elements of the current programs that 
hinder achievement of environmental objectives and indicated a 
preference for more flexibility in new or existing programs. More than 
two-thirds of members cited program provisions that do not allow 
landowners to receive compensation for maintaining previously 
implemented landowner-financed conservation practices as a hindrance to 
the CRP programs. These provisions were also cited as a hindrance to 
the Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. In addition, members viewed as 
a hindrance the Environmental Quality Incentives Program provision 
stipulating that participants may not receive payment in the first year 
of the contract. Under this provision, producers are expected to bear 
the cost of conservation practice implementation in the first year of 
the contract. Finally, members would like to be able to tailor new or 
existing programs to the farming practices of producers in their states 
as well as increase emphasis on programs that keep lands in production. 

In view of the survey results, we are making a recommendation to the 
secretary of agriculture to take into consideration committee members’ 
views on ways to increase the environmental benefits of conservation 
programs as USDA modifies or develops regulations for programs 
reauthorized or created by the omnibus farm bill, which is expected to 
become law in 2002. In commenting on a draft of this report, the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service agreed with the information 
presented in the draft report. The Farm Service Agency generally agreed 
but provided additional comments about the impact of increasing 
emphasis on targeted CRP-based programs. The agencies also provided 
some technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. 

Background: 

USDA conservation programs are intended to compensate landowners for 
taking environmentally sensitive land out of agricultural production or 
employing conservation practices on land in production. Programs are 
designed to address a range of environmental concerns, such as soil 
erosion, surface and ground water quality, loss of wildlife habitat and 
native species, air quality, and urban sprawl. USDA’s programs are 
intended to assist landowners in addressing environmental concerns 
identified at the state or local level as well as national 
environmental concerns. USDA establishes regulations governing these 
programs, including eligibility requirements, pursuant to authorizing 
statutes. Table 1 summarizes USDA’s principal conservation programs and 
funding over the last 6 years. 

Table 1: USDA’s Conservation Programs: 

Program, responsible agency: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) General 
Enrollment; FSA; 
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To improve soil, water, and wildlife 
resources by taking cropland out of production and converting it to a 
conserving use; Food Security Act of 1985; 
Program description: Provides annual rental payments and cost-share 
assistance to establish permanent land cover in exchange for taking 
whole fields of environmentally sensitive cropland out of production 
for 10-15 years; 
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $9,837. 

Program, responsible agency: CRP Continuous Enrollment Option[A]; FSA; 
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To improve soil, water, and wildlife 
resources by taking cropland out of production, targeting the most 
highly sensitive land; Food Security Act of 1985; 
Program description: Same as CRP General Enrollment except allows 
enrollment at any time for smaller parcels of land that provide 
especially high environmental benefits, such as narrow strips of land 
adjacent to water bodies, and offers additional incentives; 
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): [B]. 

Program, responsible agency: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
(CREP)[C]; FSA; 
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To address specific state and 
nationally significant soil, water, and wildlife resource issues by 
taking cropland out of production; Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996; 
Program description: Same as CRP General Enrollment and CRP Continuous 
Enrollment option except partners with states and targets specific 
state conservation objectives and offers additional incentives; 
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): [B]. 

Program, responsible agency: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); NRCS; 
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To restore and protect wetlands, to 
improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, reduce soil erosion 
and flooding, and improve water supply by restoring marginal 
agricultural land to its previous wetland condition; Food Security Act 
of 1985[D]; 
Program description: Offers cost-share assistance for restoration or 
purchase of permanent or 30-year easements for the agricultural value 
of the land; 
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $845. 

Program, responsible agency: Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
(EQIP); NRCS[E]; 
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To improve soil quality, water 
quality and supply, and wildlife habitat on lands in a agricultural 
production; Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996; 
Program description: Offers incentive payments and cost-share 
assistance under 5-10 year contracts, allocating half of funds to 
natural resource concerns related to livestock production and targeting 
at least 65 percent of state funds to priority areas; 
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $1,038. 

Program, responsible agency: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
(WHIP); NRCS; 
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To develop wildlife habitat; Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996; 
Program description: Offers cost-share assistance through 5-10 year 
agreements to develop and improve wildlife habitat; 
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $63. 

Program, responsible agency: Farmland Protection Program (FPP); NRCS; 
Purpose, authorizing legislation: To limit the conversion of land to 
non-agricultural uses; Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
of 1996; 
Program description: Purchases easements for land development rights in 
partnership with state, tribal, and local government, as well as non-
governmental organizations for a minimum duration of 30 years; 
1996-2001 total appropriation (in millions): $52. 

[A] FSA took administrative action in 1997 to allow an option under the 
CRP permitting enrollment at any time. 

[B] Funded from CRP General Enrollment. 

[C] CRP option that uses CRP authority in combination with state 
resources. 

[D] Although WRP was authorized in 1985, it was not implemented until 
1992. 

[E] FSA has some administrative responsibilities. 

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

[End of table] 

Payments for these conservation programs totaled about $1.7 billion in 
fiscal year 2000, $1.5 billion of which went to CRP. As shown in figure 
1, conservation payments are concentrated in the Corn Belt and Plains 
regions. This concentration reflects the fact that CRP payments are a 
large portion of total agricultural conservation payments. The 
distribution of payments for some of the other programs is less 
concentrated. Appendix II provides more detailed information on the 
geographic distribution of payments by program. 

Figure 1: USDA Conservation Program Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the Continental United States with state and 
regional borders indicated. Also, dots represent $50,000 payments, 
based on county level data. 

The following regions are indicated: 
Northeast; 
Southeast; 
Delta; 
Corn Belt; 
Plains; 
Mountain; 
Pacific. 

Notes: Figure includes payments in the continental United States for 
CRP, WRP, FPP, and EQIP, including programs that preceded EQIP (the 
Agricultural Conservation Program, Great Plains Conservation Program, 
and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Program). Payments were also made 
to Alaska and Hawaii and the Caribbean territory. Fiscal year 2000 
payment data at the county level were not available for WHIP. 

During the time that we conducted our review, fiscal year 2000 data 
were the most recent data available for county level payments. 

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

[End of figure] 

USDA’s NRCS is the primary federal agency that works with private 
landowners to help them protect their natural resources. The work of 
the agency is accomplished through conservation planning, technical and 
financial assistance, resource assessment, and technology development 
and transfer. NRCS administers EQIP, WRP, WHIP, and FPP programs, in 
addition to providing technical assistance for CRP-based programs. 
USDA’s FSA administers CRP-based programs, with technical assistance 
provided by NRCS. 

The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 established 
state technical committees to advise NRCS state conservationists on 
technical matters related to the implementation of USDA conservation 
programs in each state. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
Act of 1996 provided additional guidance on committee membership. By 
regulation, USDA requires that state technical committees include 
representatives, if they are willing to serve, from NRCS, FSA, and 
other USDA agencies; various U.S. Department of Interior agencies 
including Fish & Wildlife Service; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Indian tribal governments; state 
and local natural resource departments and agencies; representatives 
from nonprofit organizations and agribusinesses; agricultural 
producers; and other individuals with conservation expertise. Chaired 
by NRCS state conservationists, committees are responsible for such 
activities as recommending guidelines for evaluating conservation 
practices, determining eligible conservation practices for state 
priority areas, and making suggestions on program selection processes. 

Committee Members Noted Some Programs Better Address Specific Concerns 
and Some Regions and Types of Operations Are Not as Effectively 
Assisted: 

Committee members cited USDA’s conservation programs as being generally 
effective in addressing environmental concerns. However, members also 
indicated that CRP Continuous and CREP are more effective than CRP 
General in addressing specific environmental concerns. In addition, 
members viewed WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and FPP as effective in achieving 
environmental objectives important to these programs. Finally, some 
members indicated that the effectiveness of the programs is uneven 
across regions and types of agricultural operations. 

Members Considered Targeted CRP-based Programs More Effective Than CRP 
General in Addressing Specific Environmental Concerns: 

Overall, state technical committee members viewed programs as effective 
in addressing agro-environmental concerns. As figure 2 shows, most 
committee members rated all programs as “moderately” to “extremely” 
effective in addressing environmental concerns. Some respondents noted 
in explaining their assessment of program effectiveness that current 
funding levels limit effectiveness. Other factors may also have 
affected committee members’ assessments of program effectiveness. For 
example, respondents may have given higher scores to programs such as 
CRP General that have been in place a number of years because they 
would be more familiar with the programs. In contrast, the more 
recently implemented programs such as CREP and FPP may have been scored 
lower because respondents may be less familiar with them. 

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as Effective 
in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked multiple vertical bar graph depicting the 
percentage of members viewing programs as effective in addressing 
environmental concerns. Each bar stacks the percentage viewed as 
moderately, very, and extremely effective for the following programs: 
CRP General; 
CRP Continuous; 
CREP; 
WRP; 
EQIP; 
WHIP; 
FPP; 
Overall. 

Notes: CREP and FPP results are for only the 15 states that had CREP 
and the 18 states that had FPP implemented at the time of our survey. 

Figure reflects respondents reporting programs as “moderately,” “very,” 
or “extremely” effective. The remaining respondents rated the programs 
as “somewhat” or “slightly or not” effective. 

[End of figure] 

Unlike the other conservation programs, the three CRP-based programs 
provide an opportunity for direct comparison with each other because 
they have similar environmental objectives and use the same mechanism 
to achieve these objectives--land retirement. Moreover, USDA has the 
ability to change the relative emphasis of the three programs by 
setting acreage goals and offering additional incentives for landowners 
to enroll land into CRP Continuous and CREP. 

Committee members viewed the targeted CRP-based programs--CRP 
Continuous and CREP--as more effective in addressing surface water 
quality as figure 3 shows. Survey results showed statistically 
significant differences in the effectiveness of CRP Continuous and CREP 
compared to CRP General in protecting or improving surface water 
quality. In addition, some members noted that CRP Continuous and CREP, 
which are specifically targeted to high-priority conservation practices 
that yield significant environmental benefits such as retiring small 
parcels of land adjacent to water bodies, result in greater 
environmental benefits relative to federal dollars spent. Furthermore, 
members considered surface water quality to be an important 
environmental concern. In response to a survey question on whether 
various environmental concerns should receive more or less emphasis in 
the future, about 80 percent of members (more than for any other 
environmental concern) indicated that surface water quality should 
receive more emphasis. 

Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing CRP-Based Programs as 
“Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the percentage 
of members viewing CRP-based programs as “very” or “extremely” 
effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the following 
environmental concerns depicts the percentage for CREP, CRP General, 
and CRP Continuous programs: 

Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Protecting native species; 
Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Reducing soil erosion; 
Protecting or improving ground water quality. 

[End of figure] 

Concerning protecting native species, survey results showed 
statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of CREP and 
CRP Continuous compared with CRP General. As shown in figure 3, an 
estimated 40 percent of members indicated that CREP, which has a 
defined native species objective, is effective, compared with 22 
percent for CRP General. A higher percentage of members also indicated 
that CRP Continuous is effective compared with CRP General. 

Concerning protecting wildlife habitat, members viewed CRP General,
CRP Continuous, and CREP as about equally effective (52 percent, 51 
percent, and 56 percent, respectively). Some committee members noted 
that the large number of grassland acres enrolled in CRP General 
provides habitat for species that need this type of habitat, such as
pheasants and prairie chickens. Other members noted that CRP 

Continuous and CREP, which often focus on small parcels of land near 
water, provide habitat for a wide variety of species, including many 
fish and bird species. In addition, a greater percentage of committee 
members viewed CRP General as effective in reducing soil erosion. 
Members’ views on soil erosion may have been influenced by the 
substantial number of acres enrolled in that program compared to CRP 
Continuous and CREP. While soil erosion can be addressed through land 
retirement, it is also addressed through EQIP and USDA’s conservation 
compliance program, which covers a large amount of erodible land. 
[Footnote 1] 

Underscoring the effectiveness of CREP and CRP Continuous in targeting 
environmental benefits per federal dollar spent, committee members from 
the Corn Belt region, where more members are familiar with CREP and CRP 
Continuous and the majority of enrolled CREP and CRP Continuous acres 
are located, said that these programs are more cost-effective than CRP 
General (67 percent and 73 percent respectively compared with 58 
percent for CRP General). 

These survey results are consistent with other analyses, such as a 1993 
National Academy of Sciences study, [Footnote 2] which found that 
targeting specific environmental concerns through the use of buffer 
zones (small parcels of land whose retirement results in high 
environmental benefits)—as done by CRP Continuous and CREP—is a 
promising way to increase program effectiveness. Similarly, in 1995, we 
reported that a targeted approach to land retirement, including the use 
of buffer zones, would achieve substantial environmental 
benefits.[Footnote 3] More recently, a September 2001 USDA report on 
developing future agricultural policy stated that CRP Continuous and 
CREP are very well suited to increasing environmental benefits per land 
retirement program dollar.[Footnote 4] 

Recognizing the effectiveness of targeting, USDA has taken steps 
recently to increase enrollment in CRP Continuous and CREP. Of the 36.4 
million acres authorized for CRP enrollment, USDA has reserved 4.2 
million acres for CRP Continuous and CREP. In 2000 USDA began offering 
additional financial incentives for landowners to enroll highly 
sensitive land in CRP Continuous. Furthermore, USDA has promoted CRP 
Continuous and CREP through an initiative in which it partners with 
other federal, state, and private agencies to encourage landowners to 
create a buffer between fields in crop production and the surrounding 
environment. However, the results of these programs still fall short of 
their potential. As of October 2001, CRP Continuous and CREP enrollment 
totaled 1.6 million acres, less than 5 percent of the authorized CRP 
enrollment, and over 71 percent of these acres were concentrated in the 
Corn Belt and three other states. Enrollment in many other states is 
very low. Furthermore, USDA’s September 2001 agricultural policy report 
also notes that, among the CRP-based programs, CRP Continuous and CREP 
have the greatest untapped potential to generate environmental 
benefits. 

As shown in figure 4, members viewed WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and FPP as 
effective in achieving environmental objectives important to these 
programs. For example, members rated WRP and WHIP as effective in 
protecting or improving wildlife habitat (68 percent and 69 percent, 
respectively). In addition, members viewed WRP and EQIP as effective in 
protecting or improving surface water quality (58 percent and 61 
percent, respectively). Some members noted the flexibility of EQIP, in 
that it is able to implement a wide variety of conservation practices 
to address local environmental needs. Finally, 69 percent of members 
rated FPP as effective in addressing urban sprawl. 

Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and 
FPP as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental 
Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the percentage 
of members viewing WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and FPP as “very” or “extremely” 
effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the following 
environmental concerns depicts the percentage for WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and 
FPP programs: 

Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Protecting native species; 
Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Reducing soil erosion; 
Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Preventing urban sprawl. 

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

[End of figure] 

Members Indicated that Programs Are Not as Effective in Assisting Some 
Regions of the Country and Types of Agricultural Operations: 

Because of the wide diversity in agricultural production settings, 
environmental needs differ across regions.[Footnote 5] While members 
were generally positive about the assistance provided by USDA’s 
conservation programs, as figure 5 shows, members in the Northeast and 
Pacific regions, which receive a relatively small portion of total 
conservation funds, regarded CRP General and CRP Continuous as less 
effective in serving their needs than did members from other regions. 

Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing CRP-
Based Programs as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing 
Environmental Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members in each region viewing CRP-based programs as 
“very” or “extremely” effective in addressing environmental concerns. 
The programs depicted are CRP General, CRP Continuous, and CREP. The 
regional percentage is depicted for each of the following regions: 
Corn Belt; 
Delta; 
Plains; 
Mountain; 
Pacific; 
Southeast; 
Northeast. 

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

[End of figure] 

While many factors may have influenced members’ responses, some 
respondents from the Corn Belt and Plains regions commented that the 
significant enrollment in their areas contributes to the effectiveness 
of CRP General. These regions receive the most concentrated funding 
because CRP is primarily directed to environmental concerns related to 
field crop production. (See appendix II for additional information on 
geographic distribution of program payments.) 

As figure 5 shows, members from the Northeast and Corn Belt regions 
viewed CREP as significantly more effective than members from other 
regions. These results may reflect the concentration of CREP funding in 
these regions and the program’s flexibility in allowing conservation 
practices and offering financial incentives. Similarly, members from 
the Corn Belt and Delta regions viewed CRP Continuous as significantly 
more effective than members from other regions. More than half of the 
1.5 million acres enrolled in CRP Continuous are located in the Corn 
Belt and Delta regions. 

Concerning WRP, as shown in figure 6, a greater percentage of members 
from the Delta and Corn Belt regions viewed this program as “very” or 
“extremely” effective compared to members in other regions. Moreover, 
members from the Delta region rated WRP as more effective than any 
other program. In addition, almost half of all members from the Pacific 
also viewed WRP as effective. While there may be many reasons for 
members’ responses, the results from the Delta region may reflect the 
significant amount of WRP funding in this region. Furthermore, 
according to USDA officials, these survey results may reflect the 
considerable landowner interest in these regions for converting acreage 
poorly suited for agricultural production to other uses; specifically, 
for developing habitat for migratory birds in the Delta region and 
salmon in the Pacific region. 

Figure 6: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WRP as 
“Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members in each region viewing WRP as “very” or 
“extremely” effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the 
seven regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages 
indicated as very effective and extremely effective. 

[End of figure] 

With the exception of the Northeast and the Plains, about half of the 
members rated EQIP as “very” or “extremely” effective in addressing 
environmental concerns. As shown in figure 7, a greater percentage of 
members in the Northeast believed that EQIP is effective, possibly 
reflecting limited funding from other programs in the region. The 
uniformity in responses across most regions may reflect the uniform 
distribution of EQIP funding to all states. 

Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing EQIP 
as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental 
Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members in each region viewing EQIP as “very” or 
“extremely” effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the 
seven regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages 
indicated as very effective and extremely effective. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 8, members from different regions generally viewed 
the effectiveness of WHIP similarly, which may also reflect the uniform 
distribution of WHIP funding across states. 

Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing WHIP 
as “Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental 
Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members in each region viewing WHIP as “very” or 
“extremely” effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of the 
seven regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages 
indicated as very effective and extremely effective. 

[End of figure] 

At the time of our survey, FPP was not implemented in all states; 
consequently, we were able to summarize data related to FPP for four 
regions only. As shown in figure 9, members from the four regions 
viewed the effectiveness of the program differently. A greater 
percentage of members from the Northeast, 57 percent, viewed FPP as 
“very” or “extremely” effective, possibly reflecting the concentration 
of FPP funding in this region. 

Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Members in Each Region Viewing FPP as 
“Very” or “Extremely” Effective in Addressing Environmental Concerns: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members in each region viewing WHIP as “very” or 
“extremely” effective in addressing environmental concerns. Each of 
four regions is represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages 
indicated as very effective and extremely effective. 

Note: FPP was not implemented in the Delta or Plains regions at the 
time of our survey. The Mountain region was not included in the figure 
because only one response from this region was received. 

[End of figure] 

Regarding the effectiveness of the USDA conservation programs in 
assisting different types of agricultural operations, a greater 
percentage of members viewed programs as effective in assisting field 
crop operations compared to other operations. Figure 10 shows that more 
than 80 percent of members viewed the programs as effective in 
assisting field crop operations (such as wheat, corn and cotton), while 
only about half viewed the programs as effective in assisting specialty 
crops (such as fruits and vegetables), large-animal feeding operations, 
and forestry operations. These results may reflect the programs’ 
traditional focus on field crop operations. 

Finally, members viewed programs as more effective in assisting medium-
size operations than small or large operations, as shown in figure 10. 
These results may be explained by conservation programs’ historical 
focus on medium-size operations. 

Figure 10: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs as 
Effective in Assisting Different Sizes and Types of Agricultural 
Operations: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members viewing programs as effective in assisting 
different sizes and types of agricultural operations. The following 
agricultural operations are represented by a vertical bar stacked with 
percentages indicated as moderately effective, very effective and 
extremely effective: 
Field crops; 
Combination crop and animal operations; 
Grazing operations; 
Small animal feeding operations; 
Forestry operations; 
Specialty crops; 
Large operations; Medium operations; 
Small operations. 

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

[End of figure] 

Recognizing that the existing programs are concentrated on certain 
regions and types of operations, USDA’s September 2001 report stated 
that the success of USDA’s conservation programs will depend on 
programs extending coverage to a broader base of agricultural 
operations across geographic regions. 

Members Noted Some Program Elements Hinder Achievement of Environmental 
Objectives and Would Like More Flexibility: 

State technical committee members believe that some program elements 
hinder achievement of environmental objectives but identified other 
program elements they would like to see emphasized in current or new 
programs. For example, members indicated several provisions that limit 
eligibility or deter participation. Members cited provisions that do 
not allow landowners that maintain previously implemented landowner-
financed conservation practices to receive compensation as a hindrance 
to all programs. Members indicated a preference for program elements 
that provide increased flexibility that would enable the programs to 
better adapt to the diverse situations faced by landowners across the 
nation as well as increased emphasis on local conservation priorities. 

Members Noted Some Program Provisions Limit Eligibility and Deter 
Participation: 

State technical committee members viewed a number of provisions in CRP 
General, CRP Continuous, WRP, and EQIP as limiting eligibility and 
deterring participation. As figure 11 shows, about 70 percent of 
members cited as a hindrance CRP General’s provisions that do not allow 
landowners that maintain previously implemented landowner-financed 
conservation practices to be compensated. A majority of members in all 
regions shared this view, ranging from 58 percent in the Delta region 
to 77 percent in the Northeast. Members cited the CRP General provision 
generally restricting use of land from activities such as haying and 
grazing as a hindrance that may serve as a deterrent to program 
participation. While not viewed as a hindrance by a majority at the 
national level, the provision limiting the amount of annual payments 
per acre was viewed as a significant hindrance by almost two-thirds of 
members in the Northeast and Pacific. In these regions, the income 
derived from annual payments is often significantly lower than 
potential income from other land uses, thus deterring participation. 
More than half of all members indicated that specific enrollment 
periods, rather than continuous enrollment offered under the CRP 
Continuous option, is a hindrance. 

Figure 11: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP 
General “Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental 
Objectives: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members indicating provisions of CRP General “somewhat” 
or “greatly” hinder achievement of environmental objectives. The 
following CRP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked with 
percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders: 
No payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Restriction on haying and grazing; 
Limit on percentage of land enrolled in a county (25%); 
Requirement that land be in production 2 of the past 5 years; 
Size of annual payments per acre. 

[End of figure] 

Almost half of the members also indicated that the program eligibility 
requirement that land be in crop production 2 of the past 5 years 
hinders CRP General. Furthermore, in response to a question regarding 
the incentives the programs provide to landowners, almost a quarter of 
members believed that landowners discontinue or avoid desirable 
conservation practices to meet this program eligibility requirement. 
For example, several respondents noted that some landowners convert 
grassland that is susceptible to soil erosion to cropland in order to 
be eligible to enroll this land in CRP. Higher percentages of members 
from the Plains and Corn Belt regions (44 percent and 39 percent, 
respectively), where CRP participation is concentrated, believed that 
landowners discontinue or avoid desirable practices to qualify for CRP 
General. 

Figure 12 shows the principal hindrances that members cited for CRP 
Continuous. As with CRP General, CRP Continuous’ provisions that do not 
allow landowners to be compensated for maintaining previously 
implemented practices were viewed as a hindrance. This view was 
consistent across all regions. While viewed as a hindrance by 37 
percent of members overall, the provision limiting the amount of annual 
payments per acre was viewed as a significant hindrance by 63 percent 
of members in the Northeast and 48 percent in the Pacific. In addition, 
84 percent of committee members believed that the ability to enroll at 
any time rather than during specific sign-up periods “somewhat” or 
“greatly” helps CRP Continuous. For example, some members noted that 
the continuous sign-up process simplifies enrollment in CRP Continuous. 
Finally, about 62 percent of members cited the premium on annual 
payments per acre offered as an incentive for enrollment in CRP 
Continuous as helping the program achieve its environmental objectives. 

Figure 12: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating Provisions of CRP 
Continuous “Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental 
Objectives: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members indicating provisions of CRP Continuous 
“somewhat” or “greatly” hinder achievement of environmental objectives. 
The following CRP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked 
with percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders: 
No payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Restriction on haying and grazing; 
Restrictions on acceptable conservation practices; 
Size of annual rental rate per acre. 

[End of figure] 

For WRP, as shown in figure 13, an estimated 64 percent of members 
indicated that provisions that do not allow landowners to be 
compensated for maintaining previously protected wetlands are a 
hindrance. This view was consistent across all regions. Over half of 
the state technical committee members viewed restrictions on the use of 
land enrolled in WRP as a hindrance. They viewed the determination of 
WRP easement purchase price based on the agricultural value of the land 
rather than the market value, which may reflect its value as developed 
property, as somewhat or greatly hindering achievement of WRP’s 
environmental objectives. A higher percentage of members from the 
Northeast, Pacific, and Southeast regions (84 percent, 71 percent, and 
66 percent, respectively) viewed this provision as a hindrance, 
possibly reflecting higher market prices relative to the agricultural 
value of the land in these regions. Members’ views were strongly 
divided on WRP’s use of 30-year or permanent easements; 45 percent 
viewed easements as helping achieve the program’s objectives while 38 
percent viewed easements as a hindrance. 

Figure 13: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating WRP Provisions 
“Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members indicating provisions of WRP “somewhat” or 
“greatly” hinder achievement of environmental objectives. The following 
WRP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked with 
percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders: 
No payment to maintain previously protected wetlands; 
Determination of easement price based on agricultural value; 
Restrictions on land use; 
Limit on percentage of land enrolled in a county. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 14, committee members cited several program 
provisions as hindrances to achieving EQIP’s environmental objectives. 
For example, 69 percent of members cited the provisions that do not 
allow landowners to be compensated for maintaining previously 
implemented conservation practices as a hindrance. Furthermore, more 
than 80 percent of members viewed as a hindrance the program provision 
stipulating that participants may not receive payment in the first year 
of the 5-or 10-year contract. Under this provision, producers are 
expected to bear the cost of conservation practice implementation in 
the first year of the contract. About 60 percent of members indicated 
that the prohibition on USDA’s sharing the cost of the construction of 
waste structures for large livestock and poultry operations[Footnote 6] 
“somewhat” or “greatly” hinders achievement of environmental objectives 
by limiting eligibility. In addition, more than half of the members 
believed that the application process for EQIP enrollment is a 
hindrance. For example, some members told us in their written comments 
that the EQIP application process is unnecessarily cumbersome and 
entails too much paperwork and staff time. NRCS program officials told 
us they believe the application process is relatively easy, but that it 
is the ranking of the applications to determine which are funded that 
members may consider as the hindrance. 

Figure 14: Estimated Percentage of Members Indicating EQIP Provisions 
“Somewhat” or “Greatly” Hinder Achievement of Environmental Objectives: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members indicating provisions of EQIP “somewhat” or 
“greatly” hinder achievement of environmental objectives. The following 
EQIP provision are represented by a vertical bar stacked with 
percentages indicated as greatly hinders or somewhat hinders: 
No payment in first year; 
No payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Method of allocating funds to states; 
Prohibition on cost-sharing on large animal waste storage facilities; 
Limit on incentive payments to three years; 
Application process. 

[End of figure] 

Similar to the other programs, 69 percent of committee members viewed 
as a hindrance WHIP's provisions that do not allow landowners to be 
compensated for maintaining previously implemented practices. Members 
also viewed as a hindrance the program's lack of annual rental payments 
(69 percent). About 75 percent of members viewed program promotion at 
the state or local level as a factor that helps WHIP achieve its 
environmental objectives. Members viewed this factor as helpful for all 
of the other programs as well. 

Finally, committee members noted that all the programs lack adequate 
technical assistance to support landowners in planning and implementing 
conservation practices. As figure 15 depicts, a majority of members 
indicated that all programs lack adequate technical assistance. Among 
regions, members from the Northeast and Pacific responded that EQIP has 
the greatest shortage of technical assistance (75 percent). 

Figure 15: Estimated Percentage of Members Viewing Programs Having 
“Less Than Enough” or “Much Less Than Enough” Technical Assistance: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members viewing programs having “less than enough” or 
“much less than enough” technical assistance. The following programs 
are represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages indicated as 
less than enough and much less than enough: 
CRP General; 
CRP Continuous; 
CREP; 
WRP; 
EQIP; 
WHIP. 

[End of figure] 

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

Eighty percent of committee members believed that programs should 
emphasize local conservation needs while only 24 percent would 
emphasize national needs. As shown in figure 16, members also indicated 
that emphasizing local priorities is an important design element in 
current or new programs. Most of the current programs allow landowners 
to implement only a limited selection of conservation practices. More 
than an estimated 80 percent of members viewed allowing a broad array 
of conservation practices as “very” or “extremely” important in 
modifying current programs or designing new programs. More than an 
estimated three-quarters of members identified the need for less 
stringent eligibility requirements. For example, some respondents said 
in written responses that little land in their states meets CRP 
eligibility requirements. About 70 percent of members also said that 
providing eligibility to all types of operations is an important design 
element. 

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Members Citing Program Elements as 
“Somewhat” or “Very” Important in Modifying or Creating New Programs: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the estimated 
percentage of members citing program elements as “somewhat” or “very” 
important in modifying or creating new programs. The following program 
elements are represented by a vertical bar stacked with percentages 
indicated as very important and extremely important: 
Allow a broad array of conservation practices; 
Emphasize local priorities; 
Provide flexible eligibility; 
Provide eligibility to all types of operations; 
Allow economic use of lands; 
Provide payment for maintenance of existing practices. 

[End of figure] 

The 2002 omnibus farm bill is expected to increase emphasis on funding 
to programs that keep lands in production. Currently more than 80 
percent of conservation funding is directed to CRP, a program that is 
directed at land removed from production and is managed at the national 
level. When asked how they would distribute conservation funding among 
current programs, state technical committee members indicated they 
would increase the percentage of funding to EQIP and WHIP, programs 
that are decentralized in order to emphasize local environmental 
objectives. This response is consistent with a desire to increase 
funding to programs that implement conservation practices on land in 
agricultural production. Figure 17 compares the current actual 
allocation of USDA’s conservation funds to the allocation suggested by 
committee members. 

Figure 17: Actual and Member-Proposed Allocations of Fiscal Years 1996-
2000 Funds to USDA Conservation Programs: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure contains two pie-charts depicting the following data: 

Current: 
CRP: 83.2%; 
EQIP: 8.8%; 
WRP: 7.3%; 
FPP: 0.4%; 
WHIP: 0.3%. 

Proposed: 
CRP: 57.8%; 
EQIP: 20.8%; 
WRP: 9.6%; 
WHIP: 5%; 
FPP: 4.9%; 
Other: 1.8%. 

Note: Total percentage may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. For 
FPP and WHIP, percentage estimates have sampling errors of plus or 
minus 8 and 10 percentage points, respectively. 

[End of figure] 

Conclusions: 

Legislation modifying USDA’s conservation programs is expected to 
become law in 2002 as part of the omnibus farm bill. The modification 
or development of regulations to implement the new law will present the 
department with an opportunity to increase the environmental benefits 
that result from its programs. We believe our survey of state technical 
committee members identified several avenues USDA could pursue to 
enhance the programs’ effectiveness. Specifically, our survey results 
indicate that USDA has the potential to enhance environmental benefits 
resulting from CRP, the federal government’s largest conservation 
program, by increasing emphasis on programs that target specific 
environmental concerns. The department has the ability to set acreage 
goals and offer additional incentives for landowners to enroll land 
into CRP Continuous and CREP. USDA has already taken some actions along 
these lines, setting aside 4.2 million of CRP’s 36.4 million acres for 
CRP Continuous and CREP. However, as of October 2001, USDA had enrolled 
only 1.6 million acres in these programs and many states had very 
little enrollment. Moreover, USDA has noted these programs have 
significant untapped potential to generate environmental benefits. 

Committee members believe USDA’s conservation programs do not 
adequately address the needs of some regions and types of agricultural 
operations. Historically, USDA’s conservation programs have focused on 
soil erosion resulting from crop production in the Corn Belt and Plains 
regions. Increasingly diverse agricultural operations, including those 
operations not served by the current conservation programs, play a role 
in conservation efforts. As USDA reported in September 2001, the 
success of USDA’s conservation programs will depend on programs 
extending coverage to a broader base of agricultural operations across 
geographic regions. 

USDA’s conservation programs have resulted in environmental benefits, 
but according to state technical committee members, a number of 
provisions of the current programs hinder the achievement of 
environmental objectives. Although some of these provisions are 
important to ensuring that programs maintain the proper balance between 
accountability to the taxpayer and flexibility in the achievement of 
environmental objectives, committee members’ views suggest the net 
effect of some of these provisions may constrain the programs’ 
environmental benefits. If, after examination of the impact of these 
provisions on the accomplishment of environmental objectives, USDA 
decides action is needed, it can address this by modifying program 
regulations or by seeking legislative change. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

As USDA modifies or develops implementing regulations for conservation 
programs reauthorized or created by the omnibus farm bill, which is 
expected to become law in 2002, we recommend that the secretary of 
agriculture consider state technical committee members’ views on (1) 
increasing emphasis on CRP Continuous and CREP, programs that target 
specific environmental concerns, (2) modifying programs to make them 
more accessible to all regions and types of agricultural operations, 
and (3) revising elements in all programs that hinder achievement of 
environmental objectives. If USDA finds that revising the program 
regulations to incorporate these views would require legislative 
action, the secretary should submit such proposals to the Congress. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and 
comment. We received oral comments from the NRCS deputy chief for 
programs and from the FSA director of conservation and environmental 
programs. NRCS agreed with our report. FSA generally agreed with the 
report but provided additional comments. 

FSA did not agree that the environmental benefits of CRP-based programs 
would increase by placing more emphasis on CRP Continuous and CREP. It 
is more likely, FSA indicated, that certain environmental benefits 
would increase but others, such as wildlife habitat, could decrease. 
Therefore, FSA believed that any shifting of emphasis should be done 
only after evaluation of the costs and benefits of all environmental 
goals so that decision-makers could make the best-informed 
determinations. 

We agree with FSA that the effects on all environmental goals should be 
considered before shifting the emphasis within CRP-based programs. As 
we acknowledge in the report, while some wildlife species benefit from 
large parcels of grassland that CRP General provides, some members 
noted that a wide variety of fish and wildlife species also benefit 
from habitat such as filter strips near water bodies provided by CRP 
Continuous and CREP. Committee members’ views also indicate that these 
programs are more effective than CRP General in addressing surface 
water quality and the protection of native species, and about equally 
effective in protecting and improving wildlife habitat. Finally, these 
results are consistent with USDA’s September 2001 report on developing 
future agricultural policy, which stated that CRP Continuous and CREP 
are very well suited to increasing environmental benefits per land 
retirement program dollar. 

Both agencies also provided technical corrections, which we have 
incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we 
plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its 
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 
secretary of agriculture, the director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to 
others on request. This report will also be available on GAO’s home 
page at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Lawrence J. Dyckman: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

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

Table 2: CRP General Enrollment Applications and Acres, Fiscal Years 
1986-2001: 

Fiscal year: 1986; 
Applications (in thousands): 21.0; 
Acres (in millions): 2.0. 

Fiscal year: 1987; 
Applications (in thousands): 125.0; 
Acres (in millions): 15.7. 

Fiscal year: 1988; 
Applications (in thousands): 88.0; 
Acres (in millions): 24.5. 

Fiscal year: 1989; 
Applications (in thousands): 62.0; 
Acres (in millions): 29.8. 

Fiscal year: 1990; 
Applications (in thousands): 38.0; 
Acres (in millions): 33.9. 

Fiscal year: 1991; 
Applications (in thousands): 9.0; 
Acres (in millions): 34.4. 

Fiscal year: 1992; 
Applications (in thousands): 15.0; 
Acres (in millions): 35.4. 

Fiscal year: 1993; 
Applications (in thousands): 18.0; 
Acres (in millions): 36.4; 

Fiscal year: 1994; 
Applications (in thousands): 0[A]; 
Acres (in millions): 36.4. 

Fiscal year: 1995; 
Applications (in thousands): 0[A]; 
Acres (in millions): 36.4. 

Fiscal year: 1996; 
Applications (in thousands): 11.0; 
Acres (in millions): 34.5. 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
Applications (in thousands): 2.0; 
Acres (in millions): 32.7. 

Fiscal year: 1998; 
Applications (in thousands): 185.0; 
Acres (in millions): 29.4. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Applications (in thousands): 55.0; 
Acres (in millions): 28.9. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Applications (in thousands): 60.0; 
Acres (in millions): 30.2. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Applications (in thousands): 38.0; 
Acres (in millions): 32.0. 

Note: Applications and acres are estimated. 

[A] USDA did not offer enrollment in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. 

Source: USDA’s Farm Service Agency. 

[End of table] 

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

Fiscal year: 1997; 
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 11,351; 
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 99,559; 
CREP[B] Contracts: [Empty]; 
CREP[B] Acres: [Empty]. 
 
Fiscal year: 1998; 
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 35,797; 
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 571,815; 
CREP[B] Contracts: 267; 
CREP[B] Acres: 3,141. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 26,727; 
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 213,489; 
CREP[B] Contracts: 1,792; 
CREP[B] Acres: 26,674. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 27,627; 
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 220,201; 
CREP[B] Contracts: 2,829; 
CREP[B] Acres: 51,770. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 37,609; 
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 304,906; 
CREP[B] Contracts: 7,396; 
CREP[B] Acres: 103,128. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
CRP Continuous[A] Contracts: 139,111; 
CRP Continuous[A] Acres: 1,409,970; 
CREP[B] Contracts: 12,284; 
CREP[B] Acres: 184,713. 

[A] CRP Continuous was authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 but 
was not implemented until fiscal year 1997. 

[B] The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) was authorized 
in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and 
implemented in fiscal year 1998. 

Source: USDA’s Farm Service Agency. 

[End of table] 

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

Fiscal year: 1992; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 226; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 43,428; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty]. 

Fiscal year: 1993; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WRP[A]: Acres: [Empty]; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty]. 

Fiscal year: 1994; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 457; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 75,017; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty]. 

Fiscal year: 1995; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 633; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 115,071; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Easements: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Acres: [Empty]. 

Fiscal year: 1996; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 540; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 92,405; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Easements: 161; 
FPP[D]: Acres: 29,795. 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 703; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 127,267; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 24,812; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: 8,694,205; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Easements: 25; 
FPP[D]: Acres: 4,553. 

Fiscal year: 1998; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 1,080; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 211,917; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 20,261; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: 9,312,597; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 4,600; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: 672,000; 
FPP[D]: Easements: 154; 
FPP[D]: Acres: 31,143. 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 767; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 119,919; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 18,785; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: 8,753,229; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 3,855; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: 721,249; 
FPP[D]: Easements: 3; 
FPP[D]: Acres: 270. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 2,103; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 149,915; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 16,249; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: 7,448,478
WHIP[C]: Contracts: [Empty]; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: [Empty]; 
FPP[D]: Easements: 4; 
FPP[D]: Acres: 241. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 898; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 139,306; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 17,389; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: 8,544,465; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 2,274; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: 212,361; 
FPP[D]: Easements: 7; 
FPP[D]: Acres: 551. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
WRP[A]: Contracts: 7,407; 
WRP[A]: Acres: 1,074,245; 
EQIP[B]: Contracts: 97,496; 
EQIP[B]: Acres: 42,752,975; 
WHIP[C]: Contracts: 10,729; 
WHIP[C]: Acres: 1,605,610; 
FPP[D]: Easements: 354
FPP[D]: Acres: 66,553. 

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

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

[C] The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was authorized in 
1996 but was not implemented until fiscal year 1998. NRCS allocated all 
the authorized funds during fiscal years 1998 and 1999, using funds 
authorized by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 in fiscal 
year 2001. 

[D] The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) was authorized in the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Similar to WHIP, NRCS 
allocated all of the authorized funds during fiscal years 1996 through 
1998. FPP received additional funding through the Agricultural Risk 
Protection Act of 2000. 

Source: USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

[End of table] 

Table 5: Eligible Acres That Exceeded Program Limits and USDA Estimate 
of Funding Required to Enroll Acres in USDA Conservation Programs As of 
October 2001: 

Program: EQIP; 
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 90,291,131; 
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $1,638. 

Program: WRP; 
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 647,172; 
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $783; 

Program: WHIP; 
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 254,833; 
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $16. 

Program: FPP; 
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 290,273; 
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $256. 

Program: Total; 
Eligible acres that exceeded funding or acreage limits[A]: 91,483,409; 
USDA estimated funding required to enroll acres (in millions): $2,693. 

Note: During the most recent CRP General enrollment period, which 
occurred from January to February 2000, 1,030,085 acres met eligibility 
requirements but fell below the cut-off the Farm Service Agency used to 
select acres. The Farm Service Agency does not maintain an estimate of 
the funding required to enroll these acres. 

[A] Includes acres that are otherwise eligible for the program but were 
not enrolled because they exceeded the level of funding or acres 
authorized. 

Source: USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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

Figure 18: CRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots 
indicating CRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $50,000. 

Note: Figure includes payments in the continental United States. 
Payments were also made in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean territory. 

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

[End of figure] 

Figure 19: WRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots 
indicating WRP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $5,000. 

Note: Figure includes payments in the continental United States. 
Payments were also made in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean territory. 

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

[End of figure] 

Figure 20: EQIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots 
indicating EQIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $5,000. 

Note: Figure includes payments from cost-share programs that preceded 
EQIP, including the Agricultural Conservation Program, Great Plains 
Conservation Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Program. 
Figure includes payments in the continental United States. Payments 
were also made in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean territory. 

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

[End of figure] 

Figure 21: FPP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with dots 
indicating FPP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000. 1 dot equals $5,000. 

Note: Figure includes payments in the continental United States. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 22: WHIP Payments, Fiscal Year 2000: 

See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the Continental Unites States with shading of 
states indicating payments in the following categories: 
$0 to $100,000; 
$100,000 to $200,000; 
$200,000 to $300,000; 
$300,000 to $500,000. 

Note: Payments in this figure are based on state-level data. Figure 
includes payments in the continental United States. Payments were also 
made in Hawaii and the Caribbean territory. 

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

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This appendix presents the objectives, scope, and methodology to review
USDA’s conservation programs. It discusses the methodology used in
sampling and controlling for sampling error and nonsampling error, as
well as sources and analyses conducted to provide additional 
information. 

Objectives and Scope: 

The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry asked us to obtain the views of members of the 
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) state technical 
committees on the effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program 
(CRP), including the Continuous Enrollment and CREP options; the 
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program (EQIP); the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP); and the 
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). Specifically, we were asked to 
determine committee members’ views on: 

* the effectiveness of USDA’s conservation efforts in addressing
environmental concerns and; 

* any program elements that hinder the achievement of environmental
objectives related to agriculture, as well as program characteristics 
that current or new programs might include to better meet these 
objectives. 

In addition, the requesters asked us to provide information on program
participation and the extent to which programs are oversubscribed as 
well as the geographic distribution of payments for each program. 

Survey Methodology: 

To address the first two objectives, we mailed a questionnaire to all 
NRCS state conservationists, who chair the state technical committees, 
and a stratified sample of state technical committee members. To 
identify these members we obtained lists of state technical committee 
members from NRCS offices in all 50 states and two U.S. territories. 
The original population of 2,176 committee members (52 NRCS state 
conservationists plus 2,124 state technical committee members) was 
reduced by 193 to account for members who did not regularly attend 
state technical committee meetings, leaving 1,983. We stratified the 
sample by seven geographic regions collapsed from the ten USDA farm 
production regions on the basis of advice from USDA’s Economic Research 
Service. In addition we stratified the sample by the organization that 
respondents represented. Within these strata, respondents were selected 
at random. This results in an adjusted sample size of 1,395. Of the 
1,395 state technical committee members we surveyed, 996 (or 71.4 
percent) returned our survey. All percentage estimates from the survey 
have sampling errors of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less, 
unless otherwise noted. 

Our sample was statistically drawn and weighted so that we could 
generalize the responses of the members we sampled within regional and 
organizational strata to the entire population for each question in the 
survey. See appendix IV for the entire questionnaire and the nationwide 
survey results. For survey results stratified by region and 
organization, see a special publication entitled Agricultural 
Conservation: Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members (GAO-02-
371SP), which is available on the Internet at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-02-371SP]. 

We pretested the questionnaire with committee members in Iowa, 
Maryland, Texas, and Virginia from USDA’s Agricultural Research 
Service, and NRCS; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; state natural resource 
and environmental agencies; universities; and agricultural and 
environmental organizations. During these visits, we administered the 
survey and asked the officials to fill out the survey as they would if 
they had received it in the mail. After completing the survey, we 
interviewed the respondents to ensure that (1) the questions were clear 
and unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, (3) the 
questionnaire did not place an undue burden on the agency officials 
completing it, and (4) the questionnaire was independent and unbiased. 

To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, we included a 
letter from NRCS encouraging members to respond in the initial survey 
sent to members. We also sent a replacement survey to nonrespondents 
about 4 weeks after mailing the initial survey. At this time, we also 
requested that NRCS state conservationists in all 50 states and two 
U.S. territories encourage committee members to respond. We contacted 
nonrespondents by telephone about 4 weeks after replacement surveys 
were sent to request their cooperation, sending additional copies of 
the survey if needed. 

Sampling Errors and Confidence Intervals of Estimates: 

Since we used a sample (called a probability sample) of committee 
members to develop our estimates, each estimate has a measurable 
precision, or sampling error, that may be expressed as a plus/minus 
figure. A sampling error indicates how closely we reproduce from a 
sample the results that we would obtain if we were to take a complete 
count of the population using the same measurement methods. By adding 
the sampling error to and subtracting it from the estimate, we can 
develop upper and lower bounds for each estimate. This range is called 
a confidence interval. 

Sampling errors and confidence intervals are stated at a certain 
confidence level–in this case, 95 percent. For example, a confidence 
interval at the 95 percent confidence level means that in 95 out of 100 
instances, the sampling procedure we used would produce a confidence 
interval containing the population value we are estimating. 

We obtained a response rate of 71.4 percent. We did not test for 
potential differences between the respondents who did and did not 
respond to our survey because we had little or no information about the 
nonrespondents. As a result, we do not know the effect of these 
nonrespondents on the results of our survey. Our results are 
generalizable to the views and opinions of the regions and 
organizations committee members represented. In addition, some 
estimates do not always represent the entire population because some 
members did not answer all of the questions. 

Controlling for Nonsampling Errors: 

In addition to reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of 
conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly 
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how 
questions are interpreted, errors in entering data, incomplete sampling 
lists, and the types of people who do not respond can all introduce 
unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in both 
the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize such 
nonsampling errors. Some of these steps included pretesting 
questionnaires with committee members, obtaining comments on the 
questionnaire from experts in the area, following quality control 
procedures to ensure data were entered correctly, and checking all 
computer analyses with a second analyst. 

Methodology for Obtaining Additional Information: 

To provide information on participation levels and the extent to which 
USDA conservation programs are oversubscribed, we obtained data on 
program participation and backlogs from NRCS and FSA. 

To provide information on the geographic distribution of fiscal year 
2000 conservation program payments, we obtained data from NRCS and FSA. 
CRP and EQIP data were obtained from USDA’s main database on farm 
payments, the Producer Payments Reporting System, which is maintained 
by FSA in Kansas City, Missouri. WRP data were obtained from the NRCS 
and FSA financial management divisions. WHIP data were obtained from 
the NRCS financial management division. FPP data were obtained from the 
program manager. 

Although we did not independently assess the accuracy and reliability 
of the USDA data, we reviewed the data for reasonableness among regions 
and compared it with other USDA reports. 

[End of section] 

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

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Survey of USDA State Technical Committee Members: 

Introduction: 

The Congress has asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to 
review USDA's conservation programs. Specifically, the Congress is 
interested in the effectiveness of the current programs in addressing 
states' agricultural environmental and natural resource needs and the 
design elements that existing, and possibly new, programs should 
include to better meet these needs. The GAO is collecting information 
to assist the Congress as it prepares for discussions on the next 
omnibus farm bill, including authorizing agricultural programs, which 
is expected to become law in 2002. 

This survey primarily addresses five existing USDA conservation 
programs: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), including continuous 
signup and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP); the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); the Wetlands Reserve 
Program (WRP); the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP); and the 
Farmland Protection Program (FPP). The survey explores the need, if 
any, to modify these programs or design new programs. 

As part of this review, we are surveying Natural Resource Conservation 
Service (NRCS) State Conservationists and a sample of State Technical 
Committee members from all 50 states and the Pacific Basin and 
Caribbean Area to obtain their views on USDA's conservation programs. 
Because this is only a sample, it is critical that you respond so that 
all State Technical Committee members' views are represented in the 
results. 

Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire is vital to our 
study. The survey's results will be discussed in our report to the 
Congress. 

Instructions: 

When answering the questions in this questionnaire, please primarily 
consider the USDA conservation programs listed above. In addition, 
please base responses to the questionnaire from your organization's 
perspective. For more information about these programs, please refer to 
the "Definitions" enclosed. 

Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed, pre-
addressed business reply envelope within 10 business days of receipt. 
This will help us avoid costly follow-up. If you should lose or 
misplace the envelope, please send the completed questionnaire to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Attn: Tom Cook: 
1999 Bryan St. 
Suite 2200: 
Dallas, TX 75201-6848: 

If you have any questions, please contact the following staff in our 
Dallas, TX office: 

Tom Cook: 
Tel: (214) 777-5607: 
Email: cookt@gao.gov: 

Joanna McFarland: 
Tel: (214) 777-5623: 
Email: mcfarlandj@gao.gov: 

Please provide the following information for the person we should 
contact should we have any questions.
Name:
Title:
Organization:	
Address:	
City/State/Zip Code:	
Phone #:	 

Program Needs: 

1. To what degree, if at all, do you believe the following 
environmental or natural resource conditions related to agriculture on 
private land are concerns in your state? (Check one for each row.) 

Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
1. Air pollution from agricultural field operations; 
Major concern: 11.0%; 
Moderate concern: 24.0%; 
Minor concern: 44.8%; 
Not a concern: 20.2%; 
N=: 1868. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
2. Air pollution from livestock	operations; 
Major concern: 13.0%; 
Moderate concern: 32.7%; 
Minor concern: 41.8%; 
Not a concern: 12.5%; 
N=: 1878. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
3. Depletion of groundwater sources; 
Major concern: 39.5%; 
Moderate concern: 29.1%; 
Minor concern: 21.7%; 
Not a concern: 9.7%; 
N=: 1930. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
4. Depletion of surface water; 
Major concern: 36.4%; 
Moderate concern: 28.8%; 
Minor concern: 23.6%; 
Not a concern: 11.1%; 
N=: 1918. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
5. Impaired groundwater from leaching from agricultural fields;	
Major concern: 27.1%; 
Moderate concern: 41.7%; 
Minor concern: 25.7%; 
Not a concern: 5.5%; 
N=: 1921. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
6. Impaired groundwater from livestock operations; 
Major concern: 26.8%; 
Moderate concern: 40.2%; 
Minor concern: 25.9%; 
Not a concern: 7.1%; 
N=: 1897. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
7. Impaired surface water from livestock operations; 
Major concern: 41.3%; 
Moderate concern: 38.7%; 
Minor concern: 16.3%; 
Not a concern: 3.8%; 
N=: 1908. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
8. Impaired surface water from runoff from agricultural fields; 
Major concern: 40.1%; 
Moderate concern: 38.9%; 
Minor concern: 16.9%; 
Not a concern: 4.1%; 
N=: 1932. 
				
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
9. Loss of native species; 
Major concern: 25.2%; 
Moderate concern: 30.6%; 
Minor concern: 33.3%; 
Not a concern: 10.9%; 
N=: 1896. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
10. Loss of agricultural land to urban sprawl; 
Major concern: 51.8%; 
Moderate concern: 32.7%; 
Minor concern: 12.9%; 
Not a concern: 2.6%; 
N=: 1942. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
11. Loss of wetlands; 
Major concern: 31.9%; 
Moderate concern: 36.9%; 
Minor concern: 23.9%; 
Not a concern: 7.3%; 
N=: 1919. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
12. Loss of wildlife habitat on farms and ranches; 
Major concern: 21.3%; 
Moderate concern: 41.3%; 
Minor concern: 28.4%; 
Not a concern: 9.1%; 
N=: 1913. 
					
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
13. Proliferation of invasive species; 
Major concern: 36.7%; 
Moderate concern: 36.9%; 
Minor concern: 21.7%; 
Not a concern: 4.8%; 
N=: 1889. 
				
Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
14. Soil erosion from water runoff; 
Major concern: 36.5%; 
Moderate concern: 46.5%; 
Minor concern: 15.0%; 
Not a concern: 2.0%; 
N=: 1944. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
15. Soil erosion from wind; 
Major concern: 11.0%; 
Moderate concern: 32.2%; 
Minor concern: 39.5%; 
Not a concern: 17.3%; 
N=: 1887. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Concern: 
16. Other (Please specify); 
Major concern: 76.4%; 
Moderate concern: 22.3%; 
Minor concern: 1.3%; 
Not a concern: 0%; 
N=: 199. 

2. How effective, if at all, are the following USDA conservation 
programs in addressing your state's environmental and natural resource 
concerns related to agriculture on private lands? (Check one for each 
row.) 

Program: 	
1. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) General Signup - provides annual 
rental payments to agriculture producers to retire lands that are 
highly erodible or environmentally sensitive; 
Extremely effective: 15.2%; 
Very effective: 34.4%; 
Moderately effective: 23.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 14.6%; 
Slightly or effective: 12.4%; 
N=: 1638. 

Program: 						
2. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Continuous Signup - offers 
additional financial incentives and allows acreage devoted to 
conservation practices, such as riparian buffers and filter strips, 
yielding highly desirable environmental benefits to be enrolled at any 
time without going through the competitive bidding process; 
Extremely effective: 17.4%; 
Very effective: 34.4%; 
Moderately effective: 24.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 14.6%; 
Slightly or effective: 9.7%; 
N=: 1629. 

Program: 						
3. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) - a federal-state 
conservation partnership program that targets environmental concerns 
related to agriculture by using financial incentives to encourage	
landowners to retire lands; 
Extremely effective: 21.1%; 
Very effective: 29.7%; 
Moderately effective: 22.6%; 
Somewhat effective: 14.3%; 
Slightly or effective: 12.3%; 
N=: 686. 

Program: 
4. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) - offers payment for the restoration 
of wetlands that have been previously drained and converted to 
agricultural uses, requiring landowners to 
sign an easement for thirty years or perpetuity;
Extremely effective: 16.9%; 
Very effective: 25.0%; 
Moderately effective: 25.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 20.9%; 
Slightly or effective: 11.8%; 
N=: 1611. 

Program: 
5. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - provides financial 
incentives to landowners to address soil, water, and related 
environmental concerns on lands in agricultural uses; 
Extremely effective: 19.0%; 
Very effective: 31.0%; 
Moderately effective: 32.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 13.7%; 
Slightly or effective: 3.9%; 
N=: 1808. 

Program: 
6. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) - provides financial 
incentives to develop habitats for fish and wildlife on private land; 
Extremely effective: 11.2%; 
Very effective: 25.7%; 
Moderately effective: 32.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 23.9%; 
Slightly or effective: 7.1%; 
N=: 1697. 

Program: 	
7. Farmland Protection Program (FPP) -	protects farmland from non-
agricultural conversion by acquiring thirty-year or permanent easements 
on farmlands in cooperation with existing state, local, or tribal 
farmland protection programs or land trusts; 
Extremely effective: 19.1%; 
Very effective: 21.8%; 
Moderately effective: 17.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 27.8%; 
Slightly or effective: 13.6%; 
N=: 538. 

Program: 
8. All programs; 
Extremely effective: 5.8%; 
Very effective: 31.9%; 
Moderately effective: 41.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 18.4%; 
Slightly or effective: 2.8%; 
N=: 1379. 

3. If you responded `extremely effective' or `slightly or not 
effective,' for any item in question 2 above, please provide the name 
of the program and explain the reason(s) for your response(s) below. 

If extremely effective: 100%, N=679. 

If slightly or not effective: 100%, N=643. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) General Signup: 

4. How familiar are you with the CRP General Signup program? (Check 
one): 
Extremely familiar: 14.6%; 
Very familiar: 19.0%; 
Moderately familiar: 26.4%; 
Somewhat familiar: 13.2%; 
Slightly or not familiar 26.8%, N=1919; (Go to Question 7 on page 6.) 

5. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled in 
the CRP General Signup program. Where it is applied, how effective, if 
at all, is the CRP General Signup program in encouraging producers/ 
landowners in your state to engage in practices that benefit the 
following environmental or natural resource objectives? (Check one for 
each row): 
	
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Extremely effective: 15.7%; 
Very effective: 36.2%; 
Moderately effective: 29.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 14.3%; 
Slightly or effective: 4.1%; 
N= 1307. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
Extremely effective: 5.3%; 
Very effective: 16.8%; 
Moderately effective: 37.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 23.8%; 
Slightly or effective: 16.5%; 
N= 1270. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Extremely effective: 27.0%; 
Very effective: 43.6%; 
Moderately effective: 18.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 8.5%; 
Slightly or effective: 2.9%; 
N= 1310. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Extremely effective: 12.2%; 
Very effective: 33.9%; 
Moderately effective: 26.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 19.5%; 
Slightly or effective: 8.0%; 
N= 1255. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Extremely effective: 17.3%; 
Very effective: 39.9%; 
Moderately effective: 25.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 11.3%; 
Slightly or effective: 5.9%; 
N= 1295. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Extremely effective: 5.8%; 
Very effective: 19.2%; 
Moderately effective: 28.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 23.3%; 
Slightly or effective: 23.7%; 
N= 1160. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Extremely effective: 3.9%; 
Very effective: 8.1%; 
Moderately effective: 17.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 24.6%; 
Slightly or effective: 45.9%; 
N= 1111. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 25.9%; 
Very effective: 18.5%; 
Moderately effective: 6.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 11.5%; 
Slightly or effective: 37.3%; 
N= 55 

6. Do the following CRP General Signup provisions or factors help or 
hinder the achievement of the program's environmental or natural 
resource objectives? (Check one for each row) 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
1. Application process;	
Greatly	helps: 3.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 22.3%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 38.8%; 
Somewhat hinders: 30.3%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 5.5%; 
N= 1128. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
2. Specific signup periods rather than continuous signup; 
Greatly	helps: 4.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 16.3%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 21.5%; 
Somewhat hinders: 50.2%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 8.0%; 
N= 1197. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
3. Acceptance selection	process (EBI); 
Greatly	helps: 11.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 27.0%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 21.5%; 
Somewhat hinders: 31.0%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 9.3%; 
N= 1077. 			 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
4. Length of contract (10 to 15 years); 
Greatly	helps: 20.9%; 
Somewhat helps: 37.3%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 22.5%; 
Somewhat hinders: 17.0%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 2.3%; 
N= 1242. 		 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
5. Requirement that land be in crop production 2 of the past 5 years; 
Greatly	helps: 7.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 24.1%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 20.8%; 
Somewhat hinders: 37.7%; 
Greatly	hinders: 10.0%; 
N= 1248. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
6. Size of cost-share percentage; 
Greatly	helps: 10.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 35.8%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 19.7%; 
Somewhat hinders: 29.2%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 4.7%; 
N= 1191. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
7. Size of annual rental rate per acre; 

Greatly	helps: 15.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 29.1%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 11.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 27.1%; 
Greatly	hinders: 16.6%; 
N= 1210. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
8. No payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Greatly	helps: 1.4%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.6%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 25.4%; 
Somewhat hinders: 53.9%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 15.8%; 
N= 1193. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
9. Limit on the percentage of land that may be enrolled in a county 
(25%);	
Greatly	helps: 2.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 6.4%; 	
Neither	helps nor hinders: 39.0%; 
Somewhat hinders: 40.3%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 11.6%; 
N= 1210. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
10. Limit on total rental payments ($50,000); 
Greatly	helps: 3.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 9.6%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 43.7%; 
Somewhat hinders: 37.5%; 	
Greatly	hinders: 5.9%; 
N= 1176. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
11. Restriction on economic uses of land; 
Greatly	helps: 7.4%; 
Somewhat helps: 14.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 25.5%; 
Somewhat hinders: 43.9%; 
Greatly	hinders: 9.1%; 
N= 1221. 		 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
12. Restriction on haying and grazing of land; 
Greatly	helps: 9.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 11.9%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 17.6%; 
Somewhat hinders: 45.9%; 
Greatly	hinders: 15.2%; 
N= 1247. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
13. Restrictions on acceptable conservation practices; 
Greatly	helps: 6.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 18.1%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 32.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 35.5%; 
Greatly	hinders: 7.5%; 
N= 1208. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
14. Having program promotion at the state or local level; 
Greatly	helps: 25.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 44.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 24.7%; 
Somewhat hinders: 3.6%; 
Greatly	hinders: 1.2%; 
N= 1208. 

CRP General Signup Provision or Factor: 
15. Other (Please specify); 
Greatly	helps: 11.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 1.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 8.2%; 
Greatly	hinders: 78.1%; 
N= 60. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Continuous Signup: 

7. How familiar are you with the CRP Continuous Signup? (Check one) 

Extremely familiar: 12.1%; 
Very familiar: 16.8%; 
Moderately familiar: 24.0%; 
Somewhat familiar: 13.0%; 
Slightly or not familiar: 34.1%, N=1900; (Go to Question 10 on page 8) 

8. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled in 
the CRP Continuous Signup program. Where it is applied, how effective, 
if at all, is the CRP Continuous Signup program in encouraging 
producers/landowners in your state to engage in practices that benefit 
the following environmental or natural resource objectives? (Check one 
for each row) 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 		
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Extremely effective: 14.0%; 
Very effective: 37.1%; 
Moderately effective: 33.6%; 
Somewhat effective: 12.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 2.6%; 
N= 1193. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
Extremely effective: 5.1%; 
Very effective: 24.0%; 
Moderately effective: 35.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 23.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 12.8%; 
N= 1146. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Extremely effective: 16.1%; 
Very effective: 48.9%; 
Moderately effective: 24.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 8.8%; 
Slightly or not effective: 2.1%; 
N= 1177. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Extremely effective: 9.4%; 	
Very effective: 33.9%; 
Moderately effective: 29.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 20.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 7.2%; 
N= 1154. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Extremely effective: 21.0%; 
Very effective: 46.0%; 
Moderately effective: 20.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 9.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 3.3%; 
N= 1185. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Extremely effective: 4.6%; 
Very effective: 14.2%; 
Moderately effective: 24.2%; 
Somewhat effective: 29.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 27.9%; 
N= 1006. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Extremely effective: 4.1%; 
Very effective: 7.0%; 
Moderately effective: 13.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 19.6%; 
Slightly or not effective: 55.7%; 
N= 987. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 12.2%; 
Very effective: 28.5%; 
Moderately effective: 7.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 14.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 37.2%; 
N= 38. 

9. Do the following CRP Continuous Signup provisions or factors help or 
hinder the achievement of the program's environmental or natural 
resource objectives? (Check one for each row) 

Greatly	helps: 11.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 1.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 8.2%; 
Greatly	hinders: 78.1%; 
N= 60. 

CRP Continuous Signup Provision or Factor:	
1. Application process;	
Greatly	helps: 16.6%; 
Somewhat helps: 30.8%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 31.3%; 
Somewhat hinders: 18.2%; 
Greatly	hinders: 3.1%; 
N= 1056. 

2. Continuous signup rather than specific signup periods; 
Greatly	helps: 43.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 41.2%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 11.6%; 
Somewhat hinders: 3.6%; 
Greatly	hinders: 0.4%; 
N= 1130. 

3. Length of contract (10 to 15 years); 
Greatly	helps: 21,2%; 
Somewhat helps: 38.1%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 23.4%; 
Somewhat hinders: 16.2%; 
Greatly	hinders: 1.1%; 
N= 1149. 
						
4. Percentage of incentive payments (20%); 
Greatly	helps: 23.9%; 
Somewhat helps:38. 0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 14.1%; 
Somewhat hinders: 20.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 3.4%; 
N= 1088. 
						
5. Size of cost-share percentage; 
Greatly	helps: 16.1%; 
Somewhat helps: 39.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 17.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 23.5%; 
Greatly	hinders: 3.4%; 
N= 1093. 
						
6. Size of annual rental rate per acre; 
Greatly	helps: 15.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 36.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 11.6%; 
Somewhat hinders: 26.0%; 
Greatly	hinders: 10.7%; 
N= 1119. 
						
7. No payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Greatly	helps: 1.5%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.4%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 26.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 52.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 15.3%; 
N= 1107. 

8. Restriction on haying and grazing of land; 
Greatly	helps: 8.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 10.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 19.8%; 
Somewhat hinders: 46.2%; 
Greatly	hinders: 14.6%; 
N= 1139. 
						
9. Restrictions on acceptable conservation practices; 
Greatly	helps: 6.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 14.8%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 28.7%; 
Somewhat hinders: 42.3%; 
Greatly	hinders: 7.9%; 
N= 1115. 

10. Having program promotion at the state or local level; 
Greatly	helps: 32.1%; 
Somewhat helps: 41.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 22.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 2.3%; 
Greatly	hinders: 1.6%; 
N= 1112. 

11. Other (Please specify); 
Greatly	helps: 33.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.2%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 5.0%; 
Somewhat hinders: 5.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 52.8%; 
N= 63. 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): 

10. Does your state have a CREP program? (Check one) 
Yes 44.8%, N= 796; (Continue); 
No 25.7%, N= 4574; (Go to Question 13 on page 9); 
Don't know 29.4%, N= 5234; (Go to Question 13 on page 9). 

11. How familiar are you with the CREP program? (Check one) 

Extremely familiar: 16.1%, N= 149; 
Very familiar: 16.5%, N= 152; 
Moderately familiar: 22.4%, N= 206; 
Somewhat familiar: 16.7%, N= 154; 
Slightly or not familiar: 28.2%, N= 259; (Go to Question 13 on page 9). 

12. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled 
in the CREP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is 
the CREP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to 
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural 
resource objectives? (Check one for each row) 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 		
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Extremely effective: 26.7%; 
Very effective: 28.8%; 
Moderately effective: 26.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 14.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 3.6%; 
N= 475. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
Extremely effective: 15.0%; 
Very effective: 24.8%; 
Moderately effective: 27.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 22.2%; 
Slightly or not effective: 11.1%; 
N= 455. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Extremely effective: 23.9%; 
Very effective: 35.2%; 
Moderately effective: 28.2%; 
Somewhat effective: 8.4%; 
Slightly or not effective: 4.4%; 
N= 466. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Extremely effective: 17.0%; 	
Very effective: 29.1%; 
Moderately effective: 28.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 17.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 7.4%; 
N= 477. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Extremely effective: 33.7%; 
Very effective: 36.0%; 
Moderately effective: 18.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 7.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 3.9%; 
N= 469. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Extremely effective: 6.3%; 
Very effective: 10.4%; 
Moderately effective: 25.3%; 
Somewhat effective: 26.3%; 
Slightly or not effective: 31.7%; 
N= 416. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Extremely effective: 5.2%; 
Very effective: 6.4%; 
Moderately effective: 22.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 17.4%; 
Slightly or not effective: 48.2%; 
N= 408. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 36.5%; 
Very effective: 20.5%; 
Moderately effective: 4.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 18.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 19.8%; 
N= 23. 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): 

13. How familiar are you with the WRP? (Check one) 

Extremely familiar: 11.6%, N= 219; 
Very familiar: 18.2%, N= 346; 
Moderately familiar: 23.7%, N= 448; 
Somewhat familiar: 20.7%, N= 392: 
Slightly or not familiar: 25.8%, N= 489; (Go to Question 16 on page 
10). 

14. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled 
in the WRP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is 
the WRP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to 
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural 
resource objectives? (Check one for each row) 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 		
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Extremely effective: 32.9%; 
Very effective: 34.6%; 
Moderately effective: 22.6%; 
Somewhat effective: 7.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 2.2%; 
N= 1354. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
Extremely effective: 19.3%; 
Very effective: 30.2%; 
Moderately effective: 30.9%; 
Somewhat effective: 13.9%; 
Slightly or not effective: 5.6%; 
N= 1301. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Extremely effective: 10.6%; 
Very effective: 23.6%; 
Moderately effective: 32.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 20.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 13.2%; 
N= 1280. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Extremely effective: 14.3%; 	
Very effective: 31.2%; 
Moderately effective: 28.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 18.2%; 
Slightly or not effective: 7.5%; 
N= 1296. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Extremely effective: 20.1%; 
Very effective: 38.2%; 
Moderately effective: 25.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 12.0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 4.2%; 
N= 1326. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Extremely effective: 4.2%; 
Very effective: 9.3%; 
Moderately effective: 24.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 26.4%; 
Slightly or not effective: 35.8%; 
N= 1087. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Extremely effective: 6.4%; 
Very effective: 11.5%; 
Moderately effective: 22.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 19.8%; 
Slightly or not effective: 40.3%; 
N= 1134. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 17.0%; 
Very effective: 20.1%; 
Moderately effective: 27.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 9.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 25.4%; 
N= 63. 

15. Do the following WRP provisions or factors help or hinder the 
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource 
objectives? (Check one for each row) 

WRP Provision or Factor: 		
1. Application process; 
Greatly	helps: 5.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 17.3%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 38.1%; 
Somewhat hinders: 33.3%; 
Greatly	hinders: 6.0%; 
N= 1077. 

2. Determination of easement price based on the agricultural value of
the land rather than the market value of the land; 
Greatly	helps: 4.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 16.5%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 15.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 46.0%; 
Greatly	hinders: 17.5%; 
N= 1161. 

3. Length of easement (thirty years or perpetuity); 
Greatly	helps: 20.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 24.8%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 17.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 29.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 7.9%; 
N= 1225. 						 

4. Size of cost-share percentage; 
Greatly	helps: 19.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 32.1%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 19.8%; 
Somewhat hinders: 26.0%; 
Greatly	hinders: 2.8%; 
N= 1135. 						 

5. No payment to maintain previously protected wetlands; 
Greatly	helps: 1.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 5.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 29.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 49.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 14.6%; 
N= 1197. 

6. Limit on the percentage of land that may be enrolled in a county 
(25%); 
Greatly	helps: 1.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.6%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 53.4%; 
Somewhat hinders: 34.5%; 
Greatly	hinders: 7.3%; 
N= 1163. 

7. Restrictions on land use; 
Greatly	helps: 9.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 16.4%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 23.1%; 
Somewhat hinders: 42.1%; 
Greatly	hinders: 8.6%; 
N= 1234. 

8. Having program promotion at the state or local level; 
Greatly	helps: 29.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 43.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 23.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 2.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 1.2%; 
N= 1177. 

9. Other (Please specify); 
Greatly	helps: 18.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.4%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 4.8%; 
Somewhat hinders: 6.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 67.0%; 
N= 66. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

16. How familiar are you with the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program (EQIP)? (Check one) 

Extremely familiar: 19.1%, N= 363; 
Very familiar: 28.3%, N= 539; 
Moderately familiar: 29.5%, N= 561; 
Somewhat familiar: 11.3%, N= 214; 
Slightly or not familiar: 11.8%, N= 224; (Go to Question 19 on page 
13). 

17. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled 
in the EQIP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is 
the EQIP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to 
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural 
resource objectives? (Check one for each row) 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 		
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Extremely effective: 6.6%; 
Very effective: 23.5%; 
Moderately effective: 32.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 23.3%; 
Slightly or not effective: 13.8%; 
N= 1615. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
Extremely effective: 5.6%; 
Very effective: 14.1%; 
Moderately effective: 31.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 28.0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 21.4%; 
N= 1553. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Extremely effective: 14.5%; 
Very effective: 40.3%; 
Moderately effective: 31.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 11.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 2.3%; 
N= 1643. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Extremely effective: 14.2%; 	
Very effective: 34.5%; 
Moderately effective: 32.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 14.8%; 
Slightly or not effective: 4.0%; 
N= 1584. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Extremely effective: 21.0%; 
Very effective: 39.5%; 
Moderately effective: 29.3%; 
Somewhat effective: 8.4%; 
Slightly or not effective: 1.7%; 
N= 1644. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Extremely effective: 6.0%; 
Very effective: 15.2%; 
Moderately effective: 29.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 25.2%; 
Slightly or not effective: 24.5%; 
N= 1430. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Extremely effective: 3.4%; 
Very effective: 6.5%; 
Moderately effective: 15.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 20.0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 54.3%; 
N= 1322. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 39.5%; 
Very effective: 8.0%; 
Moderately effective: 13.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 11.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 27.7%; 
N= 42. 

18. Do the following EQIP provisions or factors help or hinder the 
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource 
objectives? (Check one for each row) 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 		
1. Application process; 
Greatly	helps: 4.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 16.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 27.7%; 
Somewhat hinders: 36.6%; 
Greatly	hinders: 15.7%; 
N= 1485. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
2. Method of allocating funds to states; 
Greatly	helps: 22.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 13.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 20.0%; 
Somewhat hinders: 42.9%; 
Greatly	hinders: 21.0%; 
N= 1359. 						 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
3. Method of prioritizing environmental objectives in your state; 
Greatly	helps: 9.9%; 
Somewhat helps: 35.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 15.3%; 
Somewhat hinders: 28.7%; 
Greatly	hinders: 11.0%; 
N= 1565. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
4. Minimum of 65% of state funds allocated to priority areas; 
Greatly	helps: 9.1%; 
Somewhat helps: 29.8%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 18.4%; 
Somewhat hinders: 32.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 10.4%; 
N= 1538. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
5. Length of contract (5 to 10 years); 
Greatly	helps: 7.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 31.3%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 33.7%; 
Somewhat hinders: 21.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 6.3%; 
N= 1547. 						 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
6. Ability for producers to bid down cost-share to be more competitive; 
Greatly	helps: 5.9%; 
Somewhat helps: 40.1%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 19.1%; 
Somewhat hinders: 21.2%; 
Greatly	hinders: 13.7%; 
N= 1413. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
7. Size of maximum annual ($10,000/year) and total rental payments 
($50,000/total); 
Greatly	helps: 4.9%; 
Somewhat helps: 18.3%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 27.6%; 
Somewhat hinders: 38.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 10.8%; 
N= 1490. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
8. Percentage (50%) of funds targeted to natural resource concerns 
relating to livestock production; 
Greatly	helps: 12.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 27.8%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 27.1%; 
Somewhat hinders: 25.5%; 
Greatly	hinders: 7.0%; 
N= 1520. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
9. No payment in first year; 
Greatly	helps: 1.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.9%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 13.6%; 
Somewhat hinders: 52.5%; 
Greatly	hinders: 28.7%; 
N= 1420. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
10. No payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Greatly	helps: 0.6%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.9%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 26.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 50.9%; 
Greatly	hinders: 17.7%; 
N= 1509. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
11. Requirement that FSA concur on policies and procedures; 
Greatly	helps: 7.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 13.6%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 36.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 29.0%; 
Greatly	hinders: 13.5%; 
N= 1436. 						 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
12. Limit on incentive payments (3 years); 
Greatly	helps: 2.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 7.4%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 34.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 47.5%; 
Greatly	hinders: 8.3%; 
N= 1405. 						 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
13. Prohibition on cost-sharing	animal waste storage or treatment 
facilities for large confined livestock operations; 
Greatly	helps: 7.1%; 
Somewhat helps: 10.9%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 21.6%; 
Somewhat hinders: 40.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 20.0%; 
N= 1396. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
14. Having program promotion at the state or local level; 
Greatly	helps: 30.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 43.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 21.8%; 
Somewhat hinders: 2.6%; 
Greatly	hinders: 1.7%; 
N= 1482. 

EQIP Provision or Factor: 
15. Other (Please specify); 
Greatly	helps: 16.6%; 
Somewhat helps: 0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 1.5%; 
Somewhat hinders: 14.4%; 
Greatly	hinders: 67.5%; 
N= 76. 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP): 

19. How familiar are you with the WHIP? (Check one) 

Extremely familiar: 11.6%, N= 225; 
Very familiar: 15.1%, N= 292; 
Moderately familiar: 23.2%, N= 448; 
Somewhat familiar: 21.1%, N= 407; 
Slightly or not familiar: 29.0%, N= 561; Go to Question 22 on page 14). 

20. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled 
in the WHIP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is 
the WHIP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to 
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural 
resource objectives? (Check one for each row) 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 		
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Extremely effective: 32.7%; 
Very effective: 36.5%; 
Moderately effective: 24.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 5.3%; 
Slightly or not effective: 1.5%; 
N= 1327. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
Extremely effective: 18.1%; 
Very effective: 34.8%; 
Moderately effective: 32.6%; 
Somewhat effective: 10.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 3.8%; 
N= 1290. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Extremely effective: 6.3%; 
Very effective: 26.2%; 
Moderately effective: 37.3%; 
Somewhat effective: 22.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 8.1%; 
N= 1278. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Extremely effective: 5.3%; 	
Very effective: 18.9%; 
Moderately effective: 36.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 26.9%; 
Slightly or not effective: 12.5%; 
N= 1234. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Extremely effective: 8.9%; 
Very effective: 29.3%; 
Moderately effective: 36.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 19.0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 6.8%; 
N= 1276. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Extremely effective: 2.2%; 
Very effective: 10.4%; 
Moderately effective: 25.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 25.9%; 
Slightly or not effective: 36.4%; 
N= 1099. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Extremely effective: 2.7%; 
Very effective: 6.1%; 
Moderately effective: 16.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 20.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 54.4%; 
N= 1107. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 36.8%; 
Very effective: 21.6%; 
Moderately effective: 14.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 6.4%; 
Slightly or not effective: 21.0%; 
N= 35. 

21. Do the following WHIP provisions or factors help or hinder the 
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource 
objectives? (Check one for each row) 

WHIP Provision or Factor: 		
1. Application process;	
Greatly	helps: 7.6%; 
Somewhat helps: 19.9%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 42.9%; 
Somewhat hinders: 25.5%; 
Greatly	hinders: 4.2%; 
N= 1106. 

WHIP Provision or Factor: 
2. Length of contract (5 to 10 years); 
Greatly	helps: 8.5%; 
Somewhat helps: 33.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 35.4%; 
Somewhat hinders: 20.1%; 
Greatly	hinders: 2.4%; 
N= 1219. 						 

WHIP Provision or Factor: 
3. Size of cost-share percentage; 
Greatly	helps: 6.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 41.6%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 18.7%; 
Somewhat hinders: 29.6%; 
Greatly	hinders: 3.4%; 
N= 1188. 						 

WHIP Provision or Factor: 
4. No payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Greatly	helps: 0.6%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 27.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 57.9%; 
Greatly	hinders: 10.6%; 
N= 1216. 

WHIP Provision or Factor: 
5. Lack of annual rental payments; 
Greatly	helps: 0.6%; 
Somewhat helps: 3.2%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 27.4%; 
Somewhat hinders: 53.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 15.0%; 
N= 1168. 						 

WHIP Provision or Factor: 
6. Having program promotion at the state or local level; 
Greatly	helps: 31.2%; 
Somewhat helps: 43.6%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 20.5%; 
Somewhat hinders: 2.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 1.9%; 
N= 1190. 

WHIP Provision or Factor: 
7. Other (Please specify); 

Farmland Protection Program (FPP): 

22. Does your state have an FPP program? (Check one) 

Yes: 30.9%, N= 583; 
No: 19.6%, N= 370; (Go to Question 26 on page 16); 
Don't know: 49.6%, N= 936; (Go to Question 26 on page 16). 

23. How familiar are you with the FPP program? (Check one) 

Extremely familiar: 8.6%, N= 70; 
Very familiar: 10.1%, N= 82; 
Moderately familiar: 16.8%, N= 135; 
Somewhat familiar: 22.4%, N= 180; 
Slightly or not familiar: 42.2%, N= 339; (Go to Question 26 on page 16) 

24. Consider only the parcels of land in your state that are enrolled 
in the FPP program. Where it is applied, how effective, if at all, is 
the FPP program in encouraging producers/landowners in your state to 
engage in practices that benefit the following environmental or natural 
resource objectives? (Check one for each row) 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 		
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Extremely effective: 8.7%; 
Very effective: 18.5%; 
Moderately effective: 31.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 30.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 10.9%; 
N= 274. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
Extremely effective: 7.6%; 
Very effective: 8.7%; 
Moderately effective: 29.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 25.9%; 
Slightly or not effective: 27.0%; 
N= 268. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Extremely effective: 8.8%; 
Very effective: 20.4%; 
Moderately effective: 39.3%; 
Somewhat effective: 23.0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 8.6%; 
N= 280. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Extremely effective: 9.2%; 	
Very effective: 13.2%; 
Moderately effective: 39.3%; 
Somewhat effective: 31.2%; 
Slightly or not effective: 7.1%; 
N= 277. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Extremely effective: 9.7%; 
Very effective: 21.0%; 
Moderately effective: 40.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 21.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 7.4%; 
N= 278. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Extremely effective: 6.8%; 
Very effective: 10.1%; 
Moderately effective: 26.6%; 
Somewhat effective: 26.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 30.4%; 
N= 251. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Extremely effective: 45.2%; 
Very effective: 24.1%; 
Moderately effective: 16.7%; 
Somewhat effective: 5.8%; 
Slightly or not effective: 8.3%; 
N= 287. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 	
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 62.9%; 
Very effective: 22.9%; 
Moderately effective: 14.2%; 
Somewhat effective: 0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 0%; 
N= 10. 

25. Do the following FPP provisions or factors help or hinder the 
achievement of the program's environmental or natural resource 
objectives? (Check one for each row) 

FPP Provision or Factor: 		
1. Application process; 
Greatly	helps: 1.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 15.7%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 38.8%; 
Somewhat hinders: 30.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 12.7%; 
N= 251. 

FPP Provision or Factor: 
2. Permanent easements rather than limited year contracts; 
Greatly	helps: 30.3%; 
Somewhat helps: 28.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 16.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 17.3%; 
Greatly	hinders: 8.3%; 
N= 277. 	 

FPP Provision or Factor: 
3. Size of federal contribution (up to 50%); 
Greatly	helps: 22.1%; 
Somewhat helps: 27.9%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 13.2%; 
Somewhat hinders: 30.3%; 
Greatly	hinders: 6.4%; 
N= 282. 						 

FPP Provision or Factor: 
4. Requirement that a state, local, or tribal government program 
sponsor be in existence; 
Greatly	helps: 21.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 28.3%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 25.3%; 
Somewhat hinders: 23.0%; 
Greatly	hinders: 2.3%; 
N= 273. 	 

FPP Provision or Factor: 
5. Requirement that land is prime, unique, or productive; 
Greatly	helps: 18.8%; 
Somewhat helps: 31.0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 22.4%; 
Somewhat hinders: 25.2%; 
Greatly	hinders: 2.5%; 
N= 277. 	 

FPP Provision or Factor: 
6. Having program promotion at the state or local level; 
Greatly	helps: 40.0%; 
Somewhat helps: 31.6%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 24.5%; 
Somewhat hinders: 0.8%; 
Greatly	hinders: 3.1%; 
N= 276. 

FPP Provision or Factor: 
7. Other (Please specify); 
Greatly	helps: 64.7%; 
Somewhat helps: 0%; 
Neither	helps nor hinders: 7.3%; 
Somewhat hinders: 22.7%; 
Greatly	hinders: 5.3%; 
N= 20. 

Conservation Plans for USDA Conservation Programs: 

26. Consider the conservation plans that producers are required to 
adopt for various USDA conservation programs. How effective, if at all, 
are these conservation plans in addressing the following areas? (Check 
one for each row) 

Conservation Plan Area:	
1. Opportunities for conserving natural resources on entire 
agricultural operations; 
Extremely effective: 9.5%; 
Very effective: 30.4%; 
Moderately effective: 35.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 16.9%; 
Slightly or not effective: 7.6%; 
N= 1689. 

2. Opportunities for improving the profitability of entire agricultural 
operations; 
Extremely effective: 3.9%; 
Very effective: 19.4%; 
Moderately effective: 35.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 27.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 14.2%; 
N= 1578. 

3. Long-term strategies for addressing the needs of entire agricultural 
operations; 
Extremely effective: 7.3%; 
Very effective: 27.8%; 
Moderately effective: 31.8%; 
Somewhat effective: 20.0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 13.1%; 
N= 1606. 

27. If you responded 'extremely effective' or 'slightly or not 
effective,' please explain the reason(s) for your response(s) below. 

If extremely effective: 100.0%, N= 201; 
If slightly or not effective: 100.0%, N= 300. 

Land Maintenance and Conservation Practices: 

28. Consider lands in your state for which CRP contracts have expired 
and have not been renewed. To what extent, if any, are these lands 
being used in the following ways? (Check one for each row) 

Land use: 
1. Forestry; 
Very great extent: 6.5%; 
Great extent: 13.8%; 
Moderate extent: 13.0%; 
Some extent: 24.4%; 
Little or no extent: 42.3%; 
N=: 943. 

Land use: 
2. Grazing/haying; 
Very great extent: 2.8%; 
Great extent: 18.3%; 
Moderate extent: 37.7%; 
Some extent: 33.4%; 
Little or no extent: 7.8%; 
N=: 1008. 

Land use: 
3. Crop production; 
Very great extent: 9.1%; 
Great extent: 29.3%; 
Moderate extent: 28.9%; 
Some extent: 23.9%; 
Little or no extent: 8.8%; 
N=: 1032. 

Land use: 
4. Commercial development (non-agricultural); 
Very great extent: 3.0%; 
Great extent: 7.6%; 
Moderate extent: 16.5%; 
Some extent: 30.2%; 
Little or no extent: 42.7%; 
N=: 899. 

Land use: 
5. Other (Please specify); 
Very great extent: 6.8%; 
Great extent: 26.0%; 
Moderate extent: 29.0%; 
Some extent: 30.7%; 
Little or no extent: 7.4%; 
N=: 36. 

29. In your opinion, do producers/landowners in your state either 
discontinue or avoid desirable conservation practices in order to 
qualify for USDA conservation programs? (Check one for each row) 

Program: 	
1. CRP General Signup; 
Definitely yes: 5.0%; 
Probably yes: 19.3%; 
Probably no: 57.5%; 
Definitely no: 18.2%; 
N=: 1212. 

Program: 
2. CRP Continuous Signup; 
Definitely yes: 3.8%; 
Probably yes: 14.8%; 
Probably no: 61.5%; 
Definitely no: 19.9%; 
N=: 1182. 

Program: 
3. CREP; 
Definitely yes: 0.8%; 
Probably yes: 13.5%; 
Probably no: 65.3%; 
Definitely no: 20.4%; 
N=: 846. 

Program: 
4. WRP;	
Definitely yes: 0.9%; 
Probably yes: 10.7%; 
Probably no: 65.3%; 
Definitely no: 23.1%; 
N=: 1124. 

Program: 
5. EQIP; 
Definitely yes: 1.9%; 
Probably yes: 14.0%; 
Probably no: 63.8%; 
Definitely no: 20.3%; 
N=: 1268. 

Program: 
6. WHIP; 
Definitely yes: 0.7%; 
Probably yes: 7.8%; 
Probably no: 67.0%; 
Definitely no: 24.6%; 
N=: 1145. 

Program: 
7. FPP;	
Definitely yes: 0.8%; 
Probably yes: 5.5%; 
Probably no: 68.0%; 
Definitely no: 25.8%; 
N=: 666. 

30. If you responded 'definitely yes' or 'probably yes,' how could the 
program(s) be modified to discourage this? In your response, please 
provide the name of the program(s) for which you are responding. 

100.0%, N= 284. 

Conservation Compliance/Sodbuster/Swampbuster Provisions: 

31. Currently in your state, how effective, if at all, are the 
conservation compliance/sodbuster/swampbuster provisions of The Food 
Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1985 in protecting highly erodible lands 
and wetlands? (Check one for each row) 

Provision: 	
1. Conservation compliance; 
Extremely effective:5.6%; 
Very effective: 33.7%; 
Moderately effective: 32.2%; 
Somewhat effective: 19.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 9.1%; 
N= 1284. 

Provision: 
2. Sodbuster; 
Extremely effective: 6.2%; 
Very effective: 31.0%; 
Moderately effective: 30.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 21.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 1.3%; 
N= 1212. 

Provision: 
3. Swampbuster;	
Extremely effective: 8.9%; 
Very effective: 31.0%; 
Moderately effective: 28.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 22.1%; 
Slightly or not effective: 9.7%; 
N= 1270. 

32. If you responded 'extremely effective' or 'slightly or not 
effective' for any provision in Question 31, please indicate for which 
provision(s) you are responding and explain the reason(s) for your 
response(s) below. 

If extremely effective: 100.0%, N= 122. 

If slightly or not effective: 100.0%, N= 176. 

Program Assistance: 

33. In your opinion, does your state have enough NRCS technical 
assistance available for the following programs? (Check one) 

Program: 	
1. CRP General Signup;	
Much more than enough: 1.6%; 
More than enough: 4.4%; 
Enough: 35.7%; 
Less than enough: 38.9%; 
Much less than enough: 19.4%; 
N=: 1476. 

Program: 
2. CRP Continuous Signup; 
Much more than enough: 1.7%; 
More than enough: 4.1%; 
Enough: 34.6%; 
Less than enough: 37.5%; 
Much less than enough: 22.0%; 
N=: 1462. 

Program: 
3. CREP (if applicable);	
Much more than enough: 0.5%; 
More than enough: 4.0%; 
Enough: 25.3%; 
Less than enough: 34.9%; 
Much less than enough: 35.3%; 
N=: 581. 

Program: 
4. WRP;	
Much more than enough: 1.5%; 
More than enough: 5.4%; 
Enough: 27.9%; 
Less than enough: 38.9%; 
Much less than enough: 26.2%; 
N=: 1442. 

Program: 
5. EQIP; 
Much more than enough: 1.5%; 
More than enough: 3.3%; 
Enough: 23.0%; 
Less than enough: 37.2%; 
Much less than enough: 35.0%; 
N=: 1604. 

Program: 
6. WHIP; 
Much more than enough: 1.3%; 
More than enough: 3.9%; 
Enough: 32.8%; 
Less than enough: 37.5%; 
Much less than enough: 24.5%; 
N=: 1485. 

34. In your opinion, overall, what is the quality of the technical 
assistance that NRCS provides in your state? (Check one) 
Excellent: 22.2%, N= 413; 
Good: 51.2%, N= 955; 
Fair: 19.3%, N= 359; 
Poor: 1.7%, N= 31; 
Very poor: 0.9%, N= 16; 
Don't know: 4.8%, N= 90. 

35. How effective, if at all, are the USDA conservation programs in 
assisting farming operations of the following sizes in your state in 
addressing environmental or natural resource objectives? (Check one for 
each row) 

Size of Operation: 	
1. Small Operations (gross farming revenues of less than $100,000); 	
Extremely effective: 4.9%; 
Very effective: 27.5%; 
Moderately effective: 33.2%; 
Somewhat effective: 24.6%; 
Slightly or not effective: 9.9%; 
N= 1426. 

Size of Operation: 
2. Medium Operations (gross farming revenues of $100,000 - $500,000); 	
Extremely effective: 3.5%; 
Very effective: 31.6%; 
Moderately effective: 44.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 18.4%; 
Slightly or not effective: 2.0%; 
N= 1388. 

Size of Operation: 
3. Large Operations (gross farming revenues greater than $500,000); 	
Extremely effective: 4.6%; 
Very effective: 22.2%; 
Moderately effective: 39.1%; 
Somewhat effective: 22.7%; 
Slightly or not effective: 11.4%; 
N= 1315. 

36. Are all sizes of operations receiving adequate assistance in 
addressing your state's environmental or natural resource objectives? 
(Check one) 

Yes: 25.9%, N= 478; 
No: Please briefly describe below which operations are not receiving 
adequate assistance and the reason(s) for this. 43.2%, N= 799; 
Don't know: 30.9%, N= 571. 

37. In your experience, overall, how effective, if at all, are the USDA 
conservation programs in assisting the following types of operations in 
your state in addressing environmental or natural resource objectives? 
(Check one for each row) 

Type of Operation: 	
1. Field crops; 
Extremely effective: 5.8%; 
Very effective: 39.2%; 
Moderately effective: 36.3%; 
Somewhat effective: 15.4%; 
Slightly or not effective: 3.3%; 
N= 1573. 

Type of Operation: 
2. Specialty crops; 
Extremely effective: 1.8%; 
Very effective: 13.8%; 
Moderately effective: 29.2%; 
Somewhat effective: 36.0%; 
Slightly or not effective: 19.2%; 
N= 1361. 

Type of Operation: 
3. Small confined animal feeding operations; 
Extremely effective: 3.0%; 
Very effective: 27.0%; 
Moderately effective: 38.4%; 
Somewhat effective: 22.8%; 
Slightly or not effective: 8.8%; 
N= 1474. 

Type of Operation: 
4. Large confined animal feeding operations; 
Extremely effective: 2.1%; 
Very effective: 17.9%; 
Moderately effective: 33.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 25.8%; 
Slightly or not effective: 20.6%; 
N= 1339. 

Type of Operation: 
5. Combined crop/animal operations; 
Extremely effective: 3.0%; 
Very effective: 27.3%; 
Moderately effective: 47.0%; 
Somewhat effective: 18.8%; 
Slightly or not effective: 3.9%; 
N= 1472. 

Type of Operation: 
6. Grazing; 
Extremely effective: 4.4%; 
Very effective: 29.6%; 
Moderately effective: 39.2%; 
Somewhat effective: 20.6%; 
Slightly or not effective: 6.1%; 
N= 1529. 

Type of Operation: 
7. Forestry; 
Extremely effective: 2.6%; 
Very effective: 16.1%; 
Moderately effective: 27.5%; 
Somewhat effective: 31.3%; 
Slightly or not effective: 22.4%; 
N= 1291. 

Type of Operation: 
8. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely effective: 6.7%; 
Very effective: 19.4%; 
Moderately effective: 17.6%; 
Somewhat effective: 25.5%; 
Slightly or not effective: 30.8%; 
N= 69. 

38. Are all types of operations receiving adequate assistance in 
addressing your state's environmental or natural resource objectives? 
(Check one) 

Yes: 24.1%, N= 439; 
No: Please briefly describe below which operations are not receiving 
adequate assistance and the reason(s) for this. 46.8%, N= 851; 
Don't know: 29.1%, N= 529. 

Effect on Economy of Rural Communities: 

39. What is the overall impact, if any, of the following USDA 
conservation programs on the local economies in your state's rural 
communities? (Check one for each row) 

Program: 	
1. CRP General Signup; 
Very positive: 12.3%; 
Somewhat positive: 46.3%; 
No impact: 21.7%; 
Somewhat negative: 16.3%; 
Very negative: 3.5%; 
N=: 1267. 

Program: 
2. CRP Continuous Signup; 
Very positive: 8.8%; 
Somewhat positive: 47.9%; 
No impact: 34.1%; 
Somewhat negative: 7.8%; 
Very negative: 1.4%; 
N=: 1248. 

Program: 
3. CREP; 
Very positive: 16.8%; 
Somewhat positive: 45.9%; 
No impact: 31.8%; 
Somewhat negative: 4.4%; 
Very negative: 1.1%; 
N=: 478. 

Program: 
4. WRP;	
Very positive: 9.0%; 
Somewhat positive: 46.2%; 
No impact: 37.1%; 
Somewhat negative: 5.6%; 
Very negative: 2.2%; 
N=: 1200. 

Program: 
5. EQIP; 
Very positive: 14.8%; 
Somewhat positive: 62.9%; 
No impact: 19.6%; 
Somewhat negative: 2.3%; 
Very negative: 0.4%; 
N=: 1401. 

Program: 
6. WHIP; 
Very positive: 7.7%; 
Somewhat positive: 49.4%; 
No impact: 40.5%; 
Somewhat negative: 1.6%; 
Very negative: 0.7%; 
N=: 1273. 

Program: 
7. FPP; 
Very positive: 16.3%; 
Somewhat positive: 36.5%; 
No impact: 41.5%; 
Somewhat negative: 4.4%; 
Very negative: 1.4%; 
N=: 359. 

40. For those programs that have a `very positive' or `very negative' 
impact on the local economies in your state's rural communities, please 
provide the name of the program and explain the reason(s) for your 
response(s) below. 

If very positive: 100.0%, N= 375; 
If very negative: 100.0%, N= 106. 

Conservation Program Emphasis: 

41. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001 (estimates), federal 
funding was distributed	nationally among USDA conservation programs as 
follows: 

Program: CRP (including CREP); 
Percentage: 83.2%. 

Program: WRP; 
Percentage: 7.2%. 

Program: EQIP; 
Percentage: 8.8%. 

Program: WHIP; 
Percentage: 0.3%; 

Program: FPP; 
Percentage: 0.4%; 

Program: Total: 
Percentage: 100%. 

Note: Total does not add due to rounding. 

Given current federal funding, how do you believe conservation funds 
should be distributed nationally among these programs? (Your total 
should equal 100%.) 

Program: CRP (including CREP); 
Percentage: 57.84%. 

Program: WRP; 
Percentage: 9.62%. 

Program: EQIP; 
Percentage: 20.82%. 

Program: WHIP; 
Percentage: 5.01%; 

Program: FPP; 
Percentage: 4.91%; 

Program: Other (Please specify): 
Percentage: 1.82%. 

Program: Total: 
Percentage: 100%. 

N= 1386. 

42. In your opinion, overall, how cost-effective, are the following 
USDA conservation programs; that is, how well are these programs 
achieving results given the money spent for these programs? (Check one 
for each row) 

Program: 	
1. CRP General signup; 
Extremely cost-effective: 7.0%; 
Very cost-effective: 36.6%; 
Moderately cost-effective: 31.4%; 
Somewhat cost-effective: 17.3%; 
Slightly or not cost-effective:	7.6%; 
N=: 1377. 

Program: 
2. CRP Continuous signup; 
Extremely cost-effective: 10.3%; 
Very cost-effective: 40.3%; 
Moderately cost-effective: 29.2%; 
Somewhat cost-effective: 15.9%; 
Slightly or not cost-effective:	4.3%; 
N=: 1340. 

Program: 
3. CREP; 
Extremely cost-effective: 14.6%; 
Very cost-effective: 33.4%; 
Moderately cost-effective: 26.9%; 
Somewhat cost-effective: 16.1%; 
Slightly or not cost-effective:	9.1%; 
N=: 524. 

Program: 
4. WRP; 
Extremely cost-effective: 11.0%; 
Very cost-effective: 28.8%; 
Moderately cost-effective: 32.4%; 
Somewhat cost-effective: 20.8%; 
Slightly or not cost-effective:	6.9%; 
N=: 1313. 

Program: 
5. EQIP; 
Extremely cost-effective: 7.3%; 
Very cost-effective: 38.1%; 
Moderately cost-effective: 33.2%; 
Somewhat cost-effective: 15.3%; 
Slightly or not cost-effective:	6.1%; 
N=: 1546. 

Program: 
6. WHIP; 
Extremely cost-effective: 7.7%; 
Very cost-effective: 34.1%; 
Moderately cost-effective: 32.0%; 
Somewhat cost-effective: 19.6%; 
Slightly or not cost-effective:	6.6%; 
N=: 1342. 

Program: 
7. FPP; 
Extremely cost-effective: 8.7%; 
Very cost-effective: 36.5%; 
Moderately cost-effective: 25.4%; 
Somewhat cost-effective: 18.7%; 
Slightly or not cost-effective:	10.8%; 
N=: 360. 

43. If you responded 'extremely cost-effective' or 'slightly or not 
cost-effective' for any program, please provide the name of the program 
and explain the reason(s) for your response(s) below. 

If extremely cost-effective: 100.0%, N= 317; 
If slightly or not cost-effective: 100.0%, N= 252. 

44. Consider the degree that current USDA conservation programs 
emphasize environmental or natural resource objectives. Should more or 
less national emphasis be placed on each of the following environmental 
or natural resource objectives in the future? (Check one for each row) 
	
Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
1. Protecting or improving wildlife habitat; 
Much more emphasis: 17.8%; 
More emphasis: 32.5%; 
No change: 35.6%; 
Less emphasis: 11.9%; 
Much less emphasis: 2.2%; 
N=: 1808. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
2. Protecting native species; 
	1779
Much more emphasis: 16.1%; 
More emphasis: 29.6%; 
No change: 40.3%; 
Less emphasis: 10.5%; 
Much less emphasis: 3.5%; 
N=: 1779. 		 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
3. Reducing soil erosion; 
Much more emphasis: 13.1%; 
More emphasis: 45.7%; 
No change: 39.1%; 
Less emphasis: 1.9%; 
Much less emphasis: 0.1%; 
N=: 1801. 		 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
4. Protecting or improving ground water quality; 
Much more emphasis: 21.0%; 
More emphasis: 51.3%; 
No change: 26.6%; 
Less emphasis: 1.0%; 
Much less emphasis: 0.1%; 
N=: 1809. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
5. Protecting or improving surface water quality; 
Much more emphasis: 26.1%; 
More emphasis: 53.8%; 
No change: 19.2%; 
Less emphasis: 0.9%; 
Much less emphasis: 0%; 
N=: 1829. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
6. Protecting or improving air quality; 
Much more emphasis: 8.6%; 
More emphasis: 30.5%; 
No change: 50.8%; 
Less emphasis: 8.8%; 
Much less emphasis: 1.2%; 
N=: 1750. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
7. Preventing urban sprawl; 
Much more emphasis: 29.7%; 
More emphasis: 38.9%; 
No change: 23.4%; 
Less emphasis: 5.2%; 
Much less emphasis: 2.8%; 
N=: 1757. 

Environmental or Natural Resource Objectives: 
8. Other (Please specify); 
Much more emphasis: 77.9%; 
More emphasis: 19.1%; 
No change: 2.2%; 
Less emphasis: 0.8%; 
Much less emphasis: 0%; 
N=: 118. 

					
45. USDA conservation programs emphasize environmental and natural 
resource priorities at different levels. At what levels of 
environmental and natural resource priorities should USDA programs 
place more or less emphasis? (Check one for each row) 

Levels: 
1. National: 
Much more emphasis: 7.4%; 
More emphasis: 17.0%; 
No change: 34.9%; 
Less emphasis: 31.6%; 
Much less emphasis: 9.1%; 
N=: 1736. 

Levels: 
2. Multi-state regional; 
Much more emphasis: 8.2%; 
More emphasis: 28.5%; 
No change: 38.2%; 
Less emphasis: 21.4%; 
Much less emphasis: 3.7%; 
N=: 1722. 						 

Levels: 
3. State; 
Much more emphasis: 24.0%; 
More emphasis: 50.1%; 
No change: 20.6%; 
Less emphasis: 4.7%; 
Much less emphasis: 0.6%; 
N=: 1774. 

Levels: 
4. Multi-county regional; 
Much more emphasis: 22.2%; 
More emphasis: 55.2%; 
No change: 18.8%; 
Less emphasis: 3.4%; 
Much less emphasis: 0.5%; 
N=: 1738. 						 

Levels: 
5. Local (county); 
Much more emphasis: 38.2%; 
More emphasis: 41.8%; 
No change: 16.1%; 
Less emphasis: 3.1%; 
Much less emphasis: 0.8%; 
N=: 1759. 

46. Congress is considering modifying existing USDA conservation 
programs or designing new programs. How important, if at all, are the 
following elements in modifying or designing these programs? (Check one 
for each row) 

Design elements that:	
1. Provide flexible eligibility; 
Extremely important: 28.0%; 
Very important: 49.9%; 
Moderately important: 14.5%; 
Somewhat important: 5.9%; 
Slightly or not important: 1.7%; 
N=: 1796. 		 

Design elements that:	
2. Allow economic use of lands; 
Extremely important: 23.1%; 
Very important: 38.4%; 
Moderately important: 21.9%; 
Somewhat important: 10.6%; 
Slightly or not important: 5.9%; 
N=: 1974. 

Design elements that:	
3. Provide payment for maintenance of existing practices; 
Extremely important: 13.7%; 
Very important: 35.5%; 
Moderately important: 27.4%; 
Somewhat important: 14.3%; 
Slightly or not important: 9.2%; 
N=: 1778. 

Design elements that:	
4. Emphasize local environmental priorities; 
Extremely important: 34.5%; 
Very important: 45.2%; 
Moderately important: 13.2%; 
Somewhat important: 5.8%; 
Slightly or not important: 1.3%; 
N=: 1838. 

Design elements that:	
5. Keep lands in production; 
Extremely important: 18.7%; 
Very important: 29.5%; 
Moderately important: 26.5%; 
Somewhat important: 14.5%; 
Slightly or not important: 10.7%; 
N=: 1806. 				 

Design elements that:	
6. Emphasize construction of waste structures; 
Extremely important: 11.3%; 
Very important: 33.5%; 
Moderately important: 31.4%; 
Somewhat important: 17.7%; 
Slightly or not important: 6.2%; 
N=: 1734. 

Design elements that:	
7. Allow a broad array of conservation practices; 
Extremely important: 35.1%; 
Very important: 48.7%; 
Moderately important: 10.4%; 
Somewhat important: 4.6%; 
Slightly or not important: 1.3%; 
N=: 1837. 				 

Design elements that:	
8. Make participation voluntary; 
Extremely important: 46.0%; 
Very important: 32.2%; 
Moderately important: 11.3%; 
Somewhat important: 6.2%; 
Slightly or not important: 4.4%; 
N=: 1791. 			 

Design elements that:	
9. Provide eligibility to all types of operations; 
Extremely important: 30.6%; 
Very important: 39.5%; 
Moderately important: 18.2%; 
Somewhat important: 7.3%; 
Slightly or not important: 4.4%; 
N=: 1786. 

Design elements that:	
10. Provide financial rewards for conservation practices; 
Extremely important: 35.7%; 
Very important: 40.8%; 
Moderately important: 15.5%; 
Somewhat important: 5.9%; 
Slightly or not important: 2.0%; 
N=: 1831. 

Design elements that:	
11. Allow non-NRCS entities to provide technical assistance; 
Extremely important: 27.1%; 
Very important: 29.4%; 
Moderately important: 20.7%; 
Somewhat important: 12.9%; 
Slightly or not important: 9.9%; 
N=: 1763. 

Design elements that:	
12. Provide up-front payments; 
Extremely important: 18.2%; 
Very important: 31.8%; 
Moderately important: 27.3%; 
Somewhat important: 13.0%; 
Slightly or not important: 9.7%; 
N=: 1702. 

Design elements that:	
13. Other (Please specify); 
Extremely important: 78.8%; 
Very important: 19.1%; 
Moderately important: 0%; 
Somewhat important: 0%; 
Slightly or not important: 2.1%; 
N=: 124. 

Respondent Information: 
47. Which one category best describes your organization? (Check one) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 
NRCS State Conservationist; 
NRCS, Other; 	
Farm Service Agency; 
Farmer Service Agency State Committee; 
Forest Service; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
Rural Development; 
Other (Please specify). 

Department of Interior: 
Fish and Wildlife Service; 
Bureau of Land Management; 
Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
Bureau of Reclamation; 
U.S. Geological Survey; 
Other (Please specify). 

Department of Defense: 
Army Corps of Engineers; 
Other (Please specify). 

State or local departments and agencies: 
Fish and wildlife agency; 
Forestry agency; 
Water resources agency; 
Department of agriculture; 
Association of soil and water conservation districts; 
Coastal zone management agency; 
Soil and water conservation agency; 
Other (Please specify). 
		
Indian Tribes: 
Federally recognized American Indian Tribal Governments or Alaskan 
Native Corporations encompassing 100,000 acres or more in the state: 

Other: 
Agricultural producers (farmers); 
Representatives from for-profit agribusinesses; 
Nonprofit organizations (Please specify); 
Universities; 
Other knowledgeable persons (Please specify). 

Comments: 

48. Please provide below any comments you have about your state or 
local agricultural environmental needs. 

49. Please add any other comments or suggestions you have about the 
current or future agricultural conservation programs. 

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

Thank you for your help! 

Definitions: 
Agricultural conservation programs: 
Refers to the following federal agricultural conservation programs 
administered by USDA: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), including 
continuous signup and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
(CREP); the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); the 
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
(WHIP); and the Farmland Protection Program (FPP). 

Air quality: 
Refers to the chemical and physical characteristics of air, including 
particulate matter, smoke, dust, and odor. Air quality may be impacted 
by agricultural production. 

Conservation compliance/sodbuster provision/swampbuster provision: 
Compliance provisions, first introduced in the 1985 Food Security Act, 
requiring certain resource conservation activities on highly erodible 
lands and wetlands in return for benefits from selected federal 
agricultural programs. 

Conservation plan: 
A combination of land uses and farming practices to protect and improve 
soil productivity and water quality, and to prevent deterioration of 
natural resources on all or part of a farm. 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): 
Authorized in 1996, CREP is a federal-state conservation partnership 
program that targets environmental concerns related to agriculture. 
Leveraging federal funds with state funds, CREP uses financial 
incentives to encourage landowners to enroll in ten- to fifteen-year 
contracts to remove land from agricultural production. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - Continuous Signup: 
An extension of the CRP program introduced in 1996, the CRP Continuous 
Signup offers additional financial incentives and allows acreage 
devoted to certain conservation practices, such as riparian buffers and 
filter strips, yielding highly desirable environmental benefits to be 
enrolled at any time without going through the competitive bidding 
process. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) - General Signup: 
USDA program authorized in 1985, which provides annual rental payments 
to agriculture producers to retire lands that are highly erodible or 
environmentally sensitive. CRP includes a 50 percent cost-share to 
install vegetative cover and requires that landowners sign a ten-to 
fifteen-year contract. 

Environmental Benefits Index (EBI): 
Ranking criteria used for CRP general signup applications, which 
weights wildlife habitat benefits, water quality benefits, the on-farm 
benefits of reduced erosion, the likely long-term benefits of reduced 
erosion, air quality benefits, benefits of enrollment in conservation 
priority areas, and cost. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): 
USDA program authorized in 1996 which provides technical, educational 
and financial assistance to landowners to address soil, water, and 
related environmental concerns on lands in agricultural uses. EQIP 
provides cost-share and incentive payments and requires that landowners 
sign a five- to ten-year contract. 

Farmland Protection Program (FPP): 
USDA program authorized in 1996 created to protect farmland from non-
agricultural conversion by acquiring productive farmland near urban 
areas. In cooperation with existing state, local or tribal farmland 
protection programs or land trusts,
USDA contributes up to 50 percent of the fair market value of the land 
to acquire 30-year or permanent easements on farmlands. 

Federal farm policy: 
Refers to programs set forth in past omnibus farm bills (1985, 1990, 
and 1996), and the farm bill expected to become law in 2002. 

Field crop operations: 
An agricultural operation whose principal function is the production of 
mainstream crops such as wheat, corn, peanuts, cotton, and soybean. 

Forestry operations: 
An agricultural operation whose principal function is the development 
of woodlands. 

Grazing operations: 
An agricultural operation whose principal function is raising animals 
in nonconfined situations. 

Ground water quality: 
Refers to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 
groundwater. Groundwater quality and quantity may be impacted by 
agricultural production. 

Invasive species: 
Alien (non-native) species of plants, animals, and pests whose 
introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental 
harm or harm to human health. 

Large confined animal feeding operations: 
An agricultural operation with over 1,000 animal units whose principal 
function is keeping and raising animals in confined situations where 
feed is brought to animals. 

Small confined animal feeding operations: 
An agricultural operation with 1,000 or fewer animal units whose 
principal function is keeping and raising animals in confined 
situations where feed is brought to animals. 

Soil erosion: 
Refers to the impact of agricultural production on the wearing away of 
land surface caused by wind and moving water. 

Specialty crop operations: 
An agricultural operation whose principal function is the production of 
farm commodities other than livestock and field crops, including all 
fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops. 

Surface water quality: 
Refers to chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of surface 
water. Surface water quality and quantity may be impacted by 
agricultural production. 

Native species: 
Refers to the impact of agricultural production on species native to a 
state or local area. 

Urban sprawl: 
Refers to the conversion of land surrounding urban areas to non-
agricultural or non-natural uses. 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): 
USDA program authorized in 1990 which offers payment for the 
restoration of wetlands that have been previously drained and converted 
to agricultural uses. USDA acquires easements for thirty years or 
perpetuity based on the agricultural value of the land and offers cost-
share payments for restoration costs. 

Wildlife habitat: 
Refers to the impact of agricultural production on wildlife habitat and 
species. 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP): 
USDA program authorized in 1996 which provides financial incentives to 
develop habitats for fish and wildlife on private land. USDA provides 
cost-share for the wildlife habitat development and requires landowners 
to enter into five- to ten-year agreements. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Linda Libician: 
(214) 777-5709: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individuals named above, Gary Brown, Tom Cook, and 
Joanna McFarland made key contributions to this report. Important 
contributions were also made by Wendy Ahmed and Luann Moy. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Food Security Act of 1985 introduced the conservation 
compliance program to combat soil erosion. This program requires 
farmers to implement approved soil conservation systems on highly 
erodible land in order to receive certain USDA benefits. Conservation 
compliance applies to over 140 million acres of highly erodible land. 

[2] Board on Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences, Soil and Water 
Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture (1993). 

[3] Conservation Reserve Program: Alternatives Are Available for 
Managing Environmentally Sensitive Cropland [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-95-42], Feb. 21, 1995. 

[4] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Policy: 
Taking Stock for the New Century (September 2001). 

[5] For example, while depletion of surface water sources is a major 
environmental concern in the Pacific region, it is less of a concern in 
regions such as the Corn Belt. 

[6] The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and 
implementing regulations prohibit large livestock and poultry 
operations greater than 1,000 animal units from receiving EQIP funding 
for construction of animal waste management facilities. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://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 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
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: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 
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: