This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-370T 
entitled 'Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Management 
of Key Conservation Programs to Ensure Payments Promote Environmental 
Goals' which was released on January 17, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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. 

Testimony: 

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST: 

Wednesday, January 17, 2007: 

Agricultural Conservation: 

USDA Should Improve Its Management of Key Conservation Programs to 
Ensure Payments Promote Environmental Goals: 

Statement of Lisa Shames, Acting Director Natural Resources and 
Environment: 

GAO-07-370T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-370T, testimony before the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the 
Conservation Security Program (CSP), administered by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS), are designed to promote conservation goals. In recently 
issued reports on these programs, GAO assessed (1) NRCS’s process for 
allocating EQIP funds to the states to optimize environmental benefits, 
(2) NRCS’s measures to monitor EQIP’s performance, and (3) the 
legislative and regulatory measures available to prevent duplication 
between CSP and other conservation programs, such as EQIP. 

What GAO Found: 

Because farmers and ranchers own and manage about 940 million acres, or 
about half of the continental United States’ land area, they are among 
the most important stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat. 
EQIP provides assistance to farmers and ranchers to take new actions 
aimed at addressing identified conservation problems, whereas CSP 
rewards farmers and ranchers who already meet very high standards of 
conservation and environmental management on their operations. In 
fiscal year 2006, EQIP and CSP provided about $1 billion and $260 
million, respectively, in financial and technical assistance to farmers 
and ranchers. Efficient and effective management of these programs by 
NRCS is especially important in light of the nation’s current deficit 
and growing long-term fiscal challenges. GAO found the following 
weaknesses in the management of EQIP and CSP: 

* NRCS’s process for providing EQIP funds to states is not clearly 
linked to the program’s purpose of optimizing environmental benefits; 
as such, NRCS may not be directing funds to states with the most 
significant environmental concerns arising from agricultural 
production. To allocate most EQIP funds, NRCS uses a general financial 
assistance formula that consists of 31 factors and weights. However, 
NRCS does not have a documented rationale for how each factor 
contributes to accomplishing the program’s purpose. In addition, some 
data that NRCS uses in applying the formula are questionable or 
outdated. 

* NRCS has begun to develop long-term, outcome-oriented performance 
measures for EQIP. Such measures can provide information to better 
gauge program performance and also help NRCS refine its process for 
allocating funds to the states by directing funds to areas of the 
country that need the most improvement. However, NRCS did not have 
plans to link these measures to the EQIP funding allocation process. 

* Despite legislative and regulatory provisions, it is still possible 
for producers to receive duplicate payments through CSP and other USDA 
conservation programs because of similarities in the conservation 
actions financed through these programs. However, NRCS did not have a 
comprehensive process to preclude or identify such duplicate payments. 
In reviewing NRCS’s payments data, GAO found a number of examples of 
duplicate payments. 

Ensuring the integrity and equity of existing farm programs is a key 
area needing enhanced congressional oversight. Such oversight can help 
ensure that conservation programs, such as EQIP and CSP, benefit the 
agricultural sector as intended and protect rural areas from land 
degradation, diminished water and air quality, and loss of wildlife 
habitat. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommended that NRCS (1) ensure that the factors and weights used 
in EQIP’s general financial assistance formula are documented and 
linked to program priorities, and data sources are accurate and 
current, (2) continue to analyze and use information from its 
performance measures to revise the financial assistance formula, and 
(3) develop a comprehensive process to preclude and identify duplicate 
payments between CSP and other conservation programs. USDA agreed that 
the EQIP financial assistance formula needed review and said it has 
improved oversight to cross-check payments to determine if duplicate 
payments have been made. USDA did not agree that the EQIP funding 
process lacked a clear link to the program’s purpose. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-370T]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Lisa Shames, (202) 512-
3841, ShamesL@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's (USDA) management of two of its agricultural conservation 
programs--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the 
Conservation Security Program (CSP). Because farmers and ranchers own 
and manage about 940 million acres, or about half of the continental 
United States' land area, they are among the most important stewards of 
our soil, water, and wildlife habitat. EQIP and CSP, administered by 
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), are designed to 
encourage and reward activities that promote conservation goals. EQIP 
provides assistance to farmers and ranchers to take new actions aimed 
at addressing identified conservation problems, whereas CSP rewards 
farmers and ranchers who already meet very high standards of 
conservation and environmental management in their operations. 

We at GAO are anxious to assist the 110th Congress in meeting its 
oversight agenda. To that end, we have recommended that ensuring the 
integrity and equity of existing farm programs is a key area needing 
congressional oversight.[Footnote 1] The Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002[Footnote 2] (2002 farm bill) authorized funding 
for several agricultural conservation programs, among them EQIP and 
CSP, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $20.8 billion 
for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. In fiscal year 2006 alone, EQIP and 
CSP provided about $1 billion and $260 million, respectively, in 
financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. Given the 
size and significance of these programs in protecting rural areas from 
land degradation, diminished water and air quality, and loss of 
wildlife habitat, it is essential that they be managed effectively and 
efficiently. Appendix I provides information on authorized funding for 
these and other key USDA conservation programs. 

My testimony today is based on our recent reports evaluating NRCS's 
implementation of EQIP[Footnote 3] and CSP.[Footnote 4] I will focus on 
three primary issues discussed in these two reports: (1) NRCS's process 
for allocating EQIP funds to the states to optimize environmental 
benefits, (2) NRCS's measures to monitor EQIP performance, and (3) the 
legislative and regulatory measures available to prevent duplication 
between CSP and other USDA conservation programs and the duplication 
that has occurred. To perform this work, we reviewed relevant statutory 
provisions, NRCS regulations, program documentation, and guidelines for 
implementing EQIP and CSP and spoke with NRCS officials. Our work was 
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

In summary, we reported that NRCS's process for allocating EQIP funds 
to the states does not clearly link to the program's purpose of 
optimizing environmental benefits; as such, NRCS may not be directing 
EQIP funds to states with the most significant environmental concerns 
arising from agricultural production. We also reported that NRCS has 
developed long-term, outcome-oriented measures to assess changes to the 
environment resulting from EQIP practices as part of its 2005 strategic 
planning effort. These measures could help the agency refine its 
process for allocating funds to the states through its financial 
assistance formula by directing funds toward areas of the country that 
need the most improvement. However, at the time of our report, NRCS had 
not yet done so. Finally, with respect to CSP, we reported that despite 
provisions in the 2002 farm bill and NRCS regulations and procedures 
designed to reduce the potential for duplication between CSP and other 
conservation programs, duplicate payments for the same conservation 
practice or activity on the same land have occurred. On the basis of 
these findings, we made recommendations to improve USDA's process for 
allocating EQIP funds to the states and to develop a process to 
preclude and identify duplicate payments between CSP and other 
conservation programs. 

NRCS's Process for Allocating EQIP Funds to the States Does Not Link to 
the Program's Purpose of Optimizing Environmental Benefits: 

NRCS's process for providing EQIP funds to the states is not clearly 
linked to the program's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits. 
In particular, NRCS's general financial assistance formula, which 
accounts for approximately two-thirds of funding provided to the 
states, does not have a documented rationale for each of the formula's 
factors and weights, which are used to determine the allocation of 
funds to the states to address environmental issues. Thus, it is not 
always clear whether the formula factors and weights direct funds to 
the states as effectively as possible. In addition, the financial 
assistance formula relies on some questionable and outdated data. As a 
result, NRCS may not be directing EQIP funds to states with the most 
significant environmental concerns arising from agricultural 
production. 

NRCS Does Not Have A Documented Rationale for Formula Factors and 
Weights: 

In fiscal year 2006, approximately 65 percent of EQIP funds were 
considered general financial assistance--funds for installing 
conservation practices--and were allocated using a general financial 
assistance formula. This formula contains 31 factors related to the 
availability of natural resources and the presence of environmental 
concerns or problems. For example, factors in the formula measure acres 
of wetlands and at-risk species habitat, pesticide and nitrogen runoff, 
and the ratio of commercial fertilizers to cropland. NRCS assigns each 
of the formula's factors a weight that determines the funds to be 
allocated to states based on that factor. For example, factors with the 
highest weights include acres of highly erodible cropland, acres of 
fair and poor rangeland, the quantity of livestock, and the quantity of 
animal waste generated. A state's total allocation is composed of the 
funds it receives for each of the 31 factors. 

NRCS has periodically modified factors and weights to emphasize 
different national priorities, most recently in fiscal year 2004, 
following the passage of the 2002 farm bill. However, NRCS has not 
documented the basis for its decisions regarding the formula factors 
and weights nor explained how they achieve the program's purpose of 
optimizing environmental benefits. Thus, it is not always clear whether 
the formula factors and weights help direct funds to the states as 
effectively as possible. 

For example, NRCS has not demonstrated that it has the most appropriate 
water quality factors in its formula. Specifically, the formula 
includes a factor addressing impaired rivers and streams but no factor 
for impaired lakes and other bodies of water. Moreover, it is not 
certain whether the impaired rivers and streams factor results in funds 
being awarded on the basis of general water quality concerns or water 
pollution specifically caused by agricultural production. As a result, 
it was not certain whether the formula allocates funds as effectively 
as possible to states with water quality concerns arising from 
agricultural production. 

While the factors in the EQIP general financial assistance formula 
determine what resource and environmental characteristics are 
considered when allocating funds, the weights associated with the 
factors directly affect how much total funding is provided for each 
factor and, thus, the amount of money each state receives. Small 
differences in the factor weights can shift the amount of financial 
assistance directed at a particular resource concern. For example, in 
2006, if the weight of any of the 31 factors had increased by 1 
percent, $6.5 million would have been allocated on the basis of that 
factor at the expense of one or more other factors. Such a shift could 
affect the amount of financial assistance received by each state. The 
potential for the weights to significantly affect the amount of funding 
a state receives underscores the importance of having a well-founded 
rationale for assigning them. 

Some stakeholders we spoke with questioned NRCS's assignment of weights 
to certain factors in the financial assistance formula because they did 
not believe NRCS's formula adequately reflected the states' 
environmental priorities. For example, the formula allocates 6.3 
percent of EQIP funds to the states on the basis of factors 
specifically associated with animal feeding operations. However, states 
have spent more than 6.3 percent of their EQIP funding on conservation 
practices related to animal feeding operations. For example, in fiscal 
year 2005, states spent a total of 11 percent of EQIP financial 
assistance, or $91.1 million, on just one such practice--the 
construction of animal waste storage facilities. This discrepancy 
suggests that the weights in the formula may not reflect states' 
priorities. 

Financial Assistance Formula Relies on Some Questionable and Outdated 
Data: 

Weaknesses in the financial assistance formula are compounded by NRCS's 
use of questionable and outdated data as they apply to the formula. 
Accurate data are key to ensuring that funds are distributed to states 
as intended. However, we identified several methodological weaknesses 
in the data sources: (1) data that were used more than once in the 
formula, (2) data sources whose accuracy could not be verified, and (3) 
data that were not as current as possible. 

First, 5 of the 29 data sources in the financial assistance formula 
were used more than once for separate factors, potentially causing NRCS 
to overemphasize some environmental concerns at the expense of others. 
For example, NRCS uses the same data--data estimating the potential for 
pesticide and nitrogen runoff from agricultural land--for two factors 
in the formula intended to represent unique environmental concerns. 
Using the same data for multiple factors may result in more emphasis 
being placed on certain environmental concerns than intended. 
Furthermore, using data created for one factor for a second factor also 
makes the formula less transparent and potentially less reliable for 
allocating state funding. 

Second, NRCS could not confirm the source of data used in 10 factors in 
the formula; as such, we could not determine the accuracy of the data, 
verify how NRCS generated the data, or fully understand the basis on 
which the agency allocates funding. For example, we could not verify 
how NRCS generated data for factors measuring the quantities of 
livestock and animal waste. NRCS said it had not retained documentation 
on how the data for these factors were calculated. As a result, it was 
uncertain whether NRCS had chosen the most appropriate data as its 
basis for allocating funds to states with pollution problems from 
livestock or whether the data were accurately calculated. 

Third, NRCS does not use the most current data for six factors in the 
formula. For example, according to NRCS, the source of data on the 
ratio of commercial fertilizers to cropland was a 1995 report by the 
Association of American Plant Food Control Officials. We found a 2005 
version of the same report with more current data. The absence of the 
most recent data for these six factors raises questions about whether 
the formula allocates funds to areas of the country that currently have 
the greatest environmental needs, because recent changes in a state's 
agricultural or environmental status may not be reflected. 

Because of our concerns about the general financial assistance formula, 
we recommended that NRCS ensure its rationale for the factors and 
weights was documented and addressed program priorities, and the data 
sources used in the formula were accurate and current. In responding to 
our report, USDA agreed that the EQIP formula needed review but did not 
agree with our assessment that NRCS's funding process lacked a clear 
link to the program's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits. We 
continue to believe, however, that the weaknesses we identified in the 
general financial assistance formula lessen its ability to optimize 
environmental benefits. Additional information describing its reasons 
for including or excluding factors in the formula would help ensure 
that EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits is more 
evident. 

NRCS Has Begun to Develop More Outcome-Oriented Performance Measures 
for EQIP, but Has Not Yet Linked Them to the Funding Allocation 
Process: 

NRCS has begun to develop more long-term, outcome-oriented performance 
measures to assess changes to the environment resulting from EQIP 
practices. In addition to providing information to better gauge program 
performance, these measures could also help NRCS refine its funding 
allocation process to the states by directing funds to areas of the 
country that need the most improvement. However, at the time of our 
report, NRCS did not yet have any plans to link these performance 
measures to the EQIP funding allocation process. 

In 2000, we reported that performance measures tied to outcomes would 
better communicate the results NRCS intended its conservation programs 
to achieve and would be more useful in judging NRCS's performance in 
carrying out its mission.[Footnote 5] In 2002, NRCS established annual 
performance measures for EQIP. However, they were primarily program 
outputs--the number and type of conservation practices installed--and 
as such provided limited information for decision makers. 

Subsequently, as part of its 2005 strategic planning effort, NRCS 
developed long-term, outcome-oriented performance measures to assess 
changes to the environment resulting from the installation of EQIP 
conservation practices. These measures include such things as reducing 
sediment runoff from farms, improving soil condition on working 
cropland, and increasing water conservation. They also include proposed 
targets for each measure to be achieved by 2010, such as reducing 
sediment runoff by 18.5 million tons annually. According to NRCS, it 
has developed baselines for these performance measures, and plans to 
assess and report on them once computer models and other data 
collection methods that estimate environmental change are completed. 

According to the Director of NRCS's Strategic Planning and Performance 
Division, NRCS expects to assess and report on the status of all 
measures by 2010 but will be able to assess the results of some 
measures sooner, such as improved soil condition on working cropland. 
In the meantime, the agency will continue to use its existing annual 
measures to assess performance. The director acknowledged that the 
outcome-oriented measures were not as comprehensive as needed but 
represented measures NRCS could reasonably assess using modeling and 
data collection methods that would soon become available. NRCS plans to 
continue to improve its performance measures. 

Although we did not assess the comprehensiveness of the EQIP 
performance measures, the additional information they provide about the 
results of EQIP outcomes should allow NRCS to better gauge program 
performance. As a next step, such information could also help the 
agency refine its process for allocating funds to the states through 
its general financial assistance formula by directing funds toward 
practices that address unrealized performance targets and areas of the 
country that need the most improvement. The Chief of NRCS's 
Environmental Improvement Programs Branch agreed that information about 
program performance might eventually be linked to the EQIP funding 
allocation process. However, at the time of our report, the agency did 
not have plans to make this linkage. 

We recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct NRCS to 
continue to analyze current and newly developed outcome-oriented 
performance measures for EQIP and use this information to make any 
further revisions to the financial assistance formula to ensure funds 
are directed to areas of highest priority. In its response, NRCS stated 
that the current measures have been revised to reflect the most recent 
results of its effort to track and report program performance. 

Legislative and Regulatory Measures Reduce the Potential for 
Duplication between CSP and Other Programs, but the Potential Remains 
for Duplicate Payments, and Such Payments Have Occurred: 

A number of legislative and regulatory actions have been taken that 
reduce the potential for duplication between CSP and other USDA 
conservation programs, such as EQIP. For example, the 2002 farm bill 
provides that CSP may reward producers for maintaining conservation 
practices that they have already undertaken, whereas other programs 
generally provide assistance to encourage producers to take new actions 
to address conservation problems on working lands or to idle or retire 
environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production. In 
addition, the 2002 farm bill explicitly prohibits duplicate payments 
under CSP and other conservation programs for the same practice on the 
same land. It also prohibits CSP payments for certain activities that 
can be funded under other conservation programs, such as the 
construction or maintenance of animal waste storage or treatment 
facilities. 

In addition, CSP regulations, promulgated by USDA, were designed to 
prevent duplication between CSP and other conservation programs. For 
example, the regulations establish higher minimum eligibility standards 
for CSP than for other programs, which help to differentiate the 
applicant pool for CSP from the potential applicants for these other 
programs. The regulations also encourage CSP participants to implement 
conservation actions, known as enhancements, to achieve a level of 
treatment that generally exceeds the level required by other USDA 
conservation programs. 

Despite these actions, the potential for duplicate payments still 
exists because of similarities in conservation actions financed through 
CSP and other programs, and our analysis has revealed that duplicate 
payments have occurred. Our analysis of 2004 payments data showed that 
172 (or 8 percent) of the 2,180 producers who received a CSP payment in 
2004 also received an EQIP payment that year. Among the 172 producers, 
we identified 72 who received a total of 121 payments that appeared to 
be for similar or related conservation actions. We then selected 11 of 
these producers, who received a total of 12 payments under each 
program, for more detailed analysis and found that in 8 cases duplicate 
payments had occurred. For example, four of these duplicate payments 
were made to producers who received a CSP enhancement payment and an 
EQIP payment for conservation actions that appeared to be similar. In 
one of these cases, a producer received a CSP pest management 
enhancement payment of $9,160 for conservation crop rotation and, on 
the same parcel of land, an EQIP payment of $795 for the same 
conservation action--conservation crop rotation. 

NRCS state officials agreed that the payments made in these four cases 
were duplicates. They stated that they were unaware that such 
duplication was occurring and that they would inform their district 
offices of it. NRCS headquarters officials stated that the agency lacks 
a comprehensive process to either preclude duplicate payments or 
identify them after a contract has been awarded. Instead, these 
officials said, as a guard against potential duplication, NRCS relies 
on the institutional knowledge of its field staff and the records they 
keep. 

NRCS has the authority to recover duplicate payments. CSP contracts, by 
way of reference, include a clause stating that CSP participants cannot 
receive duplicate payments. Under a CSP contract, as required in the 
2002 farm bill, a producer agrees that on violation of any term or 
condition of the contract to refund payments and forfeit all rights to 
receive payments or to refund or accept adjustments to payments, 
depending on whether the Secretary of Agriculture determines that 
termination of the contract is or is not warranted, respectively. 

Duplicate payments reduce program effectiveness and, because of limited 
funding, may result in some producers not receiving program benefits 
for which they are otherwise eligible. For these reasons, we 
recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS 
to (1) develop a comprehensive process, such as an automated system, to 
review CSP contract applications to ensure that CSP payments, if 
awarded, would not duplicate payments made by other USDA conservation 
programs; and (2) develop a process to efficiently review existing CSP 
contracts to identify cases where CSP payments duplicate payments made 
under other programs and take action to recover appropriate amounts and 
to ensure that these duplicate payments are not repeated in fiscal year 
2006 and beyond. 

Regarding the first recommendation, in July 2006, NRCS said it had 
created an automated system within its contracting software to conduct 
a comparison between existing contracts for EQIP and other conservation 
programs and new CSP applications to reveal potential areas of 
overlapping practices. In addition, NRCS indicated that for the fiscal 
year 2006 CSP sign-up, it would require applicants to complete a form 
that asks an applicant to certify whether or not they are receiving 
payments from another conservation program on any of the land being 
offered for enrollment in CSP. These actions appear to be steps in the 
right direction, but we have not assessed their effectiveness. 
Regarding the second recommendation, NRCS indicated that all identified 
duplicate payments would be dealt with according to the NRCS 
contracting manual. We do not know the extent to which NRCS has 
identified and recovered duplicate payments. 

In conclusion, EQIP and CSP are key agricultural conservation programs 
that can play an invaluable role in encouraging farmers and ranchers to 
act as stewards of the nation's natural resources. However, the 
weaknesses we identified in the management of EQIP and CSP funds may 
lessen these programs' effectiveness. Refining the EQIP allocation 
formula to ensure funds are provided to states in a manner that 
optimizes environmental benefits, continuing to develop outcome- 
oriented performance measures to help refine its funding allocation 
process, and developing processes designed to eliminate duplicate 
payments between CSP and other programs would enhance the programs' 
ability to effectively promote conservation among U.S. agricultural 
producers. Furthermore, oversight of these programs, such as today's 
hearing, helps ensure funds are spent as economically, efficiently and 
effectively as possible and benefit the agricultural sector as 
intended. Such oversight is especially critical in light of the 
nation's current deficit and growing long-term fiscal challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee 
may have. 

Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further 
information about this testimony, please contact Lisa Shames, Acting 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, (202) 512-3841 or 
ShamesL@gao.gov. Key contributors to this statement were James R. 
Jones, Jr., Assistant Director; Gary Brown; Thomas Cook; Paige 
Gilbreath; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Description of Key USDA Conservation Programs: 

Table 1: 

Dollars in millions. 

Program: Conservation Reserve Program; 
Description: Provides annual rental payments and cost-share and 
technical assistance to establish permanent vegetative land cover in 
exchange for taking environmentally sensitive cropland out of 
production for 10 to 15 years. Most program lands are enrolled through 
the use of contracts and competitive bidding during designated sign- 
ups. Some economic uses of enrolled land are allowed with a reduction 
of annual rental payments, such as the installation of wind turbines 
and managed haying and grazing. Up to 39.2 million acres may be 
enrolled at any one time; 
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: $11,118. 

Program: Conservation Security Program; 
Description: Offers various payments and technical assistance to 
support ongoing stewardship of agricultural land through 5-to 10- year 
contracts to promote conservation and the improvement of soil, water, 
air, energy, and plant and animal life on private and tribal 
agricultural lands. Unlike other USDA conservation programs that 
provide assistance to take new actions aimed at addressing identified 
conservation problems, CSP rewards farmers and ranchers who already 
meet very high standards of conservation and environmental management 
in their operations; 
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: [A]. 

Program: Environmental Quality Incentives Program; 
Description: Offers incentive and cost-share payments and technical 
assistance through 1-to 10-year contracts to implement structural and 
land management practices or to develop a comprehensive nutrient 
management plan. At least 60 percent of annual funds made available for 
cost-share and incentive payments are required to be targeted at 
practices relating to livestock production; 
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 5,800. 

Program: Farmland Protection Program; 
Description: Purchases easements or other interests in eligible land 
(up to 50 percent of fair market value) for the purpose of protecting 
topsoil by limiting nonagricultural uses of the land. Eligible land 
means land on a farm or ranch that is subject to a pending offer for 
purchase from an eligible entity and that has prime, unique, or other 
productive soil or that contains historical or archeological resources. 
Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, grassland, pastureland, and 
forestland that is an incidental part of the agricultural operation; 
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 597. 

Program: Grassland Reserve Program; 
Description: Offers permanent and 30-year easements and 10-to 30-year 
rental agreements to grassland owners to assist owners in restoring and 
conserving eligible land.[B] Up to 2 million acres may be enrolled; 
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 254. 

Program: Wetlands Reserve Program; 
Description: Targets restoration of prior-converted and farmed wetlands 
to a wetland condition. Acreage can be enrolled in the program through 
the use of permanent easements, 30-year easements, and restoration cost-
share agreements. Program lands may be used for compatible economic 
uses such as hunting, fishing, or limited timber harvests. Up to 2.275 
million acres may be enrolled; 
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 1,506. 

Program: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; 
Description: Offers cost-share payments through 5- to 10-year 
agreements to develop and protect and restore wildlife habitat. Allows 
up to 15 percent of funds each year to be used for increased cost-share 
assistance to producers who enter into 15-year agreements; 
Total authorization, fiscal years 2002 through 2007: 360. 

Sources: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture and 
Congressional Budget Office information and the 2002 farm bill. 

[A] Congress authorized the Conservation Security Program without 
placing limits on either its funding or the number of acres enrolled, 
although at times Congress has capped its funding in other legislation. 

[B] In states that impose a maximum duration for easements, the 
Secretary of Agriculture can use an easement for the maximum duration 
allowed under state law. 

[End of table] 

[End of Section] 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress, GAO-07-
235R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006). 

[2] Pub. L. No. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134 (2002). 

[3] GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process for 
Allocating Funds to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, GAO-06-969 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006). 

[4] GAO, Conservation Security Program: Despite Cost Controls, Improved 
USDA Management Is Needed to Ensure Proper Payments and Reduce 
Duplication with Other Programs, GAO-06-312 (Washington, D.C.: April 
28, 2006). 

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

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

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. Government Accountability 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: