U.S. General Accounting Office
Survey on Food Security Act Conservation Compliance (GAO-03-492SP)
State: PENNSYLVANIA
Q1. During calendar years 1998-2001, how many status reviews on highly erodible land did your field office conduct?

None (percent) 1-10 (percent) 11-20 (percent) 21-30 (percent) 31-40 (percent) 41-50 (percent) More than 50 (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 47.5 37.5 10.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 40
 
Q2. In your experience, compared with neighboring counties, how closely does your county monitor HELC provisions?

Much more closely (percent) More closely (percent) About the same (percent) Less closely (percent) Much less closely (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 0.0 37
 
Q3. In your opinion, overall, what level of understanding do farmers in your county have about what constitutes a substantial reduction in soil erosion?

Very great understanding (percent) Great understanding (percent) Moderate understanding (percent) Some understanding (percent) Little or no understanding (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 20.0 35.0 37.5 7.5 40
 
Q4. In your opinion, what level of understanding do farmers in your county have of HELC provisions?

Very great understanding (percent) Great understanding (percent) Moderate understanding (percent) Some understanding (percent) Little or no understanding (percent) Number of respondents
2.5 20.0 47.5 30.0 0.0 40
 
Q5. In your experience, to what extent are farmers in your county willing to comply with HELC provisions?

Very great extent (percent) Great extent (percent) Moderate extent (percent) Some extent (percent) Little or no extent (percent) Number of respondents
10.5 34.2 42.1 13.2 0.0 38
 
Q6. In your experience, how has farmers' willingness to comply with HELC provisions changed since 1996?

Much more willing to comply (percent) More willing to complt (percent) Neither more willing nor less willing to comply (percent) Less willing to comply (percent) Much less willing to comply (percent) Number of respondents
2.7 40.5 56.8 0.0 0.0 37
 
Q7a. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the 1T soil-loss tolerance levels?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
22.2 0 95 5 31
 
Q7b. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the 2T soil-loss tolerance levels?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
15.5 0 95 13 36
 
Q7c. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the 3T soil-loss tolerance levels?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
50.5 0 98 60 36
 
Q7d. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the 4T soil-loss tolerance levels?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
15.0 0 55 10 35
 
Q7e. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the 5T soil-loss tolerance levels?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
10.6 0 80 4 29
 
Q7f. In your county, what percent of the highly erodible acres have the greater than 5T soil-loss tolerance levels?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
0.5 0 5 0 22
 
Q8. For what percent of the highly erodible acres in your county are alternative conservation systems approved?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
24.1 0 100 20 39
 
Q9. Does your field office currently require producers to have a written conservation plan for highly erodible land?

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
94.9 5.1 39
 
Q10. In your opinion, should USDA farm commodity program participants be required to control soil erosion on their land?

Definitely yes (percent) Probably yes (percent) Neither yes nor no (percent) Probably no (percent) Definitely no (percent) Number of respondents
92.5 5.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 40
 
Q11. In general, is it economically feasible for producers in your county to reduce the soil erosion on their land to the soil loss tolerance level?

Definitely yes (percent) Probably yes (percent) Neither yes nor no (percent) Probably no (percent) Definitely no (percent) Number of respondents
70.0 25.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 40
 
Q12. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, are the current HELC provisions in reducing soil erosion on land in production in your county?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
2.5 30.0 52.5 10.0 5.0 40
 
Q13. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, would HELC provisions be in reducing soil erosion in your county if no alternative conservation systems were allowed?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
13.5 40.5 18.9 13.5 13.5 37
 
Q14. In your opinion, how effective, if at all, are sodbuster provisions in limiting conversion of native vegetation to cropland?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 6.1 21.2 21.2 51.5 33
 
Q15. In your opinion, to what extent do USDA farm commodity and crop insurance programs act as incentives to convert native vegetation to cropland?

Very great extent (percent) Great exent (percent) Moderate extent (percent) Some extent (percent) Little or no extent (percent) Number of respondents
5.7 5.7 11.4 20.0 57.1 35
 
Q16. Compared with other conservation programs that attempt to achieve long-term soil conservation, how effective, if at all, are HELC provisions in your county?

Much more effective (percent) More effective (percent) About the same (percent) Less effective (percent) Much less effective (percent) Number of respondents
2.6 38.5 38.5 10.3 10.3 39
 
Q17. Did your county have any HELC violations in calendar years 1998-2001?

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
45.0 55.0 40
 
Q18. Of the HELC violations referred to or received by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in your county, what portion are granted a good faith exemption by the FSA county committee?

All or almost all (percent) More than half (percent) About half (percent) Less than half (percent) None or almost none (percent) Number of respondents
44.4 5.6 5.6 5.6 38.9 18
 
Q19. How often are decisions to grant HELC good faith exemptions by the Farm Service Agency county committees properly supported?

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
38.5 46.2 7.7 0.0 7.7 13
 
Q20. Since January 1, 1997, of the USDA farm program participants who have violated HELC provisiions in your county, about what portion lost any benefits?

To less than 5% (percent) 5 to less than 10% (percent) 10 to less than 20% (percent) 20 to less than 30% (percent) 30 to less than 50% (percent) 50% or more (percent) Number of respondents
70.6 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 23.5 17
 
Q21. Consider all the tracts of land in the geographical area where your office provides assistance. About what percent of these tracts are in violation of HELC provisions and have not been reported?

To less than 5% (percent) 5 to less than 10% (percent) 10 to less than 20% (percent) 20 to less than 30% (percent) 30 to less than 50% (percent) 50% or more (percent) Number of respondents
6.7 26.7 33.3 13.3 20.0 0.0 15
 
Q22. Of the grassland that has been converted to cropland in your county, what portion do you believe is a result of this change?

All or almost all (percent) More than half (percent) About half (percent) Less than half (percent) None or almost none (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 95.7 23
 
Q23a. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated reductions in program benefits for HELC violations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 3.2 77.4 12.9 6.5 31
 
Q23b. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted variance for compliance violations that are considered technical and minor in nature.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 36.4 60.6 3.0 0.0 33
 
Q23c. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted tenant exemption.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 8.0 60.0 24.0 8.0 25
 
Q23d. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Required additional farm program benefits be subject to denial for violations of HELC.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
16.1 45.2 38.7 0.0 0.0 31
 
Q23e. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Other (please specify).

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1
 
Q24a. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted variance for weather, pest, diseases, or other natural disasters.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 32.4 58.8 8.8 0.0 34
 
Q24b. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted variance and grace period for compliance violations found while providing on-ite technical assistance.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 35.3 47.1 17.6 0.0 34
 
Q24c. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted Farm Service Agency variance and grace period for economic hardship relief.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 13.3 56.7 23.3 6.7 30
 
Q24d. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted provision allowing producers to self-certify compliance with their conservation plan when applying for benefits.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 9.4 43.8 28.1 18.8 32
 
Q24e. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Eliminated graduated reductions in program benefits for conservation compliance violations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 27.6 65.5 6.9 0.0 29
 
Q24f. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Eliminated crop insurance payments from the list of benefits subject to denial for violations of HELC.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 14.3 46.4 32.1 7.1 28
 
Q24g. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Revised good faith exemption by removing the 1-in-5 year rule and allowed for compliance grace period.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 22.6 61.3 12.9 3.2 31
 
Q24h. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Other (please specify).

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1
 
Q25. During calendar years 1998-2001, how many wetland conservation status reviews did your field office conduct?

None (percent) 1-10 (percent) 11-20 (percent) 21-30 (percent) 31-40 (percent) 41-50 (percent) More than 50 (percent) Number of respondents
32.5 55.0 7.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40
 
Q26. In your experience, compared with neighboring counties, how closely does your field office monitor wetland conservation provisions?

Much more closely (percent) More closely (percent) About the same (percent) Less closely (percent) Much less closely (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 20.8 79.2 0.0 0.0 24
 
Q27. In your opinion, what level of understanding do farmers in your county have of wetland conservation provisions?

Very great understanding (percent) Great understanding (percent) Moderate understanding (percent) Some understanding (percent) Little or no understanding (percent) Number of respondents
3.7 14.8 29.6 48.1 3.7 27
 
Q28. In your experience, to what extent are farmers in your county willing to comply with wetland conservation provisions?

Very great extent (percent) Great extent (percent) Moderate extent (percent) Some extent (percent) Little or no extent (percent) Number of respondents
7.4 29.6 37.0 22.2 3.7 27
 
Q29. In your county, how effective are swampbuster provisions at limiting the conversion of wetlands to cropland?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
11.5 42.3 11.5 23.1 11.5 26
 
Q30. In your opinion, compared with large wetlands in your county, how important is the protection of small wetlands?

Much more important (percent) More important (percent) About the same (percent) Less important (percent) Much less important (percent) Number of respondents
11.1 22.2 48.1 11.1 7.4 27
 
Q31. In your opinion, should USDA farm program participants be required to follow wetland conservation provisions on their land?

Definitely yes (percent) Probably yes (percent) Neither yes nor no (percent) Probably no (percent) Definitely no (percent) Number of respondents
61.5 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 26
 
Q32. Did your county have any wetland conservation violations in calendar years 1998-2001?

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
34.6 65.4 26
 
Q33. Since January 1, 1997, of the USDA farm program participants who have violated wetland conservation provisions in your county, about what percent lost any benefits?

To less than 5% (percent) 5 to less than 10% (percent) 10 to less than 20% (percent) 20 to less than 30% (percent) 30 to less than 50% (percent) 50% or more (percent) Number of respondents
62.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 8
 
Q34. Of the wetland violations referred to or received by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in your county, about what portion are granted a good faith exemption by the FSA county committee?

All or almost all (percent) More than half (percent) About half (percent) Less than half (percent) None or almost none (percent) Number of respondents
11.1 0.0 11.1 22.2 55.6 9
 
Q35. How often are decisions to grant wetland good faith exemptions by the Farm Service Agency county committees in your county properly supported?

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 50.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 4
 
Q36. In your opinion, what level of technical improvements could be made to the tools, techniques, or procedures to complete certified wetland determinations?

Very great improvement (percent) Great improvement (percent) Moderate improvement (percent) Some improvement (percent) Little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
11.1 22.2 55.6 11.1 0.0 9
 
Q37. To what extent are certified wetland determinations made on a less than whole tract basis?

Very great extent (percent) Great extent (percent) Moderate extent (percent) Some extent (percent) Little or no extent (percent) Number of respondents
55.6 11.1 11.1 0.0 22.2 9
 
Q38. Consider the geographical area where you provide assistance. Of the tracts that are in violation of wetland conservation provisions, about what percent have not been reported?

To less than 5% (percent) 5 to less than 10% (percent) 10 to less than 20% (percent) 20 to less than 30% (percent) 30 to less than 50% (percent) 50% or more (percent) Number of respondents
44.4 22.2 0.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 9
 
Q39a. If you find a converted wetland on lands owned or operated by a USDA program participant, how often do you do the following?: Notify the person by sending a certified wetland determination, detailing the potential violation.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
12.5 12.5 0.0 12.5 62.5 8
 
Q39b. If you find a converted wetland on lands owned or operated by a USDA program participant, how often do you do the following?: Inform the person orally, not in writing, detailing the potential violation.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 55.6 0.0 11.1 33.3 9
 
Q39c. If you find a converted wetland on lands owned or operated by a USDA program participant, how often do you do the following?: Work with the person to restore or obtain a mitigation exemption for the wetland in order to maintain benefits.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
33.3 22.2 11.1 22.2 11.1 9
 
Q39d. If you find a converted wetland on lands owned or operated by a USDA program participant, how often do you do the following?: Decide if any other exemption applies to this wetland conversion.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
44.4 22.2 0.0 22.2 11.1 9
 
Q40a. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated reductions in program benefits for wetland conservation violations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 0.0 8
 
Q40b. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Instituted minimal effects exemption.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 8
 
Q40c. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Instituted mitigation exemption for restoring a prior converted wetland.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 8
 
Q40d. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Instituted requirement for agreement between NRCS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on mitigation plans and technical determinations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 0.0 7
 
Q40e. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Instituted new trigger mechanism for swampbuster violations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
16.7 0.0 83.3 0.0 0.0 6
 
Q40f. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Required additional farm program benefits be subject to denial for violations of wetland conservation.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
28.6 42.9 28.6 0.0 0.0 7
 
Q40g. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Revised definition of a wetland to include three conditions that must be present.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
28.6 14.3 42.9 14.3 0.0 7
 
Q40h. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Other (please specify).

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
 
Q41a. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Instituted more options for mitigation including enhancement or creation of wetlands.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 0.0 7
 
Q41b. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Eliminated graduated reductions in program benefits for compliance violations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 0.0 7
 
Q41c. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Eliminated the requirement for agreement between NRCS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on mitigation plans and technical determinations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 0.0 8
 
Q41d. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Revised good faith exemption by removing the 1-in-10 year rule and allowed for compliance grace period.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 0.0 7
 
Q42. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with HELC provisions?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
2.5 17.5 40.0 30.0 10.0 40
 
Q43. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with wetland conservation provisions?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effe (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 5.4 40.5 29.7 24.3 37
 
Q44. How effective is coordination between NRCS and FSA in implementing compliance with the HELC and wetland conservation provisions, overall?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
10.3 38.5 35.9 7.7 7.7 39
 
Q45a. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservationcompliance status reviews?: January

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 40
 
Q45b. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: February

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 40
 
Q45c. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: March

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 40
 
Q45d. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: April

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
15.0 85.0 40
 
Q45e. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: May

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
42.5 57.5 40
 
Q45f. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: June

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
72.5 27.5 40
 
Q45g. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: July

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
40.0 60.0 40
 
Q45h. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: August

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
32.5 67.5 40
 
Q45i. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: September

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
35.0 65.0 40
 
Q45j. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: October

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
30.0 70.0 40
 
Q45k. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation compliance status reviews?: November

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
7.5 92.5 40
 
Q45l. In what months of the year does your field office perform conservation Compliance status reviews?: December

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 40
 
Q46. In your duties as an NRCS employee, how satisfied are you with your responsibilities for monitoring compliance with HEL and wetland conservation provisions?

Very satisfied (percent) Generally satisfied (percent) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent) Generally dissatisfied (percent) Very dissatisfied (percent) Number of respondents
2.5 45.0 22.5 25.0 5.0 40
 
Q47. Please describe the reason for your response below.

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
62.5 37.5 40
 
Q48. How do you view HELC provisions in terms of their effect on farm profitability in our county?

Very positive (percent) Positive (percent) Neither positive nor negative (percent) Negative (percent) Very negative (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 38
 
Q49. When you are doing a status review, does your supervisor encourage or discourage identifying tracts/fields in violation of conservation compliance provisions?

Strongly encourages (percent) Generally encourages (percent) Slightly encourages (percent) Neither encourages nor discourages (percent) Slightly discourages (percent) Generally discourage (percent) Strongly discourages (percent) Number of respondents
7.5 12.5 7.5 72.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 40
 
Q50. In the normal course of work, does your supervisor encourage or discourage identifying tracts or fields in violation of conservation compliance provisions when you are providing technical assistance?

Strongly encourages (percent) Generally encourages (percent) Slightly encourages (percent) Neither encourages nor discourages (percent) Slightly discourages (percent) Generally discourage (percent) Strongly discourages (percent) Number of respondents
5.0 2.5 10.0 75.0 2.5 5.0 0.0 40
 
Q51. Compared with other activities in NRCS, what priority does NRCS management place on conservation compliance?

Very high (percent) Generally high (percent) Neither high nor low (percent) Generally low (percent) Very low (percent) Number of respondents
15.8 44.7 21.1 15.8 2.6 38
 
Q52. Since January 1, 1994, how has NRCS management changed the priority for implementing conservation compliance?

Significantly increased (percent) Generally increased (percent) Neither increased nor decreased (percent) Generally decreased (percent) Significantly decreased (percent) Number of respondents
2.7 18.9 59.5 10.8 8.1 37
 
Q53. In your opinion, how would increasing the number of annual status reviews in your county affect producers' compliance with the conservation provisions?

Very greatly increasese compliance (percent) Greatly increase compliance (percent) Moderately increase compliance (percent) Somewhat increase compliance (percent) Slightly or not increase compliance (percent) Number of respondents
2.5 7.5 22.5 20.0 47.5 40
 
Q54. If a participant does not have sufficient crop residue on most of his or her field after planting, how often do you grant an "AM" (minimal or technical effect) variance?

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
9.4 9.4 9.4 40.6 31.3 32
 
Q55. During a status review, if you discover that a producer is not applying an important practice in his or her conservation system, how often do you grant an "AM" variance?

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
8.8 0.0 2.9 32.4 55.9 34
 
Q56. When performing status reviews, how often do you check for potential wetland conservation violations?

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
36.8 28.9 0.0 15.8 18.4 38
 
Q57. Consider the tracts or fields that are granted a variance or exemption based on a status review. How often are these tracts reviewed in the year following the variance or exemption?

Always (percent) Almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Almost never (percent) Never (percent) Number of respondents
66.7 25.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36
 
Q58. When a tract is not in compliance with the HELC and WC provisions, how often do you request an FSA-569 (NRCS Report of HELC and WC Compliance)?

Always (percent) Almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Almost never (percent) Never (percent) Number of respondents
54.3 20.0 5.7 2.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 35
 
Q59a. If you discover that a producer is not applying an important practice in his or her conservation system during a status review, how often do you do the following?: Work with the producer to develop a system that will meet the provisions

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
74.4 17.9 0.0 0.0 7.7 39
 
Q59b. If you discover that a producer is not applying an important practice in his or her conservation system during a status review, how often do you do the following?: Identify a variance that will solve the situation for this year

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
32.4 24.3 2.7 29.7 10.8 37
 
Q59c. If you discover that a producer is not applying an important practice in his or her conservation system during a status review, how often do you do the following?: Inform the producer that he or she is out of compliance and provide appeal rights

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
48.6 14.3 2.9 17.1 17.1 35
 
Q60a. When you see a USDA participant's tract that includes HEL cropland farmed without a conservation system to meet the soil-loss reduction requirements, how often do you do the following?: Notify the participant immediately, either in person or by mail, that the tract may be out of compliance.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
23.5 23.5 0.0 23.5 29.4 34
 
Q60b. When you see a USDA participant's tract that includes HEL cropland farmed without a conservation system to meet the soil-loss reduction requirements, how often do you do the following?: Wait to see if the tract is on this year's status review list.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
20.7 10.3 3.4 13.8 51.7 29
 
Q60c. When you see a USDA participant's tract that includes HEL cropland farmed without a conservation system to meet the soil-loss reduction requirements, how often do you do the following?: Request an FSA-569 from the FSA.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
3.0 6.1 3.0 27.3 60.6 33
 
Q60d. When you see a USDA participant's tract that includes HEL cropland farmed without a conservation system to meet the soil-loss reduction requirements, how often do you do the following?: Notify the person, as time and workload permit.

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
25.7 37.1 2.9 17.1 17.1 35
 
Q61a. If a farmer has a farmed wetland (FW) with an existing hydrologic manipulation, would the farmer be able to do the following?: Expand the manipulation to remove all remaining hydrology and farm the area.

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 31
 
Q61b. If a farmer has a farmed wetland (FW) with an existing hydrologic manipulation, would the farmer be able to do the following?: Maintain the scope and effect of the maintenance performed prior to December 23, 1985, but not exceed that level of drainage.

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
100.0 0.0 32
 
Q61c. If a farmer has a farmed wetland (FW) with an existing hydrologic manipulation, would the farmer be able to do the following?: Convert the area without penalty to the farmer's USDA benefits.

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 31
 
Q62. If a farmer is in violation of conservation compliance provisions on highly erodible land, how likely is it that the NRCS field office will automatically grant either a variance or an exemption to the producer in the first year?

Very likely (percent) Likely (percent) As likely as not (percent) Unlikely (percent) Very unlikely (percent) Number of respondents
11.4 20.0 25.7 20.0 22.9 35
 
Q63. If a farmer is in violation of conservation compliance provisions on highly erodible land, how likely is it that the FSA field office will automatically grant either a variance or an exemption to the producer in the first year?

Very likely (percent) Likely (percent) As likely as not (percent) Unlikely (percent) Very unlikely (percent) Number of respondents
25.0 39.3 21.4 3.6 10.7 28
 
Q64a. You have received an anonymous complaint that a USDA program participant has converted a wetland. On review, you find that the conversion is for nonagricultural use. How likely are you to carry out these options?: Do nothing, as NRCS does not have jurisdiction.

Very likely (percent) Likely (percent) As likely as not (percent) Unlikely (percent) Very unlikely (percent) Number of respondents
20.0 22.9 8.6 20.0 28.6 35
 
Q64b. You have received an anonymous complaint that a USDA program participant has converted a wetland. On review, you find that the conversion is for nonagricultural use. How likely are you to carry out these options?: Notify the EPA or the District Corps of Engineers, as this is a potential Clean Water Act violation.

Very likely (percent) Likely (percent) As likely as not (percent) Unlikely (percent) Very unlikely (percent) Number of respondents
20.0 20.0 17.1 20.0 22.9 35
 
Q64c. You have received an anonymous complaint that a USDA program participant has converted a wetland. On review, you find that the conversion is for nonagricultural use. How likely are you to carry out these options?: Request an FSA-569 from FSA.

Very likely (percent) Likely (percent) As likely as not (percent) Unlikely (percent) Very unlikely (percent) Number of respondents
10.0 6.7 6.7 33.3 43.3 30
 
Q65. Assume that you received the status review list for your county and there are tracts on the list that do not have any wetland determinations. How likely are you to check the tract in the field to assess any potential wetland violations?

Very likely (percent) Likely (percent) As likely as not (percent) Unlikely (percent) Very unlikely (percent) Number of respondents
25.6 25.6 15.4 15.4 17.9 39
 
Q66. Assume from the status review list that there are tracts where no records exist. How likely are you to check with the FSA office to see if the tracts have been reconstituted?

Very likely (percent) Likely (percent) As likely as not (percent) Unlikely (percent) Very unlikely (percent) Number of respondents
82.1 10.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 39
 
Q67a. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: No hindrances.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
17.5 82.5 40
 
Q67b. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Do not want to assume enforcement role.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
33.3 66.7 33
 
Q67c. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Lack of guidance from NRCS.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 33
 
Q67d. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Status reviews are received at an inconvenient time.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
3.0 97.0 33
 
Q67e. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Not a priority with my supervisor.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 33
 
Q67f. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Lack of staff.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
36.4 63.6 33
 
Q67g. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps).

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 33
 
Q67h. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
15.2 84.8 33
 
Q67i. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
3.0 97.0 33
 
Q67j. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National Appeals Division.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
3.0 97.0 33
 
Q67k. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Political influence.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 33
 
Q67l. In your experience, what is the primary hindrance you have in carrying out HELC and WC provisions?: Other.

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
6.1 93.9 33
 
Q68. What other primary hindrance not listed above affects your ability to carry out HELC and WC provisions?

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
21.2 78.8 33
 
Q69a. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Do not want to assume enforcement role

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
11.1 88.9 27
 
Q69b. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Lack of guidance from NRCS

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
3.7 96.3 27
 
Q69c. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Status reviews are received at an inconvenient time

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
3.7 96.3 27
 
Q69d. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Not a priority with my supervisor

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
7.4 92.6 27
 
Q69e. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Lack of staff

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
22.2 77.8 27
 
Q69f. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps)

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 27
 
Q69g. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
18.5 81.5 27
 
Q69h. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
3.7 96.3 27
 
Q69i. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National Appeals Division

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
7.4 92.6 27
 
Q69j. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Political influence

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
14.8 85.2 27
 
Q69k. What is the second greatest hindrance?: Other

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
7.4 92.6 27
 
Q69l. What is the second greatest hindrance?: No other hinderences

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 27
 
Q70. What second greatest hindrance not listed above affects your ability to carry out HELC and WC provisions?

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
14.8 85.2 27
 
Q71a. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Do not want to assume enforcement role

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
26.1 73.9 23
 
Q71b. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Lack of guidance from NRCS

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
4.3 95.7 23
 
Q71c. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Status reviews are received at an inconvenient time

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
4.3 95.7 23
 
Q71d. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Not a priority with my supervisor

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 23
 
Q71e. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Lack of staff

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
17.4 82.6 23
 
Q71f. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Lack of appropriate information (for example, maps)

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
13.0 87.0 23
 
Q71g. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by FSA

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
4.3 95.7 23
 
Q71h. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by NRCS

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 23
 
Q71i. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Adverse status review decision will be overturned by USDA's National Appeals Division

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
13.0 87.0 23
 
Q71j. What is the third greatest hindrance?: Political influence

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 23
 
Q71k. What is the third greatest hindrance?:Other

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
17.4 82.6 23
 
Q71l. What is the third greatest hindrance?: No other hindrances

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 21
 
Q72. What third greatest hindrance not listed above affects your ability to carry out HELC and WC provisions?

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
19.0 81.0 21
 
Q73. If implemented appropriately, how effective are the basic conservation systems in the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) in addressing the requirements for soil erosion reduction?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
33.3 64.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 39
 
Q74. If implemented appropriately, how effective, are the alternative conservation systems in the FOTG in addressing the requirements for soil erosion reduction?

Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
2.8 27.8 30.6 19.4 19.4 36
 
Q75a. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?: Conservation compliance

Needs very great improvement (percent) Needs great improvement (percent) Needs moderate improvement (percent) Needs some improvement (percent) Needs little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 8.3 27.8 25.0 38.9 36
 
Q75b. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?: Sodbuster provisions

Needs very great improvement (percent) Needs great improvement (percent) Needs moderate improvement (percent) Needs some improvement (percent) Needs little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
2.9 8.6 20.0 28.6 40.0 35
 
Q75c. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?: Swampbuster provisions, overall

Needs very great improvement (percent) Needs great improvement (percent) Needs moderate improvement (percent) Needs some improvement (percent) Needs little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
3.0 12.1 15.2 24.2 45.5 33
 
Q75d. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?: Wetland mitigation and minimal effects provisions

Needs very great improvement (percent) Needs great improvement (percent) Needs moderate improvement (percent) Needs some improvement (percent) Needs little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
5.9 14.7 14.7 23.5 41.2 34
 
Q75e. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?: Status reviews provisions

Needs very great improvement (percent) Needs great improvement (percent) Needs moderate improvement (percent) Needs some improvement (percent) Needs little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 2.8 19.4 36.1 41.7 36
 
Q75f. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?: Appeals provisions

Needs very great improvement (percent) Needs great improvement (percent) Needs moderate improvement (percent) Needs some improvement (percent) Needs little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
2.9 14.7 8.8 20.6 52.9 34
 
Q75g. In your opinion, to what extent do the following areas of guidance in the current National Food Security Act Manual (NFSAM) need to be improved?: Other

Needs very great improvement (percent) Needs great improvement (percent) Needs moderate improvement (percent) Needs some improvement (percent) Needs little or no improvement (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1
 
Q76. For those areas needing improvement, please explain below.

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
22.5 77.5 40
 
Q77. From Janury 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001, did your county have any wetlands cases that were mitigated for agricultural purposes under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended?

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
5.0 95.0 40
 
Q78a. When a person is granted a mitigation exemption, how often do you do the following?: Develop a mitigation agreement

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
 
Q78b. When a person is granted a mitigation exemption, how often do you do the following?: Include time limits for implementation in the mitigation agreement, including dates and sequence of activities

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
 
Q78c. When a person is granted a mitigation exemption, how often do you do the following?: Conduct follow-up inspections until all practices are successfully established

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
 
Q79--1997:. About how many cases of agricultural wetland violations in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
1.0 1 1 1 1
 
Q79--1998:. About how many cases of agricultural wetland violations in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q79--1999:. About how many cases of agricultural wetland violations in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q79--2000:. About how many cases of agricultural wetland violations in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
1.0 1 1 1 2
 
Q79--2001:. About how many cases of agricultural wetland violations in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
1.0 1 1 1 1
 
Q80--1997:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
2.0 2 2 2 1
 
Q80--1998:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q80--1999:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q80--2000:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
2.0 2 2 2 1
 
Q80--2001:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through restoration of the wetlands in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
6.0 6 6 6 1
 
Q81--1997:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q81--1998:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q81--1999:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q81--2000:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q81--2001:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q82--1997:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q82--1998:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q82--1999:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q82--2000:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q82--2001:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through enhancement, that is improvement of another wetland, in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q83--1997:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q83--1998:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q83--1999:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q83--2000:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q83--2001:. About how many cases of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
1.0 1 1 1 1
 
Q84--1997:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q84--1998:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q84--1999:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q84--2000:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q84--2001:. About how many acres of wetlands in your county were mitigated through creation of new wetlands in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
6.0 6 6 6 1
 
Q85. From January 1,1996 through December 31, 2001, did your county have any wetlands cases that were granted a minimal effect exemption under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended?

Yes (percent) No (percent) Number of respondents
2.5 97.5 40
 
Q86--1997:. In your county, about how many cases were granted a minimal effect exemption for agricultural purposes in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q86--1998:. In your county, about how many cases were granted a minimal effect exemption for agricultural purposes in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q86--1999:. In your county, about how many cases were granted a minimal effect exemption for agricultural purposes in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q86--2000:. In your county, about how many cases were granted a minimal effect exemption for agricultural purposes in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
3.0 3 3 3 1
 
Q86--2001:. In your county, about how many cases were granted a minimal effect exemption for agricultural purposes in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
1.0 1 1 1 1
 
Q87--1997:. In your county, about how many total acres of wetlands were granted minimal effects exemptions for agricultural purposes in 1997?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q87--1998:. In your county, about how many total acres of wetlands were granted minimal effects exemptions for agricultural purposes in 1998?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q87--1999:. In your county, about how many total acres of wetlands were granted minimal effects exemptions for agricultural purposes in 1999?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
. . . . 0
 
Q87--2000:. In your county, about how many total acres of wetlands were granted minimal effects exemptions for agricultural purposes in 2000?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
1.0 1 1 1 1
 
Q87--2001:. In your county, about how many total acres of wetlands were granted minimal effects exemptions for agricultural purposes in 2001?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
1.0 1 1 1 1
 
Q88a. What is your title?: Soil Technician

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
10.5 89.5 38
 
Q88b. What is your title?: Soil Conservationist

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
5.3 94.7 38
 
Q88c. What is your title?: Natural Resource Conservationist

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 38
 
Q88d. What is your title?: District Conservationist

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
81.6 18.4 38
 
Q88e. What is your title?: Natural Resource Manager

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 38
 
Q88f. What is your title?: Conservation Agronomist

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 38
 
Q88g. What is your title?: Natural Resource Specialist

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 100.0 38
 
Q88h. What is your title?: Other

Checked (percent) Not checked (percent) Number of respondents
2.6 97.4 38
 
Q89. If not listed, what is your title?

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
7.5 92.5 40
 
Q90. How many years have you been conducting conservation compliance status reviews?

Mean Minimum Maximum Median Number of respondents
11.7 3 17 12 40
 
Q91a. Since 1996, how often has your office used contractors or third-party vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance provisions in each of the following areas?: Making determinations of highly erodible land or wetlands

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 97.5 40
 
Q91b. Since 1996, how often has your office used contractors or third-party vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance provisions in each of the following areas?: Developing conservation plans

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 97.5 40
 
Q91c. Since 1996, how often has your office used contractors or third-party vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance provisions in each of the following areas?: Conducting status reviews

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 40
 
Q91d. Since 1996, how often has your office used contractors or third-party vendors regarding the implementation of conservation compliance provisions in each of the following areas?: Other (Please specify)

Always or almost always (percent) Most of the time (percent) About half of the time (percent) Some of the time (percent) Never or almost never (percent) Number of respondents
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5
 
Q93. Please provide below any suggestions or comments you have to improve the way NRCS supports you in performing status reviews and ensuring compliance with highly erodible land and wetland conservation provision requirements.

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
37.5 62.5 40
 
Q94. Please add any comments or suggestions you have about highly erodible land and wetland conservation requirements.

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
40.0 60.0 40
 
Q95. Please add any comments or suggestions you have about this questionnaire.

Wrote comment (percent) No comment (percent) Number of respondents
20.0 80.0 40