Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands
GAO-03-418
Published: Apr 21, 2003. Publicly Released: May 21, 2003.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
Annually, over a billion tons of soil erodes from the nation's cropland, and thousands of other acres, including wetlands, are converted to new cropland. Soil erosion reduces the land's productivity and impairs water quality; drained wetlands reduce flood control. Under the 1985 Food Security Act, farmers risk losing federal farm payments if they do not apply conservation practices to reduce erosion or if they drain wetlands. Concerns about soil erosion and wetlands conversions continue, however, as do concerns about the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service's implementation of these provisions. GAO reviewed field offices' and headquarters' implementation and enforcement of the 1985 act's conservation compliance provisions.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Agriculture | To improve USDA's implementation of the conservation compliance provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and to better protect the highly erodible croplands and wetlands covered by those provisions, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to increase oversight of field offices' conduct of compliance reviews to improve the accuracy and completeness of the reviews. | In 2003, NRCS implemented a national, Web-based compliance review system to monitor field offices' progress in completing reviews. In 2004, NRCS revised its National Food Security Act Manual to ensure that its compliance review guidance is consistent with statutory and regulatory provisions. This manual is used by NRCS's field office staff to guide their work. NRCS also plans to issue a new edition of this manual after farm bill reauthorization that will update guidance on wetlands compliance reviews. NRCS state and county officials in five states that we contacted in 2006 said the Web-based system and revised manual have significantly improved oversight. For example, several noted that... the Web-based system has (1) helped organize reviews by standardizing data entry and (2) allowed state managers to better monitor the progress of reviews done by county officials. However, NRCS officials in two states said that they do not randomly select field office compliance reviews for quality assurance checks, as required by NRCS guidance, primarily because of conflicting work and limited staff resources. In this regard, according to a 2006 report to OMB addressing NRCS's implementation of GAO's recommendations, NRCS said it plans to develop a more comprehensive quality assurance system in the future. The actions taken are responsive to GAO's recommendation. The additional actions planned would achieve further improvements in the accuracy and completeness of field offices' compliance reviews.
View More |
| Department of Agriculture | To improve USDA's implementation of the conservation compliance provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and to better protect the highly erodible croplands and wetlands covered by those provisions, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of NRCS to periodically provide training for field office staff on how compliance reviews should be conducted. |
NRCS incorporated training on the conduct of conservation compliance reviews in national workshops it held in 2004 and 2005. These workshops were attended by the agency's state office managers. These managers then provided this training to their county office staff. NRCS officials also provided further training to state and county officials in some states, when requested. To verify that NRCS took these actions, in 2006 we reviewed NRCS training documents and interviewed headquarters, state, and county officials. In general, these officials said the periodic training has been very helpful. The actions taken are responsive to GAO's recommendation.
|
| Department of Agriculture | To improve USDA's implementation of the conservation compliance provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and to better protect the highly erodible croplands and wetlands covered by those provisions, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of NRCS to develop a more representative sample of tracts selected for compliance reviews that excludes land that is not subject to the compliance provisions. | NRCS has taken steps in cooperation with USDA's Farm Service Agency to minimize the number of tracts selected that are not subject to the compliance provisions. In 2004, NRCS increased the national sample size from about 13,000 to over 17,000 tracts and revised its National Food Security Act Manual to provide field office staff guidance on replacing tracts not subject to the compliance provisions. In 2005, 20.7 percent of randomly selected tracts were determined to be invalid and replaced. Furthermore, in 2006, NRCS and FSA initiated a pilot project in six states to eliminate the selection of invalid tracts, and the agencies planned to extend this pilot to all states in 2007. To verify...
|
| Department of Agriculture | To improve USDA's implementation of the conservation compliance provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and to better protect the highly erodible croplands and wetlands covered by those provisions, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of NRCS to establish and maintain a consistent methodology for collecting, analyzing, and summarizing data to identify patterns and trends in enforcement across regions and states and over time. | In 2003, NRCS implemented a Web-based compliance review system, which allows headquarters and state office personnel to review compliance data submitted by county offices. In addition, NRCS's Operations Management and Oversight Division analyzed and reported on 2003, 2004, and 2005 compliance review results. These reports discuss apparent anomalies and propose recommendations to make compliance reviews more consistent with NRCS policy. For example, the 2003 report stated that 31 percent of the tracts receiving waivers in 2002 were not reviewed for compliance in 2003, as they should have been. The report recommended that NRCS correct this problem. In response, NRCS put a change in its...
|
| Department of Agriculture | To improve USDA's implementation of the conservation compliance provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and to better protect the highly erodible croplands and wetlands covered by those provisions, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of NRCS to develop a nationwide, automated system, such as a web-based system, for efficiently managing information needed to conduct compliance reviews and report results. | NRCS developed and implemented a Web-based compliance review system and reengineered its compliance review process to (1) achieve a more timely distribution of information on the tracts selected for compliance reviews and (2) provide an efficient, user-friendly means for field offices to report, and NRCS headquarters to review, the status and results of these reviews. For example, information on tracts randomly selected for review is now provided to state offices in January to facilitate the conduct of compliance reviews during the critical erosion period in the early spring. To verify that NRCS took these actions, in 2006 we reviewed NRCS documents and interviewed headquarters, state,...
|
| Department of Agriculture | In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency to ensure that decisions by the Farm Service Agency's field offices to waive NRCS's findings of noncompliance are justified and documented. | FSA issued a notice in November 2005 to its state and county offices emphasizing the agency's procedure that must be followed when granting faith waivers of violations. The notice reminds FSA staff that the Food Security Act permits a waiver only if the farmer acted in "good faith" and without intent to violate the conservation compliance provisions, and that decisions to waive violations must be adequately documented. Almost all FSA field staff in five states that we contacted in 2006 were familiar with this notice. Further, several said that the notice caused them to be more attentive to FSA procedures concerning good faith waivers. However, our work in 2006 also showed that (1) 14 of...
|
Full Report
Public Inquiries
Topics
Conservation complianceConservation practicesEnvironmental monitoringFloodsInternal controlsLand managementNatural resource managementNatural resourcesSoil conservationSoil erosionWetlands