Summary of Reports Assessing Conservation Compliance USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Status Reviews Each year, NRCS randomly selects 5 percent of all HEL tracts nationally to conduct a status review. Tracts receiving variances are visited each year, as are tracts referred to NRCS by other agencies or whistle blowers. For each review, an NRCS soil conservationist visits the fields to determine if a developed conservation system is being implemented properly. Erosion rates are estimated, then inadequacies are either reported to agencies administering Federal farm programs or farmers are granted a variance. NRCS provides farmers with specific instructions to bring the tract into compliance. Recent changes in the review process now target HEL that is enrolled in Federal farm programs, and thus subject to compliance. A detailed evaluation of program implementation in several States serves as an internal quality control of program administration. U.S. General Accounting Office (1994) GAO evaluated progress made by NRCS in implementing the Conservation Compliance and Swampbuster programs established in 1985. A previous GAO evaluation (1990) had indicated that NRCS needed to improve the quality of the farmers' conservation plans and improve enforcement activities. GAO examined whether recent NRCS reforms addressing the concerns of the previous evaluations had resulted in improvements in the management and effectiveness of Conservation Compliance and Swampbuster. GAO concluded that while there were positive aspects of the reforms, NRCS still needed to improve its enforcement activities through better managed status reviews and by establishing clearer authority of State and county offices over conservation plans and wetland identifications. GAO also recognized that effective enforcement of conservation plans and swampbuster requires a change in the "culture" of NRCS, a change. that acknowledges NRCS' newer, more regulatory role rather than its traditional role of advising farmers. USDA Office of Inspector General (1995) The Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Conservation Compliance Provisions to determine if producers complied with conservation requirements on HEL and whether the provision was effective in reducing erosion. In the 30 counties audited, OIG found that management practices reduced erosion from 9.5 tons per acre per year (tay) to 5.1 tay. They found that the plans tended to overestimate the rate of erosion associated with the conservation plans. Forty-seven percent of the tracts audited had rates of erosion at or below their soil loss tolerance. OIG concluded that the tolerance level can be achieved on all HEL fields. Despite the low level of erosion, 21 percent of the sampled tracts were not in full compliance. Forty percent of the tracts received a total of $212,000 in government benefits while having an erosion rate in excess of the minimum acceptable level of 7.2 tay. To provide a more accurate picture of the state of erosion control, OIG recommended that NRCS: (1) develop better measures of progress in reducing erosion and include these in the status review; (2) develop measures to evaluate relationships between soil loss levels-before, planned, alternative conservation plans, current-and tolerance; (3) provide more specific guidance to state and local administrators on identifying and treating ephemeral gully erosion, and (4) provide a consistent set of factors in estimating wind and other erosion. U.S. General Accounting Office (1995) GAO evaluated three aspects of Conservation Compliance: implementation flexibility in USDA across different regions of the country, differences in farming practices and the associated cost of compliance, and benefits and drawbacks of the program. Flexibility has been increased by allowing state offices to develop alternative conservation practices to satisfy regional standards for erosion. GAO found that: (1) three quarters of farmer conservation plans specified residue management as the primary control technique; (2) use of reduced tillage increased 30 percent between 1990 and 1994, and (3) no comprehensive data were available on the effect of conservation plans on production costs. A review of studies on compliance costs found mixed results. Factors leading to these mixed results include crop characteristics, soil type, climate, and farming practices. Studies of conservation tillage methods have shown both higher and lower returns to farmers, depending upon yield effects and changes in pesticide applications. GAO identified reduced soil erosion and improved surface water quality as environmental benefits that were potentially offset by increased pesticide and herbicide applications. PROGRAMS 6.5 Wetland Programs Wetlands are important to the Nation's environment. Wetlands Wetland Status and Trends Almost half of U.S. wetland acreage has been converted to other uses since colonial times. Current policy is attempting to balance wetland losses and wetland restoration, with the long-term goal of achieving a net gain in wetlands that would partly reverse the historic decline. Wetland Extent Estimated wetland extent in 1992 was almost 124 million acres in the contiguous 48 States (including an estimated 12 million acres of Federal wetlands), just over half of the wetlands present in 1780 (table 6.5.1). An additional 170 million acres of wetlands exist in Alaska and Hawaii, down slightly from colonial times. Absolute losses of wetlands since 1780 have been greatest in Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Louisiana, ranging from 5 to 10 million acres each. Nine States experienced a 70-percent or greater loss in wetland The greatest loss of wetlands occurred between colonial times and the early decades of this century,. with most occuring since 1885 (Pavelis, 1987). Average annual rates of wetland conversion have generally been falling since the first reliable scientific inventories were taken in the mid-1950's.1 Between 1954 and 1974, the net rate of wetland conversion averaged 457,600 acres per year, with 81 percent of gross wetlands conversion to agricultural uses and 8 percent to urban (table 6.5.2, fig. 6.5.2). Between 1974 and 1983, net wetland conversion dropped to 290,200 acres per year; gross conversions to agricultural use accounted for 53 percent and urban Available data on wetland conversion are from three studies using different statistical sampling techniques on slightly different wetland universes. What is a Wetland? Since 1977, the Federal Government has used a threepart wetland definition involving soils, vegetation, and hydrology. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), wetlands are "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." While the definition of wetlands has not changed over time, the precise guidelines for deciding what land meets that definition, called delineation criteria, have been controversial because of conflicts between landowners who want to use and develop wetland areas and environmentalists who want to preserve them. After interagency attempts to develop a manual for delineating wetlands in 1979, 1987, 1989, and 1991, a National Research Council committee was convened in 1994. Its report rejected the idea that all three indicators (soil, water, and vegetation) must be present and defended the use of one or two of the indicators to infer the presence of the third (NRC, 1995). It urged development of regional standards and protocols for delineation that recognize the diversity of wetlands and stressed the need for functional assessment in regulatory delineation. Field tests of the latest manuals indicated that 30 to 80 percent of wetlands delineated in the 1989 manual would be excluded by the 1991 manual. Field evaluations in the fall of 1995 indicated that wetlands would be reduced 60 to 75 percent if proposed congressional revisions to wetland delineation are enacted. (74) (9) (113) (2) Ranked in order of absolute loss. 2Based on estimates by Dahl, 1990. 3Based on 1992 National Resources Inventory estimates totaling 111.4 million wetland acres on nonfederal land in the 48 States, adjusted upward to include an estimated 12.5 million acres of wetlands in Federal ownership derived from the locations of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Status and Trends Analysis samples. Estimates for Hawaii are 1992 NRI and estimated Federal wetlands. Alaskan estimate is for 1980 from Dahl, 1990. Wetland gains in eight States may be due to low estimates of 1780's wetland extent or real wetland gains since 1780. Source: USDA, ERS estimates based on Dahl, 1990 and 1992 National Resources Inventory data (see footnotes). uses for 3 percent (38 percent converted to other uses was cleared and drained, possibly intended for agricultural use). Between 1982 and 1992, the net rate of wetland conversion further dropped to 79,300 acres per year, with agriculture accounting for only 20 percent of gross wetland conversions and urban uses for 57 percent. Over half of all wetland losses between 1982 and 1992 were from forested wetlands or wetlands on forest land. Conversion back to wetlands has increased from 1 acre for every 3 lost in 1954-74 to 1 acre for every 2 in 1982-92. Deepwater (permanently flooded lands) provided two-thirds of wetland gains in 1982-92 and former agricultural land provided 10 percent. In addition to abandonment, natural reversion, and 1 Combined agriculture, urban development, and other. Separate data not available. Table 6.5.2-Average annual wetland conversion, contiguous States, 1954 to 1992 na = not available. * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Status and Trends Analysis, mid-1950's to mid-1970's and mid-1970's to mid1980's. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii. 2 Soil Conservation Service, USDA, National Resources Inventories, 1982 and 1992. Includes only nonfederal land. Excludes Alaska; includes Hawaii and Caribbean. Wetlands exclude deepwater habitats. Includes agriculture, urban development, and other. Separate estimates not available. Conversion of wetland to nonwetland uses, plus increases in wetlands due to restoration, abandonment, and flooding. Excludes change to or from Federal ownership. Source: USDA, ERS compilation of available data, see footnotes. |