A Resources Conservation Act Report

Interim Appraisal and 

Analysis of Conservation 

Alternatives

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Natural

Resources

Conservation

Service

N R C S
September 2001

This report is a publication of the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS). As the Department of Agriculture’s lead conservation

agency, NRCS works in partnership with the American people to conserve

and sustain natural re s o u rces on private lands. 

This report is available on the Internet at www.nhq.nrc s . u s d a . g o v /

l a n d / p u b s / rc a _ i n t e r i m . h t m l
U S D A / N R C S

A Resources Conservation Act Report

Interim Ap p raisal 

and A n a lysis of

C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s
i

C o n t e n t s

O v e r v i e w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i i

I . People and Re s o u rc e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

The human element — agriculture’s number one re s o u rc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Changing social and economic conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Conservation partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

USDA Conservation Pro g r a m s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

I I . The Current Landscap e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6

The soil re s o u rc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6

The water re s o u rce — quality issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3

The water re s o u rce — quantity issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 8

Air quality issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3

Climate change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5

Sprawl, land use and planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 8

We t l a n d s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1

Grazing lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5

Private fore s t l a n d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 7

Wildlife habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 0

I I I . I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5

1. Enhance USDA technical assistance and service delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 6

2. Improve research, development of technology 

and technology transfer..........................................................................59

3. Expand economic incentives for conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 2

I V. A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5

Analysis of altern a t i v e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5

D i s c u s s i o n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 8

C o n c l u s i o n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6

Appendix A: Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A - 1

Appendix B: Public perceptions of conservation policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B - 1

Appendix C: Analysis of altern a t i v e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C - 1

Appendix D: Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D - 1
ii

O ve rv i ew

Partnerships with state, local and tribal governments, conservation districts and landowners form the core of USDA’s conservation programs. The Department’s expert technical assistance, available to landowners who request help, is the basis for

p rogram successes. Economic incentives for conservation practices also play a vital role in the conservation pro g r a m s .

In 1977, Congress passed Public

Law 95-192, the Soil and Wa t e r

R e s o u rces Conservation Act, which

a d d ressed the importance of conserving soil and water re s o u rces on private and other non-federal lands. The

Act directed the U.S. Department of

A g r i c u l t u re (USDA) to develop a

national soil and water conservation

p rogram and to periodically assess

the condition of the nation’s soil,

water and other natural re s o u rces. 

Since then, USDA has issued several reports that assess the condition of

and trends in soil, water and re l a t e d

re s o u rces. The results guide the

department’s soil and water conservation priorities and have been the

basis for improvements in the

nation’s overall conservation efforts. 

In 1982, responding to extensive

public comments that stro n g l y

f a v o red linking USDA benefits with

conservation goals, the Department

i n t roduced the concept of cross compliance in the national conservation

p rogram. Congress subsequently

incorporated cross-compliance pro v isions for highly erodible lands and

for wetlands in the 1985 farm bill.

In 1989, the program update

focused on critical resource problems and on the need to strengthen

conservation partnerships.

Conservation priorities included

reducing the damage caused by

excessive soil erosion on rural lands

and protecting the quality of surface

and ground water against harmful

contamination from non-point

sources. Conservation provisions in

the farm bills of 1990 and 1996 incorporated many of these priorities.

This report, “A Resourc e s

Conservation Act Report: Interim

Appraisal and Analysis of Conservation Alternatives,” describes conditions and trends in soil, water and

other environmental re s o u rces based

on the most recent work of USDA’s

National Resources Inventory, Census

of Agriculture and other reliable gove rnment and non-govern m e n t

s o u rces. It discusses conservation

needs identified by USDA, conservation partners and numerous land

users through discussions at public

hearings and other forums and during deliberations over proposed legislation and policy. 

The report identifies technical assistance and financial incentives to

accomplish diff e rent re s o u rce conservation objectives based on analysis of

possible conservation initiatives. The

initiatives include reducing erosion on

all cropland, implementing a cro p l a n d

s t e w a rdship proposal, accomplishing

two million miles of buffers for the

nation’s waterways, enrolling 250,000

additional acres per year in the

Wetlands Reserve Program, investing

$65 million per year in the Farm l a n d

P rotection Program and expanding

the Conservation Reserve Program to

45 million acres. Overall results indicate that there are significant opportunities to improve soil, water and other

e n v i ronmental conditions into the

f u t u re .
1

The human element

— agr i c u l t u re ’s 

number one re s o u rce 

The United States produces the

safest, healthiest, most abundant and

least costly food and fiber pro d u c t s

on Earth. Consequently, the nation

has the capacity to feed not only its

own people but also millions of others. Given the pivotal role of the

United States in a world where conc e rns about food supplies and development of natural re s o u rces are

becoming increasingly prominent, it

is in the country’s national security

and economic interests to maintain a

s t rong, dynamic agricultural sector.

Central to a healthy agricultural

system are the nation’s millions of

land users, many of whom work the

land through family-owned or familyheld corporations and partnerships

( F i g u re 1 and Table 1). These farmers, ranchers and other landowners

a re backed by state and federal foodsafety regulations and food-health

inspection systems in their efforts to

p roduce safe and healthy food and

fiber products. And they know best

that their success depends on the

condition and quality of the land’s

soil and water re s o u rces. Their active

cooperation is essential to conserve

high-quality land and water re s o u rc e s

that, in turn, are key to healthy urban

and rural communities and viable

wildlife habitat as well as many other

e n v i ronmental values. 

People and Re s o u rc e s

LAND FACTS

Almost 1.5 billion 

acres (about 76

percent) of land in this

country outside A l a s k a

are owned by private

individuals and 

state, local and tribal

governments. 

Most of that amount 

is “working land” —

cropland, pastures,

rangeland and 

private forest tracts.

See Appendix A for more land facts.

FIGURE 1.

Pe rcent of U. S.

land ow n e rs h i p

H ow the land is used

*Millions of A c r e s *

Keeping land, water

and air resources

healthy is one of

the greatest

c o n s e r v a t i o n

challenges facing

this nation in the

foreseeable future.

Federal

Federal

Developed

Other

Forestland

Rangeland

Pasture land

CRP**

Cropland

State, local,

tribal and

other Private

70%

402.1

98.3

407.0 406.0

120.0

377.0

9%

21%

*Non-federal Land: 1,491.1 million acres,

including conterminous United States,

Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.

**Conservation Reserve Program Land

Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation

Service 1997 National Resources Inventory

Revised December 2000
2

People and Re s o u rc e s

Changing social and

economic conditions

The total amount of land in farm s ,

which peaked at about 1.2 billion

a c res in 1950, declined to a little

m o re than 930 million acres in 1997

(Appendix A; Note: in this discussion,

“ f a rms” includes ranches). But the

amount of land on U.S. farms used

for crops has remained about the

same since the 1920s.

The number of farms in the United

States has steadily dropped over the

years, from 6.5 million in the 1920s

to less than two million in 1997. The

average size of farms increased fro m

about 300 acres in 1959 to appro x i-

mately 470 acres today. 

Most — more than 99 percent —

of all U.S. farms remain as familyowned, family-held corporations or

family partnerships. Non-family corporations own only 0.05 percent of

this country’s farms. 

Economic forces have played a

lead role in the declining number of

f a rms. The nation’s overall farm balance sheet looks deceptively stro n g

because of non-cash assets and ongoing or emergency federal payments.

But these factors mask the true financial difficulties faced by many agricultural operations. According to the

National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS), the ratio of prices that farmers receive for their crops today comp a red to what they spend on pro d u ction is 40 percent of what it averaged

between 1910 and 1914.

USDA statistics indicate that the

average farm household income in

2000 was $64,658, slightly higher

than non-farm household income.

Only $4,600 of that income came

f rom on-farm activities, however. The

average net income from farming on

small farms is actually negative. It is

n o n - f a rm income that brings the 

total farm family income to near

community averages. 

M o re than half of U.S. farm s ,

accounting for just 14 percent of all

f a rmland, average less than $10,000

in sales a year. About 23 percent of

all farms, accounting for half of farm

a c reage, have sales between $50,000

and $500,000 a year, but the number

of these middle-sized farms is dro pping. The 70,000 farms with sales of

m o re than $500,000 a year account

for 56 percent of total farm sales.

One of the most important social

factors currently influencing tradi-

tional uses of land and water resources, including farming, ranch

-

ing, forestry, wildlife habitat and

drinking and irrigation water, is the

conversion of land for housing and

commercial development. 

Between 1960 and 1990, metro p o l i-

t a n - a rea populations grew by 50 percent, while the amount of developed

land for housing and commerc i a l

enterprises rose 100 percent. The

National Home Builders Association

f o recasts an expansion of 1.3 to 1.5

million new homes per year thro u g h

2010. If current trends continue, these

will be larger homes on larger lots

located further from the central cities

(HUD 2000). 

M e t ropolitan expansion has spilled

over onto adjacent lands to such an

extent that populations in suburban

counties are growing much more

rapidly than in core cities. This pattern

may prove especially hazardous to the

best farmland. Roughly 50 million
3

People and Re s o u rc e s

a c res — or one-fifth — of prime cro pland are within 50 miles of the 100

l a rgest U.S. cities. 

As urban and suburban populations increase and metro p o l i t a n

a reas continue to encroach on the

s u r rounding countryside, financially strapped farmers, owners of private forest tracts and other

landowners may well be enticed

by attractive prices that developers

o ffer for the land. 

TABLE 1.

To d ay ’s fa rm e rs and ra n ch e rs

1 9 8 7 1 9 9 7 % change

Full-time farmers and ranchers (no off-farm employment) 8 4 4 , 4 7 6 7 5 5 , 2 5 4 - 1 0 . 6

Farmers and ranchers who work off farm 200 days or more a year 7 3 7 , 2 0 6 7 0 9 , 2 7 9 - 3 . 8

Average age of all farmers and ranchers 5 2 5 4 + 3 . 8

Operators under 25 years old 3 5 , 8 5 1 2 0 , 8 5 0 - 4 1 . 8

Operators 25 to 34 years old 2 4 2 , 6 8 8 1 2 8 , 4 5 5 - 4 7 . 1

F e m a l e 1 3 1 , 6 4 1 1 6 5 , 1 0 2 + 25.4 

African A m e r i c a n 2 2 , 9 5 4 1 8 , 4 5 1 - 1 9 . 6

American Indian 7 , 1 3 4 1 0 , 6 3 8 + 4 9 . 1

S p a n i s h / H i s p a n i c / L a t i n o 1 7 , 4 7 6 2 7 , 7 1 7 + 5 8 . 6

Asian or Pacific Island 7 , 9 0 0 8 , 7 3 1 + 1 0 . 5

Adapted from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (NASS 1998)

Farming and ranching continue to be difficult industries for young people to enter because of high capital expenditures for land, the cost of production and initial outlays

for equipment. To d a y, there are fewer people farming and ranching who are less than 35 years old than at any time in the history of U.S. agriculture. The average age of

farmers and ranchers, currently 54, keeps rising. The number of part-time farmers and ranchers is also increasing. 

In recent years, the number of women who operate farms and ranches continued to rise. The number of African American farmers and ranchers decreased, while the

number of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino, Asian-American and American Indian farmers and ranchers increased. 
4

People and Re s o u rc e s

C o n s e rvat i o n

p a rt n e rs h i p s

Urban sprawl, erratic prices for

c rops, the ups and downs in intern ational trade — all and more contribute to the decisions that farm e r s ,

ranchers and forestland owners must

make every day. 

They do not have to

make those decisions

alone. Motivated during

the Great Depression and

Dust Bowl years, individual landowners have

joined local, state and tribal officials and the federal

g o v e rnment in forg i n g

partnerships to impro v e

the quality of the land’s

soil and water re s o u rces. 

Locally selected and

g o v e rned soil and water

conservation districts are

central to the partnerships. For six decades,

the districts have served

as the fundamental link

among state and federal

agencies and landowners. Agreements between the conservation districts and USDA and gove rn m e n t - t o - g o v e rnment agre e m e n t s

with tribes spell out the re s p o n s i b i l ities of the partners.

Since the inception of the conservation districts, USDA and the conservation partners have built a solid

base of conservation programs and

technical expertise in soil, water and

other environmental issues. In many

a reas, the partnerships include state

and local natural re s o u rce agencies,

watershed associations, enviro n m e ntal organizations and communities.

The programs and technical assistance developed and delivere d

t h rough the partnerships incorporate

a voluntary, incentive-based

a p p roach that is designed to minimize burdens on landowners and

maximize conservation of natural

re s o u rces. 

To g e t h e r, landowners, local and

state advisors and USDA’s technical

specialists conduct risk management

assessments and tailor conservation

p rograms suited to each individual’s

needs through “whole-farm” management that takes into account the larger environment where the farms and

ranches are located. Emphasis on

w h o l e - f a rm management is based on

the belief that the benefits of sound

land stewardship flow beyond the

p roperty lines of farms, ranches and

private forest tracts. What is good for

soil and water on the nation’s working lands is also good for the land

Locally led conservation efforts

emphasize the importance of

local communities and

landowners in identifying and

addressing natural resource

needs and opportunities.

One size does not fit all 

On each farm, ranch or forest tract, technical assistance from conservation partnerships focuses on the best mix

of a wide range of solutions. The site-specific solutions might include reduced tillage and efficient irrigation practices, efficient use of nutrients, effective crop and grazing rotations, placement of land in easement and reserve programs and planting of vegetated windbreaks or grassed buffers along waterways. 

Economic incentives, including cost-share initiatives and financial assistance, play a vital role in the conservation

p rograms, as does expert technical assistance.
5

People and Re s o u rc e s

u s e r, and it usually translates into

cleaner water and air for nearby

communities and wildlife habitat.

As the industrial base of agriculture

changes, emerging issues face the

conservation partnerships. The

A g r i c u l t u re Fact Book (USDA 1997)

indicates that many farms are turn i n g

into large-scale, high-tech, specialized

businesses, at least partly because of

the rising influence of farm - m a n a g ement firms and corporate contracts

for farm products (especially in the

livestock industry). 

This trend is important to conservation of natural re s o u rces, and it is

altering the relationships among

f a rmers and conservation planners

in the field. The challenge is to

devise sound land and water conservation strategies that serve an

i n c reasingly complicated mix of

l a rger high-tech operations, traditional low-tech and part-time farmers, the growing number of female

and minority farmers and other land

users across the nation.

Pa rt n e rships at wo rk : S t u a rt Fa rm

Stuart Farm in Stratham, New Hampshire, sits on the banks of the

Squamscott River, which is a major tributary of the Great Bay Estuary.

The long history of this farm, now a working dairy, earned the site a

place on the National Register of Historic Places, but it is also known

for the willingness of its owners to experiment with and practice new

conservation tactics. 

In the 1970s, Stuart Farm, state partners and the local conservation

district completed a shrub planting on the farm to benefit the wild

turkey. Now the mature stand is a major draw for hunters and 

photographers. 

In the 1980s, Stuart Farm was one of the first farms in New

H a m p s h i re to establish a rotational grazing system, again in cooperation with partners, and thus provided a tangible example of the benefits of sustainable farm i n g .

In 1994, a partnership consisting of Stuart Farm, federal and state

agencies and Ducks Unlimited pooled re s o u rces to re s t o re ten acres of

s e v e rely degraded salt marsh. An old tide gate that had completely

choked tidal flow to the marsh was removed and a culvert installed to

re i n t roduce tidal flushing. The tidal flow was re s t o red, and within the

first year invasive species such as phragmites, purple loosestrife and

n a r row-leaf cattail were eradicated. Feeder fish and commercial fish

species such as herring have re t u rned to the tidal creeks. The success

of this pilot effort resulted in expansion to 500 additional acre s .
6

U S DA conservat i o n

p rogra m s

USDA maintains a number of programs to address conservation and

e n v i ronmental needs that are identified by private landowners, state and

local governments, conservation districts, tribes and other federal agencies. The programs include technical

assistance, financial incentives and re s e a rch and educational services.

P rogram delivery is accomplished, as

described above, through partnerships with state and local governments and conservation districts and

g o v e rn m e n t - t o - g o v e rnment agre e-

ments with tribes.

The principle agency for delivery

of direct conservation technical assistance is the Natural Resourc e s

Conservation Service (NRCS). Major

p rograms for financial assistance

include the Conservation Reserve

P rogram of the Farm Services Agency

and NRCS’s Environmental Quality

Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve

P rogram, Wildlife Habitat Incentives

P rogram and Farmland Pro t e c t i o n

P ro g r a m .

Essential to success of conservation

p rogram delivery are USDA’s re s e a rch, educational, re s o u rce information and technology development

p rograms. NRCS and the department’s Agricultural Research Service,

Economic Research Service, Fore s t

Service and Cooperative State

R e s e a rch, Education and Extension

Service carry out these programs. 

Recent USDA expenditures for

major conservation programs are

summarized in Figure 2 on page 7

and Table 2 on pages 14 and 15. The

following descriptions highlight some

of the principal USDA technical and

financial assistance programs devoted

to conservation and enviro n m e n t a l

c o n c e rns. 

C o n s e rvation Te ch n i c a l

Assistance Program (CTA )

The primary purpose of

Conservation Technical Assistance is

to assist land users, communities,

units of state and local govern m e n t s ,

tribes and other federal agencies in

planning and implementing conservation systems to reduce ero s i o n ,

i m p rove soil and water quality, conserve wetlands, enhance fish and

wildlife habitat, improve air quality

and pasture and range conditions,

reduce upstream flooding and

i m p rove woodlands. 

C TA is USDA’s largest single technical assistance program. Since 1935,

NRCS has provided private landowners and local communities with

essential direct technical assistance to

help solve soil erosion and re l a t e d

natural re s o u rce conservation pro b-

lems through conservation districts

under Mutual Agreements signed by

the Secretary of Agriculture, state

g o v e rnors and conservation districts

and govern m e n t - t o - g o v e rn m e n t

a g reements with tribes. 

Assistance is available to land users

who voluntarily apply conservation

practices and to those who ask for

technical assistance to help them

comply with local, state or federal

laws and re g u l a t i o n s .

To develop effective conservation

systems at the local level for soil,

water and related re s o u rce pro b l e m s ,

the CTA delivery system is founded

on science-based technology.

People and Re s o u rc e s
7

People and Re s o u rc e s

Employees are trained through form a l

and on-the-job training, technical

guides, manuals and handbooks to

better assist land users.

A p p roximately 8,000 technical

employees from engineering,

re s o u rce economics, agronomy, animal husbandry and soils and plant

science backgrounds provide conservation technical assistance to about

one million private landowners and

communities every year.

E nv i ronmental Quality

I n c e n t ives Program (EQIP)

The Environmental Quality

Incentives Program is a voluntary

conservation program for farmers and

ranchers who face serious threats to

soil, water and related natural

re s o u rces. EQIP provides technical,

financial and educational assistance

in priority areas where significant natural re s o u rce problems exist. In general, priority areas are defined as

watersheds, regions or areas of 

FIGURE 2.

Major USDA conservation ex p e n d i t u re s, 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0

Funding for technical assistance, financial assistance, land reserves, state and local governments

In the early 1940s, federal investments in financial and technical assistance to agriculture topped $6 billion (constant year 2000 $).

Combined financial and technical assistance along with land reserve incentives totaled $3.5 billion in 2000. 

The National Association of Conservation Districts (2001a) reports that state and local funding for conservation on private lands grew from

almost nothing in the 1930s and 1940s to more than $1.3 billion in 2000 and that private sector contributions now exceed $1 billion.

Fiscal Year

7,000,000,000

6,000,000,000

5,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

3,000,000,000

2,000,000,000

1,000,000,000

0

Technical 

assistance

Financial 

assistance

Land reserve

State and local

expenditures
8

People and Re s o u rc e s

special environmental sensitivity or

w h e re significant soil, water or re l a ted natural re s o u rce concerns exist.

These concerns could include soil

e rosion, water quality and quantity,

wildlife habitat, wetlands, fore s t l a n d

and grazing lands. 

EQIP is implemented through a

locally led process involving State

Technical Committees and local

working groups that direct the program to meet the most serious

re s o u rce concerns. 

EQIP offers 5- to 10-year contracts

that provide incentive payments and

cost sharing for conservation practices called for in site-specific conservation plans. Landowners develop

the plans in cooperation with local

conservation districts and NRCS. The

plans specify the manner in which

the planned conservation systems

will be implemented, operated and

maintained on enrolled acre s .

Applications for participation in

EQIP are ranked according to the

e n v i ronmental benefits achieved

weighted against

the costs of

applying the practices. Plans to

t reat priority

re s o u rce concern s

at a sustainable

level receive higher rankings. To t a l

c o s t - s h a re and

incentive payments are limited

to $10,000 per person per year and

$50,000 for the length of the contract.

Contracts average about $7,500.

Since EQIP began, agricultural

p roducers have entered into 82,200

EQIP contracts totaling appro x imately $613,336,000. At least 50

p e rcent of these funds will targ e t

natural re s o u rce concerns related to

livestock. The remaining balance

focuses on irrigation water management and efforts to reduce soil erosion, improve water quality and

enhance wildlife. In addition,

a p p roximately $19 million has been

expended on activities to educate

f a rmers about the need for installation and management of conservation practices.

C o n s e rvation Re s e rve

P rogram (CRP)

C o n g ress initiated the Conservation

Reserve Program in Title XII of the

Food Security Act of 1985. The Food,

A g r i c u l t u re, Conservation and Tr a d e

Act of 1990 extended the program as

did the Federal Agriculture

I m p rovement and Reform Act of

1996. CRP is a voluntary cro p l a n d

re t i rement program administered by

the Farm Services Agency with a current maximum enrollment of 36.4

million acres. 

CRP is USDA’s single largest conservation financial assistance program. It provides farmers an annual

rental payment on land enro l l e d

t h rough 10- to 15-year contracts. The

e n rolled land is placed in perm a n e n t

c o v e r, and parcels are selected based

on the magnitude of the likely environmental gain relative to rental payments. Environmental gains fro m

e n rollment in CRP include wildlife

habitat improvements, impro v e d

water and air quality and soil productivity and carbon sequestration.

Strip cropping in Wisconsin.
9

People and Re s o u rc e s

C o n s e rvation Re s e rve

Enhancement Progra m

( C R E P )

The Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program was authorized in the Federal Agriculture

I m p rovement and Reform Act of

1996. It is operated by the Farm

Services Agency through a state-federal conservation program. CREP

a d d resses specific state and nationally

significant water quality, soil ero s i o n

and wildlife habitat issues related to

a g r i c u l t u re. The program offers financial incentives beyond those in CRP

to encourage farmers and ranchers to

e n roll in 10- to 15-year contracts to

re t i re land from pro d u c t i o n .

C u r rently, 15 states — Californ i a ,

D e l a w a re, Illinois, Maryland,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New

York, North Carolina, North Dakota,

Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vi rg i n i a

and Washington — participate in

C R E P. Arkansas, Iowa and Kentucky

a re expected to establish programs in

2001. Seven other states have submitted proposals for participation.

Fa rmland Pro t e c t i o n

P rogram (FPP)

The Farmland Protection Pro g r a m

is a voluntary effort that helps farmers keep their land in agriculture. The

p rogram provides matching funds to

state, local and tribal govern m e n t s

with existing farmland pro t e c t i o n

p rograms to purchase conservation

easements. The statutory goal of the

p rogram is to protect between

170,000 and 340,000 acres of farmland. 

As of April 2001, 63,710 acres of

mostly prime, unique, statewide or

locally important farmland on the

urban fringe have been perm a n e n t l y

p rotected from conversion to nonagricultural uses, with more acres to

be protected pending closure of additional easements.

Since FPP’s inception in 1996, 19

states have received more than $33.5

million in FPP financial assistance.

Remaining funds have supported

technical assistance for landowners to

p rocess easements and develop and

implement conservation plans. To

date, FPP conservation easements

have been granted on appro x i m a t e l y

367 farms, with an estimated easement value of $126.5 million (average

cost per acre — $1821). For every

federal dollar, an additional $3 has

been contributed by participating

state and local governmental entities. 

Any local or state agency, county or

g roup of counties, municipality, town

or township, soil and water conservation district or American Indian tribe or

tribal organization that has farm l a n d

p rotection programs to purchase conservation easements for the purpose of

limiting conversion to nonagricultural

uses can participate. To be competitive, applicants must have pending

o ffers with willing landowners.

Individual landowners apply to the

state, tribal or local government programs to participate in FPP. To date, all

a c q u i red easements and proposals for

acquisition are in perpetuity.

Cooperating entities process the

easement acquisition and hold and

manage the acquired easements. The

federal share for any easement acquisition is limited to the maximum of

50 percent of the purchased easement price, not to exceed the fair
10

People and Re s o u rc e s

market value. A contingent re m a i n d e r

right must be incorporated in each

easement deed to protect the federal

i n v e s t m e n t .

C u r rent demand for the pro g r a m

far exceeds available funds, by nearly

a 7:1 ratio.

Wi l d l i fe Hab i t at Incentive s

P rogram (WHIP)

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives

P rogram was initially authorized in

1996 and first funded in 1998. It is a

voluntary program that consists of

technical and financial assistance to

eligible participants for creating or

maintaining habitat for upland and

wetland wildlife, threatened and

e n d a n g e red species, fish and other

wildlife species in an enviro n m e n t a l l y

beneficial and cost-effective manner.

The purpose is to create high-quality

wildlife habitats that support wildlife

populations of local, state and national significance. The goals of WHIP

relate to the overall USDA goal of

achieving healthy and pro d u c t i v e

l a n d s .

WHIP emphasizes wildlife and fishery habitats that are identified by

local and state partners in each state,

habitats and wildlife species that are

experiencing declining or significantly

reduced populations and conservation practices that are beneficial to

fish and wildlife and that may not

otherwise be funded.

Any practice that NRCS determ i n e s

is necessary to create important habitat for a target species is eligible.

Priorities are established at the state

level. Examples of practices authorized under WHIP are native grassland restoration and management,

management of field-edge habitat for

wildlife, restoration of riparian are a s

and establishment of aquatic habitat.

C o s t - s h a re payments pay eligible

participants up to 75 percent of the

cost of installing conservation practices. Conservation districts, NRCS

and other partners provide technical

assistance. Wildlife Habitat

Development plans are pre p a red to

identify the cost-share practices that

will be installed as well as the operation and maintenance re q u i re m e n t s

for the life of the agreements, which

last from 5 to 10 years.

When WHIP was first established,

state estimates of need exceeded the

available funds almost four to one.

Demand is expected to increase as

the program becomes more bro a d l y

k n o w n .

Fo re s t ry Incentive s

P rogram (FIP) 

The Forestry Incentives Program is

a voluntary program that pro v i d e s

technical and financial assistance to

landowners in their efforts to accomplish tree planting, timber stand

i m p rovements and other related practices on non-industrial private fore s tlands. The purpose is to increase the

p roduction of sawtimber and pulpwood while simultaneously ensuring

e ffective management of natural

re s o u rc e s .

C u r rently, state foresters pro v i d e

technical assistance. They are supported by FIP funds allocated to the

U.S. Forest Service by NRCS. The

state foresters are responsible for the

technical phase of planning and

installing practices. Tree planting, forest stand improvement and site
11

People and Re s o u rc e s

p reparation for natural re g e n e r a t i o n

can be funded through cost sharing

up to 65 percent of the cost. The

maximum payment is $10,000 per

landowner in a given fiscal year. 

FIP outlays were $10.2 million in

fiscal year 1989, serving 5,048 program participants. In fiscal year 1998,

the corresponding numbers were

$6.1 million and 3,863 participants. In

fiscal year 1998, requests from acro s s

the country for FIP funds exceeded

the actual allocated amount by 300

p e rc e n t .

Fo rest Stewa rd s h i p

P rogram (FSP)

The Forest Stewardship Pro g r a m ,

a d m i n i s t e red by the Forest Service in

conjunction with state forestry agencies, supports the sustainable management of non-federal fore s t l a n d .

The primary goals are to: (1) assist

f o restland owners in achieving sustainable forest management thro u g h

planning and implementation of

riparian restoration, wildlife habitat

enhancement, forest stand impro v ement and other aspects of fore s t

management; and (2) improve supplies of high-quality, genetically

i m p roved tree seed and planting

stock for re f o restation. 

Private forestlands produce more

than 60 percent of the U.S. domestic

timber supply. However, only about

10 percent of private forestlands are

c o v e red by forest management plans.

On a voluntary basis, private fore s tland owners can take advantage of

FSP’s technical information and assistance to develop multi-re s o u rce plans

that establish the basis for future

management, protection and

i m p roved practices. State forestry personnel or private forestry consultants

work with forestland owners to prep a re the plans. A recent survey of

participants indicated that more than

80 percent are carrying out their

m u l t i - re s o u rce plans and that both

technical and financial assistance

have been a significant factor in their

ability to do this.

Another service of FSP is the nursery component that supports more

than 55 state forest nurseries that

p roduce about 30 percent of the

total forest seedling supply in the

United States. State nurseries are the

primary source of native species tre e

seedlings for re f o resting private

f o restlands and in planting trees that

enhance ecosystem integrity.

Demand for the program outstrips available

funds by nearly 4 to 1.

Fo rest Lega cy

P rogram (FLP)

T h rough conservation

easements and other

mechanisms, the Fore s t

Legacy Program assists

state and private fore s t r y

p rograms in pro t e c t i n g

private forestlands fro m

conversion to non-fore s t

uses. The primary

emphasis is to re d u c e

f o rest fragmentation and

loss of forested landscapes. 

Based on the premise of “willing

seller/willing buyer,” FLP is completely voluntary and nonregulatory. 

To maximize the public benefits

it achieves, the program acquire s

partial interests in privately owned

N e a rly 1,300 acres of pri va t e

fo restland along Cupsuptic 

and Mooselookmeguntic lakes 

in Maine have been pro t e c t e d

t h rough a conserva t i o n

easement funded by the Fo re s t

L e ga cy Pro gra m .
12

People and Re s o u rc e s

land through conservation easements. The federal govern m e n t

may fund up to 75 percent of the

cost of the easements. These easements allow landowners to continue to manage the land for fore s t r y

uses while restricting development

of the land. 

Private forestland within statedesignated Forest Legacy Areas is

eligible for program participation. 

To be considered, a landowner is

re q u i red to pre p a re a multiple

re s o u rce management plan as part of

the conservation easement acquisition.

C u r rent demand for the pro g r a m

exceeds available funds by a 3:1 ratio.

Urban and Commu n i t y

Fo re s t ry (UCF)

Urban and Community Fore s t r y

helps people in urban areas impro v e

natural re s o u rce management of tre e s

and forests in urban areas and community settings. 

A d m i n i s t e red by the Forest Service,

UCF assists selected cities, towns and

communities to assess, retain and

p rotect their natural environments as

well as to develop and distribute scientific information about pro t e c t i n g ,

managing and maintaining community forest re s o u rces. 

Planning, demonstration pro j e c t s

and technical assistance are aimed at

retaining and placing trees, fore s t s ,

urban parks, green spaces and re l a t e d

vegetation to: reduce (1) air, water,

soil and noise pollution; (2) energ y

use; (3) heat island effects; and (4)

s t o rmwater flooding. The pro g r a m

demonstrates and delivers state-of-theart urban ecological assessment and

other technologies and awards grants

to cities and towns for the purpose of

building capacity to protect and

i m p rove their natural enviro n m e n t s .

Community grants are made available on a matching basis. Nearly four

dollars’ worth of donated private funds

and in-kind services match every federal dollar spent through the pro g r a m .

M o re than 10,000 communities and

7,000 volunteer organizations participate in the program each year. The

number of requests for federal assistance and grants exceeds the capacity

of the existing program by eight fold.

Wetlands Re s e rve 

P rogram (WRP)

The Wetlands Reserve Pro g r a m

a d d resses wetlands, wildlife habitat,

soil, water and related natural

re s o u rce concerns on private lands

t h rough technical and financial assistance to eligible landowners. The

goal is to achieve the greatest wetlands function and value, along with

optimum wildlife habitat, on every

a c re enrolled in the program. At least

70 percent of each wetlands and

upland area will be re s t o red to original natural conditions to the extent

practicable. The remaining 30 perc e n t

of the project areas may be re s t o re d

to other than natural conditions. For

example, rather than re s t o re a bottomland hardwood site to all trees, a

portion of the site could be re s t o re d

to an emergent marsh condition if the

landowner or agency wanted to create habitat for certain wildlife species.

This flexibility allows landowners to

achieve their objectives while maximizing benefits to wildlife.

WRP concentrates on enro l l i n g

m a rginal lands with a history of cro p
13

People and Re s o u rc e s

f a i l u res or low yields, restoring and

p rotecting values on degraded wetlands, maximizing benefits to wildlife,

achieving cost-effective re s t o r a t i o n

with a priority on benefits to migratory birds, protecting and impro v i n g

water quality and reducing the

impact of floods.

To be enrolled, lands must be

restorable and suitable for wildlife

benefits and meet any of the following eligibility criteria:

• wetlands degraded by farm i n g ,

p a s t u re or timber pro d u c t i o n ,

• lands adjacent to restorable wetlands that contribute significantly

to wetlands functions and

v a l u e s ,

• p reviously re s t o red wetlands

that need long-term pro t e c t i o n ,

• upland areas needed to buff e r

the wetlands area or that contribute to a manageable easement boundary,

• riparian areas that link pro t e c t e d

wetlands or

• certain lands that have been

substantially altered by flooding.

NRCS and its partners have

restored more than 700 acres of

salt marsh in New Hampshire.

The Wetlands Reserve Program

provided a significant 

portion of the funding for 

this cooperative effort.
14

People and Re s o u rc e s

TABLE 2.

U S DA conservation ex p e n d i t u res by program activ i t y, FY 1994-2001

Activity/program ($ Million) 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2001 

1 . Technical assistance, extension, and administration:

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs—

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA ) 523.2 500.0 538.9 529.2 541.8 548.1 567.4 6 1 9 . 3

Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) 9.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) 28.3 30.4 29.0 29.4 34.4 35.0 35.3 4 1 . 9

Watershed Surveys and Planning 24.4 23.5 14.0 14.0 11.2 10.4 10.4 1 0 . 8

Small Watershed Program 10.9 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

River basin surveys 13.5 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Watershed Protection/Flood Prevention (PL566 and 534) 77.9 70.0 81.4 72.8 50.0 59.8 6 1 . 7 6 6 . 3

Colorado River Salinity Control Program 5.5 3.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Water Bank Program (WBP) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) 3.5 8.8 6.0 12.0 17.7 12.8 1 4 . 6 1 4 . 3

Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP) 0.0 0.0 6.5 20.0 38.0 36.9 37.0 4 2 . 0

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.5 0.0 2 . 4

Farmland Protection Program (FPP) 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0 . 7

Conservation Farm Option (CFO) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Subtotal NRCS 673.8 646.4 676.6 677.5 698.7 707.4 7 2 6 . 4 7 9 7 . 7

Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs—

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) 11.7 6.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 4.7 5.3 7.2 38.8 67.1 50.9 3 5 . 0 3 5 . 0

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) 1.0 1.8 2.4 4.8 1.5 2.5 4 . 4 5 . 7

Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

F S A salaries & expenses, conservation 67.6 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.8 6 2 . 8 6 2 . 8

Subtotal FSA 85.0 75.9 76.9 106.4 131.3 116.2 1 0 2 . 2 1 0 3 . 5

Extension Service (ES) conservation activities 32.2 32.2 31.7 31.7 29.6 29.3 1 9 . 8 1 9 . 7

Forest Service (FS) programs—

Forest Stewardship 25.8 25.9 23.4 23.4 23.9 29.4 29.8 3 2 . 8

Economic Action Programs 15.5 16.0 14.5 17.2 11.5 17.5 20.2 4 2 . 7

Forest Legacy Program 6.9 0.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 24.9 5 9 . 8

Pacific Northwest A s s i s t a n c e 16.4 17.1 16.0 16.8 15.0 8.8 7.9 0 . 0

Urban and Community Forestry 27.0 28.3 25.5 25.5 26.8 30.2 30.9 3 5 . 6

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.5 0.5 0 . 0

Subtotal FS 91.7 87.3 83.6 85.4 81.7 94.5 114.2 1 8 0 . 6

Subtotal Tech. asst., ext., and admin. 882.7 841.8 868.8 901.0 941.4 947.5 9 6 2 . 6 1 , 1 0 1 . 6

2 . Cost-sharing for practice installation:

F S Ap r o g r a m s —

Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) 183.0 94.0 70.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 14.5 3.7 1.2 11.0 96.1 114.9 1 3 2 . 7 0 . 0

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) 24.0 21.2 27.6 90.3 27.0 81.6 6 1 . 3 7 0 . 3

Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) 10.9 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Subtotal FSA 232.4 131.0 99.3 101.3 123.1 196.4 1 9 4 . 0 7 0 . 3

FS Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) 17.9 18.3 4.5 4.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

NRCS programs—

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 0.0 0.0 123.5 180.0 162.0 137.1 1 3 9 . 6 1 5 7 . 1

Colorado River Salinity Control Program 8.2 0.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) 11.5 6.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 14.8 4.8 0 . 0

Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) 16.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) 7.4 9.9 8.0 14.2 0.0 1 3 . 4 4 1 . 4 2 5 . 3

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 15.5 0.0 1 0 . 1

Conservation Farm Option (CFO) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Subtotal NRCS 43.5 22.5 139.6 199.9 192.7 1 8 0 . 8 1 8 5 . 8 1 9 2 . 5

Subtotal Cost-sharing 293.8 171.9 243.4 305.7 322.3 3 7 7 . 2 3 7 9 . 8 2 7 2 . 7
15

People and Re s o u rc e s

Activity/program ($ Million) 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2001 

3 . Public works project activities (NRCS):

Emergency Watershed Protection 133.2 290.6 59.1 186.7 80.0 82.2 6 9 . 4 8 7 . 8

Flood Prevention (operations) 22.9 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 7.8 3.3 5 . 5

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) 4.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Small Watershed Program (operations) 106.9 0.0 34.0 34.0 45.0 39.8 4 1 . 3 4 9 . 4

Subtotal NRCS public works projects 267.6 293.1 99.1 226.7 132.5 129.8 11 4 . 0 1 4 2 . 7

4 . Rental and easement payments (FSAand NRCS):

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 1 , 7 2 8 . 8 1 , 7 11 . 7 1 , 7 1 0 . 0 1 , 6 5 9 . 7 1 , 5 9 4 . 9 1 , 3 1 9 . 7 1 , 3 4 2 . 8 1 , 5 3 8 . 4

Water Bank Program (WBP) 7.4 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) 86.9 78.8 58.0 73.0 2 11.8 118.1 1 0 5 . 6 111 . 8

Farmland Protection Program (FPP) 0.0 0.0 14.4 1.9 17.3 0.0 0.2 1 6 . 8

Conservation Farm Option (CFO) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0

Subtotal rental and easement payments 1 , 8 2 3 . 0 1 , 7 9 1 . 4 1 , 7 8 3 . 1 1 , 7 3 4 . 6 1 , 8 2 3 . 9 1 , 4 3 7 . 8 1 , 4 4 8 . 6 1 , 6 6 7 . 0

5 . Conservation data and research:

Agricultural Research Service 76.7 75.5 76.0 73.5 74.7 74.5 7 5 . 4 7 9 . 0

Cooperative State Research Service 48.0 50.1 42.8 60.2 64.4 67.0 6 2 . 3 6 0 . 1

Economic Research Service 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5 . 0

Forest Service (forest research) 195.0 193.5 177.9 179.8 187.9 213.2 217.7 2 4 5 . 1

National Agricultural Library (water quality) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 . 2

NRCS programs—

Soil surveys 73.9 72.6 76.2 76.4 76.4 78.3 78.3 7 8 . 2

Plant materials centers 8.9 8.1 8.9 8.8 8.8 9.0 9.1 9 . 1

Snow surveys 5.8 5.6 5.9 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.0 6 . 0

Subtotal NRCS 88.6 86.3 90.9 91.1 91.1 93.3 93.4 9 3 . 3

Subtotal conservation data and research 413.7 410.7 392.9 409.8 423.3 453.3 4 5 4 . 3 4 8 2 . 7

USDA total 3,680.8 3,508.9 3,387.4 3,577.8 3,643.5 3,345.5 3,359.4 3,666.7

Source: Derived from material provided by the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA)

and the administration’s budget request submitted February 2000.

TABLE 2.

U S DA conservation ex p e n d i t u res (continu e d )
16

D

espite many changes in this

country’s environment and agricultural sector over the years, the

United States retains a rich heritage

of natural re s o u rces and enviro n m e ntal attributes. This section of the

report surveys a number of those

re s o u rces and attributes and discusses

issues and concerns related to their

conservation and use. The curre n t

most comprehensive review of status,

condition and trends can be found in

Agricultural Resources and

E n v i ronmental Indicators (Economic

R e s e a rch Service 1997 and 2000). 

The soil re s o u rce 

The United States is blessed with

an abundance of productive land,

having more than twice the world

average of arable land per person.

The basis for this productive land is

the soil re s o u rce. Prime farm l a n d

refers to land that has soils with optimal characteristics for crop and forage production. More than 50 perc e n t

of U.S. cropland, or about 212 million

a c res, is considered prime (NRCS

2 0 0 0 a ) .

The traditional measure of the state

of the soil re s o u rce has been the

potential for and the extent and

severity of soil erosion by wind and

w a t e r. For example, 104 million acre s

of U.S. cropland, or about 27 perc e n t

of the total, is considered “highly

e rodible,” meaning it is subject to

potentially damaging soil erosion if

not managed pro p e r l y .

Many traditional conservation programs have been oriented toward

p reventing soil erosion or mitigating

its past impacts. However, re s e a rc h

and practical experience in re s p o n ding to societal demands for commodities such as clean and abundant

w a t e r, clean air, open space and

re c reation opportunities demonstrate

that more than erosion control is

re q u i red to maintain a healthy, productive soil re s o u rc e .

Soils vary in their ability to support

c rop, forage and timber pro d u c t i o n ;

s t o re floodwaters; purify and re n e w

water supplies; and absorb, buff e r

and transform chemicals and waste.

The term “soil quality” is used as a

m e a s u re of how well a soil perf o rm s

the above functions.

High-quality soils contribute to

myriad benefits from the land —

f rom healthy forestlands, grasslands,

wetlands and backyard gardens to a

rich heritage of scenic landscapes

and wildlife habitats in addition to

p roductive agricultural land.

For agricultural land users, highquality soil may mean soils that have

maximum ability to absorb rainfall

and store water needed for cro p

g rowth, thus reducing the risk of

flooding during storms and ensuring

g reater resilience to the effects of

d rought. When used for disposal of

agricultural, municipal or industrial

waste, healthily functioning soils may

mean a greater capacity to purify

The Current Landscap e

Benefits of h e a l t hy soil 

• i m p roved water quality

• i m p roved air quality 

• i m p roved land pro d u c t i v i t y

• g reater resistance to eff e c t s

of drought and floods

• g reater energy eff i c i e n c y

• enhanced ability to mitigate

climate change

Soil and water 

are inextricably

bound together in

most landscapes:

thus soil quality is

one of the factors

that impacts

water quality.
those wastes, resulting in better protection of ground and surface water.

High-quality soils resistant to degradation have a greater potential to

s t o re carbon as soil organic matter

(Lal et al. 1998). 

Sound stewardship of the soil

re s o u rce offers opportunities to maintain the functional capacity of soil —

its “quality.” Poor land-use practices,

on the other hand, can initiate a

cycle of soil quality degradation

t h rough erosion, compaction, acidification, salinization and other forms of

soil deterioration. 

Conditions and tre n d s

Soil ero s i o n . One of the major

p rocesses that can lead to a decline in

soil quality is soil erosion by water

and wind. Soil erosion and accelerated sedimentation — often bro u g h t

about by bringing marg i n a l

soils under cultivation or by

unwise management of land

a l ready under

cultivation —

a re degrading

l a n d s c a p e s

a round the

world. These

d e b i l i t a t i n g

p rocesses alter natural hydrologic and

sedimentation regimes that developed

over thousands of years. History has

shown that these alterations can be so

s e v e re that the entire human population of a region may have to abandon

the land and migrate elsewhere .

Soil erosion has been a traditional

c o n c e rn in the United States. Some

17

The Current Landscap e

Eroded soil material deposited

in fields can have adverse

impacts on crop production.

Types of soil ero s i o n

Sheet and rill erosion occurs when rainfall and water runoff initially

remove a fairly uniform layer or sheet of soil from the surface of the land.

Eventually, small channels (rills) form as rainwater collects and flows over

an unprotected soil surf a c e .

C o n c e n t rat e d - fl ow erosion can follow on the heels of sheet and rill

e rosion. Left unchecked, rills may enlarge and deepen into small channels

that, when filled with sediment from adjacent land, are called ephemeral

gullies. If the channels continue to enlarge and cannot be filled in with

material from adjacent land or obliterated through tillage, a condition

known as classic gully erosion develops. It can permanently damage the

land. Another form of concentrated-flow erosion is streambank ero s i o n ,

which often stems from unchecked sheet and rill or gully erosion in

uplands and the absence of streamside vegetation.

I rr i gation-induced erosion refers to water erosion that results fro m

sprinkler or surface irrigation for agricultural production. It can take the

f o rm of sheet and rill or concentrated-flow ero s i o n .

Wind erosion also removes soil. It can, in extreme cases, create huge

dust clouds that suspend unacceptable levels of particulates in the air, in

addition to damaging the soil.
18

e rosion caused by water and wind

will always occur as part of the natural cycle. But the natural process of

soil development can renew and sustain the soil if society does not place

demands on the soil re s o u rce that are

beyond its capabilities. For most deep

soils, an erosion rate less than four to

five tons per acre per year is conside red a sustainable level of soil erosion. This acceptable or sustainable

level is termed the soil loss tolerance,

or “T,” value. Even at such sustainable

rates, however, sediment from ero ding lands may lead to decre a s e d

water quality in some are a s .

Over the past several decades, U.S.

a g r i c u l t u re has made significant

strides in reducing erosion on cro pland through management practices

such as conservation tillage, cro p

rotations, contour strip cropping and

use of grassed waterways.

Landowners also participate in USDA

easement and reserve programs that

t a rget lands most susceptible to erosion, provide incentives for conservation and help offset costs associated

with such measure s .

Several USDA programs make land

re s o u rce inventory information available to landowners and managers for

their use in making soil conservation

decisions. The National Resourc e s

Inventory (NRCS 2000a) pro v i d e s

i n f o rmation on the extent of land

degradation from processes such as

e rosion and salinization. This enables

assessment of the status and condition

of the U.S. land re s o u rce base, including soils, at any given point in time.

The National Cooperative Soil

Survey, a partnership of state, local

and federal agencies, provides information about basic soil characteristics

in the landscape and their long-term

behavior under particular types of

use and management, including food,

forage and timber production; waste

management; and residential and

c o m m e rcial development. 

These tools can be used to develop a picture of the health of the

land. The information is useful in

deciding what must be done to prevent or reduce land degradation,

maintain productivity and re s t o re

degraded lands to full productivity. 

Approximately 170 million acres

— 40 percent of all cropland —

were eroding at greater than acceptable (“T”) levels in 1982 (NRCS

2000a). By 1997, that amount had

been reduced to about 108 million

acres, or 28 percent of total cropland

acreage at that time (Figure 3).

However, even with these reductions in erosion, it is estimated that

additional U.S. cropland might 

benefit from management aimed at

enhancing soil quality, as outlined

below. 

T i l l age, soil manage m e n t

and soil quality. The potential for

decline in the health or overall quality of the soil re s o u rce because of

p rocesses other than erosion is also a

soil re s o u rce issue. Because soil quality has a number of facets and is difficult to measure directly, it is not as

The Current Landscap e

Soil from corn-soybean

rotation in Alabama.Non-tilled

soil (left) normally has a

darker color and more

uniform granular structure

than tilled soil (right),

primarily because of the

greater soil organic matter

content in non-tilled soil.
19

The Current Landscap e

Forty-one million acres are eroding by water at a rate above five tons/acre/year. The national water erosion rate averages 2.5 tons/acre/year. Total soil erosion equals

1,000 million tons. Data are only displayed where cropland and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land are five percent or more of the total area. Gully erosion is

also excluded from the analysis. Watersheds are defined as U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Cataloging Units (8-digit). Source: NRCS 2000a

Forty million acres are eroding by wind at a rate above five tons/acres/year. The national wind erosion rate averages 2.0 tons/acre/year. Total soil erosion equals 840

million tons. Data are only displayed where cropland and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land are five percent or more of the toal area. Watersheds are defined

as a U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Cataloging Units (8-digit). Source: NRCS 2000a

FIGURE 3.

Ave rage annual soil erosion by water (MAP 1) and 

wind (MAP 2) on cropland and CRP land, 1 9 9 7

MAP 2

Tons/Acre/Year

8 or more

4.6% of erosion

0.8% of watersheds

5 to 8

19.6% of erosion

5.9% of watersheds

3 to 5

36.0% of erosion

15.2% of watersheds

1 to 3

34.5% of erosion

27.2% of watersheds

Less then 1

4.2% of erosion

18.2% of watersheds

Less then 5%

Cropland and CRP

1.1% of erosion

32.7% of watersheds

95% or more

Federal area

Tons/Acre/Year

8 or more

40.9% of erosion

3.2% of watersheds

5 to 8

13.1% of erosion

2.6% of watersheds

3 to 5

18.7% of erosion

5.2% of watersheds

1 to 3

22.3% of erosion

12.5% of watersheds

Less then 1

3.4% of erosion

43.8% of watersheds

Less then 5%

Cropland and CRP

1.6% of erosion

32.7% of watersheds

95% or more

Federal area

MAP 1

Hawaii

Puerto Rico

Hawaii

Puerto Rico

Data unavailable for the

following regions: Alaska and

the Pacific Basin including

Guam, Northern Marianas

and American Samoa.

Data unavailable for the

following regions: Alaska and

the Pacific Basin including

Guam, Northern Marianas

and American Samoa.
20

easy to quantify as soil erosion. Thus

it is difficult to assess its impact at

b road scales over extensive areas as

can be done with soil ero s i o n .

A natural consequence of cultivating any soil is decomposition of the

soil organic matter. This in turn may

impact the soil’s overall tilth (or

workability), its fertility and biological

activity and its ability to store adequate water for plant gro w t h ,

depending on use and management.

Over the years, the level of organic matter in agricultural soils has

declined as a consequence of conventional tillage methods. Figure 4

illustrates trends in soil organic matter in the U.S. corn belt since the

advent of widespread soil cultivation. It shows a decline in soil

organic matter that continued into

the 1950s to about 53 percent of the

1907 level — the level present at the

start of widespread conversion of

The Current Landscap e

O ff-site fate of e roded soil*

• Of the 377 million acres of working U.S. cropland, 28 percent is ero ding at rates great enough to have adverse impacts on long-term soil

p roductivity and overall soil quality.

• About three-quarters of the soil eroded by water in a typical farm

field, however, is deposited as sediment in the same field from which

it eroded. Upon deposition, the eroded soil material causes the soil

s u rface to crust and seal in low areas of the field, resulting in ponding and irregular distribution of nutrients. 

• Uneven crop productivity in the field leads to inefficient water and

nutrient use, which causes excessive soil nutrient buildup, runoff or

deep percolation, all of which can adversely impact water quality. 

• Of the approximately one-quarter of soil material from sheet and rill

e rosion that actually leaves farm fields, most — about 60 million tons

annually — is deposited in local streams and waterways of small

watersheds. There, it disrupts streamflows, affects streambank stability

and accelerates siltation of lakes, reservoirs, ponds and wetlands.

• The relatively small proportion of eroded soil that eventually leaves

watershed outlets, estimated at about 14 million tons a year, may

carry excessive levels of nutrients and pesticides to larger water bodies such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay, contributing

to regional water quality pro b l e m s .

• It is difficult to quantify the off-site fate of soil material lost thro u g h

wind erosion. But in severe cases, blowing soil contributes to the

level of particulate matter in the air, damages fences and other infras t r u c t u re through abrasion and drifts over roads where it incre a s e s

maintenance costs and poses a travel hazard .

*Estimates of sedimentation are from a broad-scale national analysis using NRIderived sheet and rill water erosion data (NRCS 2000a) coupled with NRCSassigned sediment delivery ratios for areas in the conterminous United States

a p p roximating 2nd-code hydrologic units.
21

The Current Landscap e

native grasslands and forestlands to

cropland in the United States. It also

shows gains in soil organic matter to

about 61 percent of the 1907 level

starting in the 1970s — a time frame

that coincides with the onset of

adoption of conservation tillage systems by U.S. corn and soybean

farmers.

The level of soil organic matter has

been proposed as an indicator of soil

quality because of organic matter’s

importance in soil structure, nutrient

cycling and biotic activity. 

Conservation tillage systems,

because they leave crop residue at the

soil surface, have the potential to

build up soil organic matter in the critical surface layer of the soil, as comp a red to conventional tillage systems.

By estimating the potential for buildup of soil organic matter as a function

of crop residue cover derived fro m

NRI data (NRCS 2000a) and modeling

the impact of various tillage systems,*

it appears that about one-third of the

a p p roximately 269 million acres of

U.S. cropland not experiencing excessive (greater than “T”) erosion might

benefit from management systems

aimed at enhancing soil quality.

Data from the Conservation

Technology Information Center show

that in 2000, some form of conservation tillage was practiced on about 37

p e rcent of cropland in the United

States, meaning that those lands had

m o re than 30 percent residue cover

on the ground after planting (NACD

2001a). This use of conservation

tillage has mostly occurred since the

early 1980s.

* Results of Environmental Policy

Integrated Climate (EPIC) model simulations identify a critical soil C and V factor

that correlates with accretion of soil org a nic matter over a 30-year period under a

variety of cropping systems. Query of 1997

NRI cropland data for soil erosion rates <T

and where critical C factor is met are used

to derive estimated acre a g e .

FIGURE 4.

Soil organic carbon pool in U. S. soils 

and loss from cultivat i o n

Simulated total soil carbon changes (0- to 20-cm depth) from 1907 to 1990 in

the central U.S. corn belt. Adapted from information in Lal et al. 1998.

7500

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Year
22

Adoption of no-till practices has

risen significantly in recent years. Notill is a form of residue management

w h e re a new crop is planted dire c t l y

into the re s i d u e - c o v e red soil from the

p revious crop; there is no additional

tillage or seedbed preparation. In

1990, about 16.9 million acres were

being managed with no-till systems.

By 2000, that number had incre a s e d

to 52.2 million acres (NACD 2001a). 

Soil salinity. Soil salinity is a

re s o u rce concern in some portions of

the United States. Many soils are naturally saline, but some become saline

t h rough improper use and management. Naturally saline soils are a

result of several factors such as the

n a t u re of the underlying geology,

natural patterns of water flow in the

landscape that favor salt accumulation and drier climates where evapotranspiration exceeds pre c i p i t a t i o n

and thus favors salt accumulation. 

Non-saline or slightly saline soils

can become so affected by

i n c reased salinization that it thre a tens the productivity of cro p l a n d

and grazing land. On cropland, this

can come about through non-unif o rm or excessive irrigation and

inadequate drainage. Such practices

raise water tables in irrigated cro pland, causing salts to rise to the

root zone of crop plants and impair

p roductivity. Excessive levels of

salts in irrigation re t u rn flows can

even impact water quality in

s t reams and lakes, affecting re c reation, aquatic habitat and industrial

and drinking water uses.

Saline seeps are another form of

salinization. Seeps are saline areas of

the landscape that expand over time,

taking more and more land out of

p roduction. Seeps are usually found

on grazing land or fallow cropland in

semiarid or arid climates. They are

often a response to periods of

i n c reased precipitation coupled with

management that has altered or

changed native vegetation and wateruse patterns in the landscape.

A c c o rding to data in USDA’s

National Resources Inventory, 3.4

million acres of cropland and 0.9 million acres of pastureland have the

potential to be impaired through soil

salinization. The same data also suggest that about 1.5 million acres of

U.S. agricultural lands are curre n t l y

a ffected by salinity.

P reventing salinization and its

attendant off-site impacts and re s t o ring productivity to lands damaged by

salinization often re q u i res action over

wide areas such as entire irrigation

districts or river basins. For example,

salinity control work under USDA’s

E n v i ronmental Quality Incentives

P rogram assists in the impro v e m e n t

of irrigation systems and management of irrigated lands to reduce salt

loading from both natural and irrigation-induced sources to the Colorado

River and its tributaries.

The Current Landscap e
23

The Current Landscap e

The water re s o u rce —

quality issues

Although limited in some places,

U.S. surface and gro u n d w a t e r

re s o u rces provide sufficient water for

most domestic, municipal, industrial

and agricultural uses as well as for

most fish, wildlife and enviro n m e n t a l

purposes. 

These water re s o u rces are vulnerable to pollution that can degrade

water quality and make the water

unsuitable for some uses. The degre e

to which that happens depends in

part on how land is used and 

managed. 

Since the passage of the Clean

Water Act in 1972, the nation has

concentrated on controlling pollution

f rom industrial and domestic disc h a rges that are called point sourc e s

of pollution. Recently, there have

been increasing concerns about cont rolling water pollution from nonspecific or diffuse sources, known as

non-point sources. 

Although conservation techniques,

including many that protected water

quality, were in effect on farms and

ranches long before the Clean Wa t e r

Act, agriculture has been at the center of non-point source concerns. 

Conditions and trends 

T h e re are no reports or studies that

fully describe the health of all waters

in the United States. The U.S.

E n v i ronmental Protection Agency

makes periodic reports to Congre s s

based on assessment reports fro m

states, territories, tribes and interstate

commissions. Findings from EPA ’ s

1998 Water Quality Inventory and the

2000 Atlas of America’s Polluted

Waters report indicate the following

( F i g u re 5):

• Of the 23 percent of the nation’s

rivers and streams that were

assessed, 35 percent were

i m p a i red for one or more of

t h ree primary uses (drinking,

fishing and swimming). 

• Of the 42 percent of lakes,

reservoirs and ponds that were

assessed, 45 percent were

i m p a i red. 

• Of the 32 percent of the country’s estuaries that were assessed,

44 percent were impaired. 

A c c o rding to EPA, more than 20,000

individual river segments, lakes and

estuaries are impaired with one or

m o re pollutants from all sourc e s .

A p p roximately 218 million people —

the majority of the U.S. population —

live within 10 miles of the impaire d

waters. EPA reported that the principal pollutants causing water quality

FIGURE 5.

Pe rcent of i m p a i red wat e r, 2 0 0 0

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000)

Percent of impaired waters — 1998

(Updated February 2000)

No Waters Listed

<5%

5-10%

10-25%

>25%

Alaska

Hawaii

Puerto Rico
24

p roblems include nutrients, sediment,

metals and pathogens. 

Most states and jurisdictions identified agriculture as a leading source of

many of these pollutants. Studies by

USDA, the U.S. Geological Survey,

n u m e rous federal and state agencies

and other public and private re s e a rc h

institutions have also documented

a g r i c u l t u re’s impacts on water quality.

The impact of agriculture on water

quality should be considered in the

context of the amount of land supporting agricultural activities. About

900 million acres, or 41 percent of

the continental United States, are on

f a rms and ranches. Through their

s t e w a rdship of the land, farmers and

ranchers can help ensure safe drinking water, clear-flowing streams and

clean lakes, wildlife habitat and

scenic landscapes.

W h e re best agricultural management practices are not used, nonpoint sources of pollution from 

a g r i c u l t u re can occur. Several eff e c t s

a re described below.

Sediment effe c t s. Sediment is

e roded soil deposited on the land

and in streams, rivers, drainageways,

and lakes. Sediment degrades water

quality by increasing turbidity and

transporting attached nutrients, pesticides, pathogens and toxic substances. It clogs waterways, re s e rvoirs, estuaries and harbors, there b y

reducing the use of these water bodies and often requiring expensive

clean-out, maintenance and re p a i r. 

E PA reports that sediment is the

most common pollutant aff e c t i n g

assessed rivers and streams and that

a g r i c u l t u re is the leading source. As

documented in local soil surveys,

soils have varying degrees of ero s i o n

potential and capacity to allow sediment movement in streams. Because

pesticides and nutrients can attach to

soil particles, reducing soil ero s i o n

t h rough on-farm conservation techniques can improve the condition of

s u rface water and gro u n d w a t e r.

Nutrient effe c t s. Nutrients are

fundamental to life. Plants and animals need certain amounts of nutrients to grow and re p ro d u c e .

I n s u fficient amounts of certain nutrients may stunt growth or cause

death, while in some enviro n m e n t s ,

excessive amounts of certain nutrients can cause unnatural or excessive

g rowth or death. 

In agriculture, nutrients — mainly

n i t rogen, phosphorus and potassium

— are applied to promote plant

g rowth. If they are applied inappropriately or in excessive amounts, they

The Current Landscap e

Good soil quality enhances water quality

As described in the soil section of this report, there can be a re l a t i o nship between soil quality and water quality in many landscapes. Good

soil quality produces good water quality in several ways. Soils rich in

o rganic matter and biological activity promote infiltration over excessive

r u n o ff and can be more resistant to ero s i o n .

O rganic matter also has an affinity for some of the chemicals used in

a g r i c u l t u re production, binding the residuals to the soil and pre v e n t i n g

them from running off or leaching. Healthy soil supports biological

activity that can degrade pesticides and pathogens before they can

migrate from the land to the water.

When soil quality is poor, the potential is greater for loss of soil and

chemicals from farm fields.

I m p roving soil quality through reduction in soil erosion, increases in

soil organic matter content and decreases in compaction and acidification promotes improvement in the condition of surface water and

g ro u n d w a t e r, in conjunction with sound management practices.
25

The Current Landscap e

can be transported to surface water

or gro u n d w a t e r.

N i t rogen is added to soils fro m

c o m m e rcial fertilizers, animal manure ,

legumes such as alfalfa and soybeans

and from atmospheric deposition.

Some soils with sufficient clay content slow down leaching of nitrates

t h rough the soil, enough to re t a i n

n i t rogen near the surface and keep it

available for plant uptake. Other

soils, particularly sandy ones, allow

for rapid leaching and in some cases

p rovide a pathway for excess nitrogen movement into stream systems

and gro u n d w a t e r. 

N i t rogen compounds in excessive

amounts can accelerate eutro p h i c ation in surface waters, which depletes

oxygen, kills fish and results in

cloudy water with an unpleasant

smell. Elevated concentrations of

nitrate in drinking water pose a

potential threat to human health, particularly among infants.

The phosphorus ion phosphate,

while not as mobile as nitrate, tends to

be carried on soil particles that move

o ff the land. Recent studies show that

phosphate can also leach to gro u n dw a t e r, especially where commerc i a l

fertilizers or manure have been

applied to the land over many years.

Phosphate can also contribute to

e u t rophication in fresh surface waters. 

I rr i gation effe c t s. Irrigation has

become more widespread as pro d u cers take advantage of productive soils

in arid regions or attempt to off s e t

the impacts of drought. Water quality

can be degraded by irrigation systems that are not well designed or

p roperly maintained and operated.

Knowledge of soil properties such as

those documented in soil surveys can

reduce the risk of irrigation-induced

pollution through proper design of

irrigation systems.

Irrigation-induced erosion creates a

sedimentation problem in some

a reas. There is also concern that

deep-water aquifers will become contaminated with agricultural chemicals

as the water used for irrigation perc olates down and carries chemical

residuals to aquifers. 

Irrigation water’s natural base load

of dissolved mineral salts becomes

concentrated as the water is consumed by plants or evaporated. Deep

p e rcolating irrigation water may also

become contaminated through contact with shale or highly saline

aquifers and the re t u rn flows convey

the salts to the receiving streams or

g ro u n d w a t e r. As the same water is

used over and over again and more

water evaporates, the salinity level

i n c reases, and that can impair water

q u a l i t y .

Pesticide effe c t s. Pesticides are

used to control weeds, insects,

rodents, diseases and other org a n i s m s

that may reduce production of agricultural commodities. Since 1979,

a c c o rding to NASS surveys, the agricultural sector in this country has

accounted for about 80 percent of all

pesticide use each year. 

Pesticides may contaminate water by

leaching through the soil or as a re s u l t

of being washed from the field surf a c e

in solution or adsorbed to soil or

o rganic material into nearby water

bodies. Only a small proportion of

pesticides migrate from farm fields,
26

h o w e v e r. In general, monitoring re s u l t s

show that most agricultural pesticides

occur in low concentrations in surf a c e

water and gro u n d w a t e r, even in

regions where agricultural use is high.

F a rmers and ranchers are modifying their management practices by

using more environmentally friendly

pesticides, applying pesticides only

when the pest is likely to cause economic damage to crop pro d u c t i o n

and reducing their reliance on agricultural pesticides through integrated

pest management techniques. 

By practicing prevention, avoidance, monitoring and suppression of

pests — either through cultural, physical or biological means — dependence on chemicals has decre a s e d .

A c c o rding to NASS surveys, insecticide use per acre on corn dro p p e d

52 percent from 1991 to 1999. Also

by 1999, more than half of the corn

and 80 percent of all cotton grown in

the United States were pro d u c e d

using integrated pest management

t e c h n i q u e s .

L ive s t o ck and poultry

m a nu re effe c t s. Livestock and

poultry manures have the potential to

degrade water quality because they

contain nutrients, organic matter and

pathogens. Also, the aggregate eff e c t

of odors and gaseous emissions fro m

applying manure, the decomposition

of dead animals and wet feed pose

nuisance and public health pro b l e m s .

These manures have emerged over

the past several years as a major

e n v i ronmental issue. As the

C o n g ressional Research Service

described the situation in a May 1998

report, “Social and political pre s s u re

to address the environmental impacts

of livestock production has grown to

the point that many policy-makers

today are asking what to do, not

whether to do something.” 

In 1999, EPA found that 35 states

regulate large, concentrated animal

feeding operations, and at least 36

states re q u i re manure management

plans. Numerous counties and local

g o v e rnments have ordinances re l a t e d

to this issue. In response, national

livestock and poultry pro d u c e r

g roups have started initiatives to

a d d ress manure - related enviro n m e ntal pro b l e m s .

A USDA analysis using farm - l e v e l

data from the 1997 Agriculture

Census shows that the structure of

animal agriculture has changed dramatically over the last two decades.

Small and medium-sized livestock

and poultry operations have been

replaced by large operations at a

steady rate. The total number of animals has remained re l a t i v e l y

unchanged, but more of them are

being confined and concentrated in

the high-production regions of the

c o u n t r y .

A major concern is that in some

a reas, livestock and poultry operations surpass the capacity of the land

to assimilate manure nutrients. This

means it is necessary to export the

m a n u re from the farm or ranch or

find other manure uses.

T h e re are more than 900,000 beef,

dairy, hog and poultry animal feeding

operations in the United States. About

3,300 have more than 1,000 confined

animal units. USDA and its conservation partners estimate that up to

272,600 animal feeding operations will

need assistance to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans

The Current Landscap e
27

The Current Landscap e

over the next several years to addre s s

non-point source pollution issues.

At the same time, ongoing conservation partnerships in water quality

p rojects across the country are helping to reduce the amount of harm f u l

animal waste nutrients and other

potential pollutants from agriculture

that reach water bodies. 

Examples include a 90 perc e n t

reduction in nutrient runoff in five

West Vi rginia counties, the pre v e n t i o n

of 4,500 tons of nitrates from entering

the Suwannee River Basin in north

central Florida every year and the

participation of most local dairy farmers in the Skaneateles Lake Wa t e r s h e d

Agricultural Program, which allows

Syracuse, New York to boast the second-best drinking water supply in the

nation (the glacial waters of

Anchorage, Alaska are first).

B u ffe rs enhance 

water quality

Conservation buffers are narro w

strips of permanent vegetation —

grass, trees and shrubs — planted to

p rotect water bodies and other environmental and human-created elements on the landscape from the

adverse consequences of agricultural

p roduction. Among the most common types are filter strips and riparian buffers, contour grass strips, cro s s -

wind trap strips, grassed waterways,

field windbreaks, shelterbelts and living snow fences. 

Some experts contend that a buff e r

of one kind or another might be

a p p ropriate for use on almost every

f a rm or ranch. A 1993 report by the

National Research Council’s Board on

A g r i c u l t u re concluded that strategic

placement of buffers on cropland and

grazing land was among the most

p romising and cost-effective ways to

p rotect soil and water quality. 

A 1997 estimate of buff e r

needs by NRCS re g i o n a l

o ffice personnel suggested

that nearly 12 million acre s

of riparian (streamside) and

upland buffers could be eligible for enrollment in the

Conservation Reserve

P rogram, an admittedly conservative figure. Assuming

that only 20 percent of the

3.5 million miles of perm anent and seasonal streams in

the United States may

re q u i re treatment with filter

strips or riparian buffers, the

amount of land that would

benefit from these two buff e r

types alone is 15 million or more

a c res (depending on which assumptions are made re g a rding buff e r

width). This does not take into

account additional buffers around or

along other permanent water bodies

such as lakes, drainage ditches and

irrigation canals, nor does it account

for any upland buffer needs.

B u ffers are not the sole answer to

water quality or other conservation

challenges. They work best when

integrated into comprehensive conservation systems that also incorporate practices such as conservation

tillage, nutrient management and

integrated pest management.

H o w e v e r, buffers are time-tested

technology that could be used more

extensively to help landowners meet

their stewardship goals.

Vegetated buffers build up soil

organic matter and help stop

sediment, nutrients and some

pesticides from entering

waterways.They also create

riparian (streamside) habitat

for wildlife. As of December

2000, approximately 1.4

million miles of conservation

buffers had been enrolled in

the Conservation Reserve

Program continuous sign-up.
28

The Current Landscap e

The water re s o u rce —

quantity issues

A c ross the country, agricultural

p roducers are faced with either too

much water during flood conditions,

too little water or not enough access

to what exists during drought conditions and decisions about eff i c i e n t

irrigation. Competing interests —

f rom increasing domestic, commerc i a l

and industrial uses to re c reation and

wildlife habitat — further complicate

the situation.

Conditions and tre n d s

Fl o o d i n g. Floods have an immediate impact and the consequences

a re usually severe for the economy,

the environment and human welfare .

The floods that followed on the heels

of hurricanes Dennis and Floyd in

1999, for example, exceeded $15 billion in damages. They also left a ravaged countryside — already suff e r i n g

f rom drought — with tens of thousands of animal carcasses and the

debris from flooded-out towns.

Existing USDA small watershed dams

p rovided flood protection for many

communities during these storms and

also mitigated the flood damages in

communities that received the gre a test amount of rain.

Wat e rshed pro j e c t s. In watersheds across this country, in Puerto

Rico and in the Pacific Basin, USDA

has assisted partners to develop or

begin more than 2,000 water management plans covering 160 million

a c res. In watershed project are a s

( F i g u re 6), upwards of 15,000 separate land treatment measures have

been applied on 30 million acre s ,

contributing to enviro n m e n t a l

i m p rovement, economic development

and social well being. 

USDA’s authority for watershed

p rojects stems from national laws dating back to the 1940s. Many of the

original watershed projects sought to

reduce flooding, improve water management and increase irrigation eff iciencies. In the 1960s, high priorities

w e re placed on projects that pro v i ded jobs to combat poverty and

encourage rural development. Many

of those projects established re c reation areas. 

In recent years, projects have

focused on land treatment measure s

to resolve natural re s o u rce issues

such as substandard water quality and

loss of wildlife habitat. Landowners

and USDA technical specialists plan

the projects, which are based on the

application of on-farm conservation

management systems that are tailore d

to address specific re s o u rce objectives

for a given watershed. 

FIGURE 6.

Wat e rshed project locat i o n s
29

The Current Landscap e

The projects re p resent a $14 billion

investment and yield annual benefits

of nearly $1 billion to rural communities from flood reduction and watershed protection. They have become

an integral and irreplaceable part of

the communities and the enviro nment that they were designed to protect. There is currently a $1.4 billion

unfunded federal commitment to

a p p roved watershed pro j e c t s .

H o w e v e r, many existing pro j e c t s

a re at or near the end of their 50-

year planned life (Figure 7), and

t h e re is growing national concern

that they may pose a public safety

c o n c e rn. A recent survey of known

rehabilitation needs in 22 states

revealed that more than 2,200 dams

need rehabilitation at an estimated

cost of more than $540 million

(NRCS 2000b). Failure of 650 of

these dams could threaten the

health and safety of people downs t ream or disrupt local drinking

water supplies.

E m e rge n cy Wat e rs h e d

P rogra m . Watershed projects are

p roactive by design, and they are an

important tool for consideration in

risk-management decisions. They only

cover a small portion of the United

States, however. Congress established

the Emergency Watershed Pro t e c t i o n

P rogram to help people and conserve

natural re s o u rces by relieving imminent hazards to life and pro p e r t y

caused by floods, fires, windstorm s

and other natural occurrences. 

USDA administers the program. All

p rojects undertaken — except for the

p u rchase of floodplain easements —

must be sponsored by a political 

subdivision of a state such as a city,

country, general improvement district

or conservation district.

Eligible work includes re m o v i n g

debris from stream channels, ro a d

culverts and bridges; reshaping and

p rotecting eroded stream and river

banks; fixing damaged drainage facilities; repairing levees (primarily agricultural) and other structures; re s e e ding damaged areas; and purc h a s i n g

floodplain easements.

D ro u g h t . Every year, demand for

water exceeds supply in some parts

of the country, and other areas are

beginning to experience water shortages. When drought occurs, those

shortages may become critical and

competition for water incre a s e s .

The more severe consequences of

d rought include huge economic losses in agriculture, shipping and other

w a t e r-dependent businesses; drinking

water shortages, particularly in small

rural communities; and enviro n m e ntal stresses, including loss of or 

Dams created under Public Law-566, Public Law-534, Pilot and under the Resource Conservation and

Development Program. As this chart indicates, a large number of dams will come to the end of their

planned design life from about 2010 to 2030.

FIGURE 7.

Dams per year at end of planned design life

7 0 0

6 0 0

5 0 0

4 0 0

3 0 0

2 0 0

1 0 0

0

Ye a r

PL-566

Pilot/RC&D

PL-534
30

damage to wildlife habitat and downshifts in wildlife populations. Dro u g h t

may also force tough decisions in

re g a rd to water allocations among

competing interests such as fisheries,

a g r i c u l t u re and communities.

In years when drought has

occurred, USDA programs have

helped to make the difference

between a marginal and disastrous

year. Farmers who irrigate have

reduced their water applications by

4.7 million acre-feet of water each

year (enough to cover the nearly

700,000 acres of Rhode Island with

seven feet of water), primarily

through adoption of management

practices that conserve water and

reduce the potential for soil salinity. 

Such conservation practices re d u c e

the risk associated with dro u g h t ,

especially if improvement in soil

quality has been a primary objective.

Healthy soils absorb and store more

water than do degraded soils.

A number of tools can assist in

p reparing for drought and floods,

including USDA’s SNOTEL and SCAN

systems that provide real-time climate

i n f o rmation and information concerning soil moisture and water yield

conditions (see pages 32 to 33). Such

tools are not widely available to all

who need them. The majority of the

landscape, which is still mostly rural

and agricultural in nature, lacks both

an adequate number of climate data

instruments and real-time monitoring

— a finding of the National Dro u g h t

Policy Commission (2000).

I rr i gat i o n . A c c o rding to NASS

(1998), irrigated crops, while raised

on only 16 percent of all harvested

c ropland in the country, account for

49 percent of total U.S. crop sales. In

the West (including the 17 western

contiguous states, Hawaii and

Alaska), irrigated crops make up 72

p e rcent of all crop sales. 

For the past 20 years, appro x imately 43 million acres of cro p l a n d

have been irrigated in the western

states. While that figure has

remained fairly constant, there has

been a shift of about three million

irrigated acres from the more arid

Southwest and southern plains primarily to the less arid and more

abundant groundwater areas of central and eastern Nebraska. 

In addition, a five-million-acre net

increase in irrigated farmland

Wi l d fi re is often more intense and widespread in areas affected by

d ro u g h t , and it can cause enormous damage to land re s o u rces and

water quality.The huge fi res across the we s t e rn states, m a ny of them in

d rought conditions, d u ring 2000 cost billions of dollars in damages and

s u p p ression activities, eliminated wildlife habitat for many species and

p recipitated water quality concerns from sediment and mu d s l i d e s .

The Current Landscap e
31

The Current Landscap e

occurred over the past two decades,

all of which is located east of the

100th Meridian where 12 million

acres of cropland — an increase of

72 percent over 1980 levels — are

now irrigated. Factors driving this

increase are the potential for greater

and more stable yields, opportunities

for alternative crops and reduction

of risks inherent in dryland farming

areas.

Irrigation withdrawals as a share of

total freshwater withdrawals in this

country declined from 46 percent in

1960 to 40 percent in 1995, where

they remain today. Most irrigation

withdrawals occur in the We s t ,

w h e re 44 percent of withdrawals are

f rom on-farm, private or state-owned

s u rface water supplies; 24 perc e n t

f rom Bureau of Reclamation surf a c e

water supplies; and 32 percent fro m

g ro u n d w a t e r. 

O n - f a rm wells are the primary

s o u rce of water for irrigation in the

East where groundwater depletion

is becoming a major concern, particularly in the Mississippi Delta

and Southeast. Over-use of gro u n d-

water also occurs in many areas of

the Great Plains, Southwest and

Pacific Northwest. Major impacts

a re high pumping costs, land subsidence, saltwater intrusion along

coastal areas and loss of aquifer

capacity. 

T h roughout the United Stated, irrigation for crops may have significant

e n v i ronmental impacts, including: 

• Diversions from some stre a m s

impair aquatic communities and

migration of anadromous fish.

• R e t u rn flows from irrigated

a reas may contain biocide

residues, nutrients (phosphates

and nitrates), total dissolved

solids (salinity) and sediment

and may reduce the quality of

s u rface water and gro u n d w a t e r.

• Seepage from irrigation systems

c reates fish and wildlife habitat

and re c h a rges aquifers. 

Irrigators continue to adopt and

apply water management practices

based on on-site soil and climate

i n f o rmation that allow for more eff i-

cient use of water and a reduction in

the magnitude of adverse enviro nmental impacts. Since 1979, use of

gravity systems decreased by 20 percent, while use of sprinkler and

drip/trickle systems increased by 25

p e rcent and more than 500 perc e n t ,

respectively. 

Other practices include a shift to

c rops that re q u i re less water,

i m p roved on-farm water- c o n v e y a n c e

systems, precision field leveling,

shortened water runs, surge flow,

reuse of tail water, more pre c i s e

water and soil moisture measurements and the conversion of highp re s s u re sprinkler systems to lowp re s s u re systems. 

These practices, along with shifts

in irrigation to less arid climates, are

having an impact. Since 1969, the

national average irrigation applica-

tion rate declined by 4.5 inches, or

20 percent. That is enough to offset

the increase in irrigated acreage and

maintain the total water applied near

the level of 25 years ago. Farmers

are simultaneously increasing yields

of irrigated crops (for example, rice

yields increased 1.2 percent per year

over the last 30 years), making the

conservation results in relation to

water use per unit of agricultural

product even more dramatic.
32

Water supply fo re c a s t i n g

and soil moisture

m e a s u rements 

A number of tools are available to

p rovide critical information needed in

risk management for flooding,

d rought, cropping decisions and eff icient irrigation. Among them are the

f o l l o w i n g .

S n ow survey. Snowmelt provides approximately 80 percent of

the streamflow in the West. NRCS

and its conservation partners curre n tly conduct snow surveys in 12 weste rn states and Alaska. Natural

re s o u rce data from 1,100 manual

snow measurement courses, 660

automated SNOTEL (SNOwpack

TELemetry) sites, 575 stream gauges,

310 major reservoirs and 3,200 climate observation stations are integrated to create basin and watershed

analyses and water supply fore c a s t s

using an automated database and

f o recasting system. SNOTEL is the

only provider of this critical climate

data from the major water yield (high

elevation) areas of the mountainous

We s t .

The SNOTEL data collection system

plays a key role in irrigation water

management, drought assessment

and during flooding and other life

t h reatening snow events. The SNOTEL network provides real-time precipitation, temperature and snowpack

depletion information that impro v e s

c u r rent flood stage forecasts. This

assists emergency management agencies in effective mitigation of dro u g h t

and flood damages. 

A major focus of program activities

is to improve measurement pre c i s i o n ,

reliability, data quality, incre a s e d

sampling frequency and timely data

availability and to add additional sensors such as soil moisture, soil temp e r a t u re, wind and solar radiation.

Water supply. USDA’s National

Water and Climate Center, in partnership with the National We a t h e r

Service, produces water supply 

FIGURE 8.

SCAN Netwo rk , October 31, 2 0 0 0

The Current Landscap e
33

The Current Landscap e

f o recasts monthly, January thro u g h

June. During the 2000 forecast season, 7,580 seasonal water supply

f o recasts for 827 locations in 12 

w e s t e rn states were issued to support

water re s o u rce management. The

f o recasts are coordinated with and

reviewed by several federal agencies

and program collaborators, including

the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of

Engineers, Bonneville Power

Authority, state and local agencies,

power utilities, irrigation districts, tribal governments, the Pro v i n c i a l

G o v e rnment of British Columbia,

Alberta, the Yukon Territory and

Mexico, to ensure the highest quality

and accuracy. 

Agricultural, municipal, industrial,

h y d ropower and re c reational water

users are the primary recipients of

these forecasts. Because of re c e n t

federal legislation related to

e n d a n g e red species pro t e c t i o n ,

an increasing number of fish and

wildlife management agencies

also use the data.

S C A N. The Soil Climate

Analysis Network (SCAN) supports drought monitoring, assessment of flood potential, cro p

risk-assessment and pro d u c t i v i t y

models, watershed planning,

weather forecast modeling, soils

re s e a rch, water balance monitoring and a wide variety of USDA

global change activities.

Conservation partnerships have

expanded SCAN to 46 re m o t e

soil/climate stations operating in 30

states (Figure 8). When fully

deployed, SCAN will provide nationwide coverage.

Soil Climate Analysis Network

(SCAN) station in Dorchester,

New Hampshire. This 

facility collects real time

weather and snow pack data

along with soil moisture,

temperature and other soil

Air quality issues temporal properties.

Agricultural production can be a

s o u rce of atmospheric pollutants such

as particulates — dust-sized pieces of

soil minerals, agricultural chemicals

and plant and animal organic material — and greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides

and methane. 

F a rms and ranches may also contribute noxious odors from animal

wastes and agricultural chemicals,

and they can feed the processes that

drive global climate change

( i n c reased atmospheric carbon dioxide, changing land-use pattern s ,

weed and pest invasions and water

availability). 

While agriculture contributes to

atmospheric pollutants, crops and

livestock are also impacted by climate change and atmospheric ozone.

Conditions and tre n d s

Because of the effects that agricultural producers and other owners of

private land have on air quality, this

issue is an important focus of USDA

conservation programs and technical

assistance. In the last three months

of 2000 alone, partners in conservation districts across the country produced 23 group or area-wide plans

— covering 109 million acres — that

f e a t u red mitigation of air quality

p roblems. 

During that same time period, conservation measures that help addre s s

air quality were applied on 695,000

a c res. Approximately five percent of
34

re s o u rce inventories and evaluations (primarily in

the Midwest,

N o r t h e rn Plains

and South Central

regions) re f l e c t e d

air quality issues. 

Other forward

strides include formation of the first

USDA Agricultural

Air Quality Ta s k

F o rce in 1996.

This group works

to assess the

extent to which

agricultural activities contribute to air

pollution, determine cost-eff e c t i v e

ways for the agricultural sector to

i m p rove air quality and coord i n a t e

re s e a rch on agricultural air quality

issues to avoid duplication. 

Particulate matter in the air has

been linked with respiratory illness

and is viewed as a growing public

health concern. EPA has identified

agricultural activities as significant

s o u rces of fine particulates. The

agency estimates that fugitive dust

f rom crop production totals 3.3 million tons annually and that, under

c u r rent controls, these emissions will

i n c rease to about 3.8 million tons by

2005. EPA also projects that fugitive

dust from livestock operations, now

contributing an estimated 181,400

tons every year to the atmosphere ,

will rise to 193,400 tons a year by

2005. 

In 1998, EPA identified fewer than

10 air quality non-attainment are a s

that included rural lands. In 2000,

after additional surveys, there were

m o re than 100 such rural areas, and

E PA projects the number to rise significantly by 2002. (In non-attainment

a reas, air quality is below the limits

set by Clean Air Act regulations.) 

USDA’s Agricultural Air Quality

Task Force recommended voluntary,

incentive-based compliance pro g r a m s

to address agricultural impacts on air

quality. The group proposed that

state air pollution regulatory agencies

adopt such programs to reduce particulates from agricultural operations

in non-attainment areas while sustaining long-term agricultural pro d u c t i o n .

These incentive-based pro g r a m s

would include both accountability

and backstop provisions. The backstop provisions would be the means

for states to regulate agricultural

operations that do not comply with

the agreed-upon plans.

The Current Landscap e

C o n s e rvation improves air quality 

A number of conservation techniques on agricultural land that are usually designed to improve soil

and water quality are also effective in mitigating

conditions that can adversely effect air quality.

Among them are :

✔ contour buffer strips

✔ contour strip cro p p i n g

✔ c ross-wind ridges and strip cro p p i n g

✔ cover cro p s

✔ field bord e r s

✔ h e d g e ro w s

✔ e fficient irrigation

✔ residue management

✔ waste management systems
35

The Current Landscap e

C l i m ate Change

As a natural part of the earth’s

a t m o s p h e re, gases known as gre e nhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,

water vapor, methane and nitro u s

oxides reflect heat to the earth’s surface in much the same way that glass

or transparent plastic help warm a

g reenhouse. Without them, the earth

would be too cold for life as we

know it. 

Human activities such as burn i n g

fossil fuel for domestic and industrial purposes are increasing the

amount of greenhouse gases in the

a t m o s p h e re. Agricultural practices

such as land conversion from grass,

f o rest or wetlands to cropland, conventional cultivation, fertilization,

and livestock production also

release greenhouse gases.

Recent acceleration in the accumulation of these gases in the atmosp h e re is causing changes in temperat u re, precipitation and other aspects

of climate. Figure 9 shows the

i n c rease in frequency of intense rainfall events in the United States, which

i n c reases the risk of flooding, water

pollution and erosion. In 1995, a

g roup of more than 2,000 of the

world’s leading scientists (the

I n t e rg o v e rnmental Panel on Climate

Change) concluded, “The balance of

evidence suggests a discern i b l e

human influence on global climate.”

Since that time the evidence has

i n c re a s e d .

Computer models of future climate

indicate that general atmospheric

w a rming will be faster and gre a t e r

than at any time in the last 10,000

years — indeed, since the dawn of

agricultural societies. These changes

in climate will likely affect everything

f rom the length of the growing season and available water to pests and

weed infestation. Agriculture can

respond to global climate change by

reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to the change and

o ffsetting greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere through carbon sequestration.

Agricultural producers may re a d i l y

adapt to small, steady increases in

t e m p e r a t u res or gradual shifts in

water regimes by shifting to cro p s

that are better suited to new climate

regimes. Extreme weather events will

re q u i re farmers to manage risk with,

for example, a greater diversity of

c rop species. 

G reater risk of drought, floods and

ensuing erosion from wind or water

can be ameliorated by increasing the

soil’s resilience through conservation

techniques such as reduced tillage,

FIGURE 9.

Pe rcent of United States experiencing ex t reme 

o n e - d ay pre c i p i t ation eve n t s, 1 9 0 9 - 2 0 0 0

14

12

10

8

6

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

S o u r c e : Karl et al. 1996
36

rotations, cover crops and buff e r

strips. Still, the climate in some are a s

of the South may become too hot

and dry to continue some crops, and

other areas are likely to be inundated

with water, making them unsuitable

for agriculture. It is expected that

f a rming for some crops may shift

n o r t h w a rd over time, where soil conditions are suitable.

Which changes are made and how

they are accomplished will depend

on the driving economic and ecological forces of the production system.

Key actions in preparing for climate

change are: (1) improve capabilities

for predicting potential changes and

their impacts and (2) develop the

means to manage the risks. 

Conditions and tre n d s

On the global scale, agriculture

accounts for about one-fifth of the

annual human-caused increase in

g reenhouse gas emissions, primarily

methane and nitrous oxide, but contributes only about four percent of

global carbon dioxide emissions.

Methane (agriculture accounts for

o n e - t h i rd of the U.S. total) is produced from the digestion of lowquality forage by grazing livestock

and anaerobic storage of manure in

concentrated feeding operations.

N i t rous oxide (agriculture accounts

for about two-thirds of the U.S. total)

is produced as a by-product of the

application of nitrogen fertilizers and

m a n u res to the land. Carbon dioxide

p roduction from agriculture (thre e

p e rcent of the U.S. total) is a result of

practices that disturb the soil and

accelerate the decomposition of soil

o rganic carbon. Burning agricultural

residues also releases carbon dioxide.

The use of fossil fuels in farm i n g

operations, and the production of

agricultural petrochemicals also

d i rectly and indirectly contribute to

carbon dioxide emissions. 

Agricultural practices that decrease

greenhouse gas emissions offer multiple economic and environmental

benefits. For example, reducing the

number and intensity of field operations saves money, time and labor

while reducing fossil fuel use, and in

the case of reduced tillage, reducing

soil organic carbon loss. Improved

nutrient management and substitution of renewable organic nutrients

(manures and composts) for fossil

fuel-based nutrients reduce emissions while maintaining yields and

addressing water quality issues.

Better management of nitrogen fertilizers could result in a 15-percent to

20-percent reduction of nitrous

oxide emissions from cropland,

according to the U.S. Department of

Energy. This means that fields lose

fewer nutrients to ground and surface waters.

Methane recovery from manure

storage systems may pay for itself

within a few years because the

methane can be used on the farm as

a renewable energy supply. Methane

emissions from grazing livestock can

be reduced by 20 percent to 25 percent through improved grazing systems and increased individual animal

and herd perf o rmance. Such systems

also reduce operating costs and help

keep water and air cleaner.

This nation has demonstrated a

capacity to reduce emissions fro m

agricultural systems through eff o r t s

The Current Landscap e
37

The Current Landscap e

Carbon is a component of carbon dioxide and

methane, two of the most important greenhouse gases.

Storing, or sequestering, carbon in soil as organic matter and in trees, shrubs and other permanent vegetation helps reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the

a t m o s p h e re. This is why soil and vegetation are sometimes called carbon “sinks.”

Practices that increase the amount of soil carbon

also reduce soil erosion and are generally associated

with improved soil quality. As their organic carbon

content increases, most soils are better able to hold

and supply water and nutrients to growing plants. This

i n c reases the soil’s resilience under stress, reducing the

negative impacts of flooding and drought. More eff icient irrigation and nutrient use are also possible, contributing to improved water quality and supply and

sustainable productivity of the land. 

Keeping crop residues on fields, maintaining vegetated buffers and using agro f o restry practices impro v e

air and water quality by reducing erosion and runoff .

These practices enhance wildlife habitat and can provide additional farm income.

F a rmers and ranchers have adopted many conservation techniques, usually for other benefits, that also

i n c rease carbon storage. These include reduced tillage

or no-till cultivation systems; crop rotations that incorporate small grains, hay and legumes; planting of

cover crops; minimizing or eliminating summer fallow;

managing nutrients and irrigation efficiently and eff e ctively; and adoption of improved livestock grazing

management systems. Initial financial incentives in

addition to outreach and education may be necessary

to encourage farmers to increase their amount of carbon sequestration. Public assistance is warranted

because of the multiple ancillary public benefits.

These and similar mitigation activities can re d u c e

the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by somew h e re between 90 and 300 million tons per year over

the next 25 to 40 years (Lal et al. 1998, Follett et al.

2001). In total, reducing greenhouse gas levels

t h rough better management of agricultural pro d u c t i o n

systems could offset total U.S. emissions by 10 to 15

p e rcent, increase on-farm profitability and enhance

e n v i ronmental quality.

such as the Ruminant Livestock

E fficiency Program, AGSTA R ,

m e t h a n e - c a p t u re pilot projects and

the Nutrient Efficiency Program. Wo r k

is underway to develop, refine and

use carbon inventory, measure m e n t

and prediction tools such as the Iowa

Soil Carbon Management Pro j e c t ,

CQESTR, CENTURY, EPIC and carbon

p robes. But much remains to be

done to apply these systems on a

b road scale.

Carbon Sequestration 
38

S p raw l , land use 

and planning 

Sprawling development and land

consumption patterns have accelerated changes across this nation’s landscape. Many once-thriving city centers have experienced losses in business, industry and populace, while a

g rowing population drives the continuing conversion of agricultural land

for residential and commercial uses.

Thirty-three percent of the nation’s

farms and 16 percent of all farmland

are located near metropolitan areas.

These urban-influenced farm areas

produce about one-third of the

value of all U.S. agricultural products

and control 39 percent of farm

assets. This highlights two important

issues. First, because there is significant production in urban-influenced

areas, there is a need to address the

unique conservation needs of these

producers. Second, a significant 

portion of nation’s prime agricultural

land is at risk.

Conditions and trends 

Sprawling city suburbs and

“exurbs” have accelerated the conversion of farmland to other uses and

have caused the development of

working lands suited for other purposes. The National Resourc e s

Inventory (2000a) found that between

1982 and 1997, the amount of urban

and built-up land increased by 26 million acres (Figure 10), an area ro u g h l y

the size of Ohio. On average, 645,000

a c res of prime farmland are converted

each year to non-agricultural uses.

About 45 percent of new construction

between 1994 and 1997 occurred in

rural areas, and nearly 80 percent of

that bord e red urban areas. 

Of the more than 2.8 million acre s

of farmland being converted every

y e a r, two million are devoted to

FIGURE 10.

C u mu l at ive trends in private land 

c o nve rted to developed are a s

Source: National Resources Inventory (NRCS 2000a)

The Current Landscap e
39

The Current Landscap e

housing. Nearly 94 percent of

a c reage converted to housing development is attributed to lots one acre

or larger in size — 37 percent on lots

between one and 10 acres and 57

p e rcent on lots of 10 or more acre s .

L a rge-lot (10 or more acres) housing

and increasing affluence have accelerated the conversion of agricultural

land to non-agricultural uses. More

homes on less acreage, called “splatter” development, typically encourage

m o re sprawl, while large-lot housing

development removes an inord i n a t e

amount of farmland from production. 

The consequences of converting

agricultural land to non-agricultural

uses include the fragmentation of

contiguous open land that results in

degradation of wildlife habitat, an

i n c rease in automobile travel that

results in the degradation of air quality and an increase in septic tanks and

well-heads that threaten gro u n d w a t e r

re s o u rces. Land conversion causes

w i d e s p read impervious areas that

i n c rease the amount and intensity of

s t o rm water runoff, thus aff e c t i n g

flood and surface water quality. As

well, conversion of grazing land near

urban areas in the West has cre a t e d

i n c reased fuel and fire hazards and

contributed to recent wildfire s .

The conversion of farmland to residential use also translates into higher public costs. Studies show that

residential development contributes

less in tax revenues than it consumes in public service expenditures

(schools, utilities and roads). On the

other hand, farmland, forestland and

open space tend to contribute more

in tax revenues than they consume

in public service expenditures

(Kelsey 1997). 

Consequently, federal, state, tribal

U r b a n / ru ral interface and USDA

A recent National Association of Conservation Districts survey indicated

that in 14 percent of its districts, at least half of the workload was associated with urban and development issues (NACD 2001a). The General

Accounting Office (2000) reported 29 percent of cities and 37 percent of

counties strongly supported technical assistance from the federal government re g a rding urban impacts on natural re s o u rces. 

USDA technical assistance is available to help urban and suburban communities with a variety of conservation tasks such as managing storm water

r u n o ff and sediment control in developing areas. Through the Farm l a n d

P rotection Program, the Department cooperates with tribal, state and local

g o v e rnments and landowners to protect strategically located prime farm l a n d

near urban areas. 

These efforts are important because agricultural lands contribute to scenic

beauty and community character in both urban and rural landscapes. They

also provide many environmental benefits — from wildlife habitat to re d u ctions in flood damages, increases in groundwater re c h a rge and absorption

of carbon and other greenhouse gases — that are beneficial in both developed and rural landscapes.
40

and local governments and landowners are acting to protect farmland. To

date, 70,246 acres on 367 farms, with

an estimated easement value of more

than $126.5 million, have been permanently protected from conversion

to non-agricultural uses thro u g h

USDA’s Farmland Protection Pro g r a m .

And there is a large unmet demand

for additional assistance to local communities. American Farmland Tr u s t

estimates that more than half a million acres have not been enrolled in

the Farmland Protection Pro g r a m

because of the lack of funding. 

Many areas of the country are turning to planning as one way to

a d d ress concerns about gro w t h .

Almost one-third of cities and counties responding to a General

Accounting Office survey said they

expected to increase their involvement in planning over the next five

years (General Accounting Off i c e

2000). Even states such as Californ i a ,

w h e re planning is mandated by state

legislation, maintain that existing

land-use plans are outdated and that

they lack re q u i rements to thwart

unplanned gro w t h .

The Current Landscap e

Every day across this country,

housing and commercial

development encroaches on

agricultural lands.
41

The Current Landscap e

Wetlands 

Wetlands ecosystems provide a

variety of goods and services that are

valued by society. These include filtering nutrients, trapping sediments

and associated pollutants, pro v i d i n g

fish and wildlife habitat, dampening

floodwater runoff peaks, buff e r i n g

s h o relines from storm impacts, and

p roducing food and fiber for human

consumption and use. 

Historically viewed as obstacles to

p roductive agriculture and expanding

development, wetlands systems are

now protected at federal, state and

local levels. Many wetlands pro t e ction programs specifically addre s s

whether human activities unnecessarily eliminate or severely degrade wetlands functions and thus impair their

ability to deliver valuable goods and

services to society at large. 

For example, the Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act of

1985, as amended by the Food,

A g r i c u l t u re, Conservation, and Tr a d e

Act of 1990, make landowners ineligible for USDA program benefits if they

convert wetlands for agricultural commodity production or, after November

28, 1990, if they convert wetlands to

make agricultural commodity pro d u ction possible (NRCS 1997).

The Federal Agriculture

I m p rovement and Reform Act of 1996

p rovided landowners flexibility in

complying with the wetlands conservation provisions of the 1985 Act. The

1996 Act allows landowners to re m a i n

eligible for USDA program benefits

even if their actions result in conversion of wetlands as long as wetlands

functions and values are adequately

mitigated (determined by NRCS) and

the mitigation meets certain conditions stipulated in the 1996 Act. 

In addition, the 1996 Act extended

the Wetlands Reserve Program to

2002, with an enrollment cap of

975,000 acres. The Agriculture

A p p ropriations Act for fiscal year

2001 raised the enrollment limitation

to 1,075,000 acres. Landowner eff o r t s

to re s t o re wetlands on agricultural

land resulted in 1,048,629 acre s

e n rolled in the Wetlands Reserve

P rogram as of March 2001 (NRCS

Wetlands Reserve Program data). 

In 1989, national policy, called “no

net loss” of wetlands, was initiated to

a d d ress the decline of wetlands

a c reage and functions. That policy

continues to be the minimum targ e t

for federal agency programs and

activities affecting wetlands. 

Conditions and tre n d s

The National Resources Inventory

estimates there were 111,156,000

a c res of wetlands on U.S. non-federal

lands in 1997 (Table 3, page 42;

NRCS 2000a). The total 1997 acre a g e

of wetlands in the six NRCS administrative regions varied widely. Nearly

31 percent of that total was in the

Southeast Region (Alabama, Florida,

G e o rgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

C a rolina, South Carolina, Te n n e s s e e ,

Vi rginia and Puerto Rico). Six perc e n t

of that total was in the West Region

( C a l i f o rnia, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada,

New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and

Washington). 

Approximately 59 percent of the

national wetlands acreage existed on

forestland and 16.5 percent on agricultural land (cropland, pasture land

and land enrolled in USDA’s
42

Conservation Reserve Program;

Table 4). Wetlands extent on forestland was greatest in the Southeast

Region, although the East Region

exhibited the greatest percentage of

wetlands on forestland relative to

the total wetlands extent within the

region. 

Nationally, there was a net loss of

162,800 acres of wetlands from 1992

to 1997, for an average annual net

loss of 32,600 (+/-12,900) acres (NRCS

2000a). National gross wetlands losses

of 506,000 acres were somewhat offset by gross wetlands gains of 343,200

a c res on non-federal lands. These

a c reage gains resulted from re s t o r a t i o n

and creation activities and natural

causes and as unintentional by-pro ducts of various activities (NRCS 2000a). 

While wetlands extent is lowest in

the urban and developed land class

( Table 4), approximately 49 perc e n t

of the national gross loss was attributable to development between 1992

and 1997. 

This was a change from historical

p a t t e rns in which agricultural activities have been identified as the

major cause of wetlands losses. As

F i g u re 11 on page 44 shows, agricultural activities accounted for average

annual losses of 398,000 acres of

wetlands from 1954 to 1974 (Frayer

et al. 1983) and 157,000 acres fro m

1974 to 1983 (Dahl and Johnson

1991). The average annual loss rate

of 26,800 (+/-4,500) acres from 1992

to 1997 was the smallest average

annual loss rate attributed to 

The Current Landscap e

TABLE 3.

C h a n ges in wetlands acre age, 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 7

(NRCS 2000a; changes within NRCS administrative regions; numbers in parentheses = 95 percent

confidence intervals of the estimates; data in thousands of acres)

R e g i o n

S o u t h N o r t h e r n

E a s t S o u t h e a s t C e n t r a l M i d w e s t P l a i n s We s t To t a l

1997 A c r e a g e 1 4 , 2 6 2 . 8 3 4 , 3 7 7 . 9 1 8 , 8 8 4 . 9 2 7 , 0 3 2 . 1 1 0 , 1 8 3 . 3 6 , 4 1 5 . 0 111 , 1 5 6 . 0

Gross losses - 5 7 . 6 - 2 1 6 . 9 - 8 4 . 1 - 7 4 . 2 - 3 7 . 0 - 3 6 . 2 - 5 0 6 . 0

( + / - 11 . 0 ) ( + / - 3 3 . 4 ) ( + / - 1 4 . 7 ) ( + / - 1 2 . 1 ) ( + / - 1 2 . 8 ) ( + / - 11 . 8 ) ( + / - 4 3 . 6 )

Gross gains 1 5 . 4 11 0 . 5 7 8 . 4 4 8 . 4 3 4 . 3 5 6 . 2 3 4 3 . 2

( + / - 5 . 1 ) ( + / - 3 0 . 9 ) ( + / - 1 0 . 9 ) ( + / - 8 . 2 ) ( + / - 8 . 0 ) ( + / - 3 0 . 7 ) ( + / - 4 6 . 6 )

Net change - 4 2 . 2 - 1 0 6 . 4 - 5 . 7 - 2 5 . 8 - 2 . 7 2 0 . 0 - 1 6 2 . 8

( + / - 1 2 . 1 ) ( + / - 4 6 . 9 ) ( + / - 1 8 . 3 ) ( + / - 1 4 . 6 ) ( + / - 1 5 . 2 ) ( + / - 3 2 . 6 ) ( + / - 6 4 . 7 )

Loss due to - 5 . 2 - 4 2 . 0 - 1 8 . 3 - 3 8 . 5 - 1 8 . 0 - 11 . 8 - 1 3 3 . 8

a g r i c u l t u r e ( + / - 3 . 5 ) ( + / - 1 6 . 1 ) ( + / - 5 . 6 ) ( + / - 8 . 0 ) ( + / - 9 . 7 ) ( + / - 6 . 5 ) ( + / - 2 2 . 4 )

Loss due to - 9 . 4 - 2 7 . 1 - 3 . 8 - 1 4 . 3 - 1 . 7 - 3 . 8 - 6 0 . 1

s i l v i c u l t u r e ( + / - 3 . 6 ) ( + / - 5 . 4 ) ( + / - 1 . 9 ) ( + / - 5 . 3 ) ( + / - 1 . 2 ) ( + / - 2 . 1 ) ( + / - 9 . 0 )

Loss due to - 3 8 . 7 - 1 2 5 . 8 - 4 9 . 9 - 2 1 . 3 - 1 . 4 - 1 0 . 4 - 2 4 7 . 5

d e v e l o p m e n t ( + / - 7 . 9 ) ( + / - 2 0 . 6 ) ( + / - 1 2 . 1 ) ( + / - 7 . 3 ) ( + / - 2 . 6 ) ( + / - 7 . 0 ) ( + / - 2 7 . 3 )

Loss due to - 4 . 3 - 2 2 . 0 - 1 2 . 1 - 0 . 1 - 1 5 . 9 - 1 0 . 9 - 6 4 . 6

m i s c e l l a n e o u s ( + / - 4 . 5 ) ( + / - 1 5 . 4 ) ( + / - 5 . 7 ) ( + / - 0 . 2 ) ( + / - 7 . 7 ) ( + / - 4 . 9 ) ( + / - 1 9 . 3 )

a c t i v i t i e s
43

The Current Landscap e

agricultural activities reported to date

(NRCS 2000a). 

Losses resulting from silvicultural

and miscellaneous activities were

almost evenly divided and contributed less to overall wetlands losses than either development or agricultural activities (Table 3). 

G ross wetlands losses and gains

and net change in wetlands extent

also varied among the six NRCS

administrative regions (Table 3). Gro s s

losses were greatest in the Southeast

Region, comprising almost 43 perc e n t

of the national gross loss, and gro s s

losses caused by development were

also greatest in that re g i o n .

The nation has yet to achieve no

net loss of wetlands acreage, but

p ro g ress is evident. Analysis of

changes in the status of wetlands

between 1992 and 1997 in the six

NRCS administrative regions shows

that the West Region came closest to

the no net loss goal with a net

change of 20,000 (+/-32,000) acre s ,

followed by the Northern Plains

Region with a net change of -2,700

(+/-15,200) acres and the South

Central Region with a net change of 

-5,700 (+/-18,300) acres. The other

t h ree regions all exhibited net losses. 

Wetlands gains were greatest in the

Southeast Region, but that region also

had the highest net loss (Table 3;

NRCS 2000a). The other four re g i o n s

exhibited net losses.

While human activity has altere d

and degraded extensive areas of

wetlands over a long period of time,

wetlands restoration and enhancement have gained popularity and

resulted in federal, state and local

investments in restoration pro g r a m s .

TABLE 4.

Wetlands acres by land cove r

(NRCS 2000a; land cover type within NRCS administrative regions; number in parentheses = the percent

of the total wetlands acreage for each land cover type; data in thousands of acres)

R e g i o n C r o p l a n d , Urban and

pasture land d e v e l o p e d O t h e r We t l a n d s

and CRP l a n d R a n g e l a n d F o r e s t l a n d l a n d l a n d a c r e a g e

E a s t 1 , 3 2 3 . 3 0 . 0 11 , 0 2 2 . 3 2 1 8 . 9 1 , 6 9 8 . 3 1 4 , 2 6 2 . 8

( 9 . 2 % ) ( 0 % ) ( 7 7 . 2 % ) ( 1 . 5 % ) ( 11 . 9 % ) ( 1 2 . 8 % )

S o u t h e a s t 2 , 2 6 9 . 0 1 , 2 0 9 . 1 2 5 , 7 1 9 . 0 4 9 3 . 3 4 , 6 8 7 . 5 3 4 , 3 7 7 . 9

( 6 . 6 % ) ( 3 . 5 % ) ( 7 4 . 8 % ) ( 1 . 4 % ) ( 1 3 . 6 % ) ( 3 0 . 9 % )

South Central 3 , 5 9 9 . 9 1 , 0 6 9 . 5 1 0 , 0 7 1 . 6 3 0 9 . 9 3 , 8 3 4 . 0 1 8 , 8 8 4 . 9

( 1 9 . 0 % ) ( 5 . 6 % ) ( 5 3 . 3 % ) ( 1 . 6 % ) ( 2 0 . 3 % ) ( 1 6 . 9 % )

M i d w e s t 4 , 8 4 6 . 4 0 . 0 1 7 , 0 8 3 . 2 2 5 1 . 8 4 , 8 5 0 . 7 2 7 , 0 3 2 . 1

( 1 7 . 9 % ) ( 0 % ) ( 6 3 . 2 % ) ( 0 . 9 % ) ( 1 7 . 9 % ) ( 2 4 . 3 % )

Northern Plains 4 , 0 8 3 . 9 4 , 1 4 1 . 1 3 3 9 . 1 9 4 . 6 1 , 5 2 4 . 6 1 0 , 1 8 3 . 3

( 4 0 . 1 % ) ( 4 0 . 6 % ) ( 3 . 3 % ) ( 0 . 9 % ) ( 1 4 . 9 % ) ( 9 . 1 % )

We s t 2 , 2 3 6 . 8 1 , 4 4 3 . 0 8 9 3 . 3 3 9 . 0 1 , 8 0 2 . 9 6 , 4 1 5 . 0

( 3 4 . 8 % ) ( 2 2 . 4 % ) ( 1 3 . 9 % ) ( 0 . 6 % ) ( 2 8 . 1 % ) ( 5 . 7 % )

To t a l 1 8 , 3 5 9 . 3 7 , 8 6 2 . 7 6 5 , 1 2 8 . 5 1 , 4 0 7 . 5 1 8 , 3 9 8 . 0 111 , 1 5 6 . 0

( 1 6 . 5 % ) ( 7 . 0 % ) ( 5 8 . 5 % ) ( 1 . 2 % ) ( 1 6 . 5 % ) ( 1 0 0 % )
44

Thousands of acres of wetlands

have been “re s t o red,” but many

re s t o red wetlands do not pro v i d e

the same functions and values of

the original wetlands.

Restoration of wetlands functions

is hampered by a lack of knowledge and understanding of the complexities inherent in wetlands

ecosystems and their role in the

landscape. Natural, unaltered wetlands ecosystems developed over

long periods of time in landscapes

w h e re ecosystem and physical

p rocesses were highly integrated.

Many wetlands restoration sites are

located on former wetlands that no

longer have the benefit of an integrated infrastructure because human

activity has altered the landscape on

a regional scale. This adversely

a ffects the ability to replicate sitespecific characteristics of form e r

wetlands. 

Expectations for wetlands re s t o r ation and the science of re s t o r a t i o n

a re often at odds. Most re s t o r a t i o n

p rograms are short-term and conducted on a local scale. Meaningful

restoration re q u i res many years (possibly decades), long-term monitoring,

adaptive management practices and

attention to the regional landscape. 

The lack of controlled experiments

limits the knowledge of which

restoration techniques successfully

re t u rn wetlands functions to diff e re n t

levels. Monitoring and adaptive management practices serve as a safety

net to document and ensure that former wetlands are in fact re s t o re d .

C o n t rol of invasive species, maintenance of re s t o red hydrology, re v e g etation and control of human disturbance are just a few of the

management investments that

must be made if wetlands

and their functions are to

re c o v e r.

The Current Landscap e

*1954-74 data from Frayer et al. 1983

**1974-83 data from Dahl and Johnson 1991

***1992-97 data from NRCS 2000a [1997 NRI, which excludes federal lands]

See bibliography in full report for complete references.

FIGURE 11.

Ave rage annual wetlands loss due to agr i c u l t u re 

1954-1974* 1974-1983** 1992-1997***

-398

-157

-26.8

0

-50

-100

150

-200

-250

-300

-350

-400

-450
45

The Current Landscap e

G razing lands

Grazing lands constitute the larg e s t

land use on America’s private lands.

Grazing lands contribute significantly

to the economies of many regions in

the United States and play a key ro l e

in environmental quality. 

Privately owned grazing lands, past u res and rangeland cover more than

500 million acres in this country. An

additional 60 million acres of privately owned woodland and fore s t l a n d

also support grazing. Many of these

lands provide abundant and clean

water supplies in addition to livestock forage. They also improve the

aesthetic character of the landscape,

p rovide wildlife habitat and re c reational opportunities and protect the

soil from water and wind ero s i o n .

Conditions and tre n d s

Rangelands are managed as natural

ecosystems to produce the benefits

noted above, while pastures are managed more intensely — fertilization

and irrigation to attain maximum forage production are common, for

example. USDA technical assistance

p rograms have helped to impro v e

nearly 20 million acres of grazing

land (Grazing Lands Conservation

Initiative data). However, a number of

critical re s o u rce concerns must still be

a d d ressed so that grazing lands can

continue to provide diverse benefits. 

Maintenance of appropriate plant

cover (including natural plant communities) is a primary re s o u rce conc e rn on grazing land in this country.

O v e r-use of grazing lands and concentrated livestock numbers place

s t ress on vegetation on grazing lands,

particularly in riparian areas or during

Juniper and creosote bush

invasion on rangeland.

times of drought. Without pro p e r

grazing management — in addition

to proper nutrient management on

p a s t u res — the quality and quantity

of plant cover declines. This causes

p roductivity losses, exposes the soil

to damaging wind and water ero s i o n

and can impair water quality. 

Because grazing land occupies

such a large portion of the landscape,

degradation of the vegetative cover

on grazing lands can have a potentially significant impact on U.S. soil

and water re s o u rces. It is estimated

that about 280 million acres — more

than 50 percent — of U.S. grazing

lands may be susceptible to such

degradation and in need of some

f o rm of conservation management

(SRM 2000, Smith and Koala 1999).

A p p roximately 50 percent of U.S.

p a s t u res, or 60 million acres, is on

land that is subject to erosion and

other soil limitations if adequate
46

g round cover is not maintained

(NRCS 2000a).

Establishment of invasive species

on grazing lands is another re s o u rc e

c o n c e rn, and it is gaining incre a s e d

attention. Productivity of grazing

lands declines and management

becomes more difficult upon the

invasion of non-native woody shrubs

and trees, noxious weeds and plant

species of low forage value. As invasive species take over a site and displace native or introduced forage

species, landscape hydrology can be

a l t e red. This can adversely aff e c t

water quality and quantity, which

i n c reases the potential for soil erosion and the risk of damaging floods. 

Some invasive species increase the

risk of fire. Other impacts include

loss of critical wildlife habitat and a

reduction in the natural diversity of

the landscape. Natural diversity is

crucial to an ecosystem’s ability to

recover from stresses such as fire ,

d rought or flooding.

Loss of grazing land through conversion to other land uses such as

c ropland and urban development

also threaten grazing land re s o u rc e s .

About 23 million acres of grazing

The Current Landscap e

Rangeland in Utah.

FIGURE 12.

A c res of ra n geland conve rted to 

d eveloped land, 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 7

95% or

more

federal

area

Puerto Rico

Hawaii

Each red dot represents

2000 acres of newly

developed land. 

1,283,200 total acres

No data for Alaska and

the Pacific Basin

Source: NRCS 2000a
47

The Current Landscap e

land were converted to cropland over

the last 15 years, and about six million acres have been converted to

urban and other uses (Figure 12;

NRCS 2000a).

M o re than 90 percent of the original grasslands in a large part of the

central United States have disapp e a red, mainly as a result of conversion to cropland to help meet the

nation’s food and fiber needs.

Remnant grazing lands are the sole

repositories of habitats that are critical to the existence of many species.

They also re p resent reservoirs of biodiversity in landscapes affected by

urban and agricultural development

and the invasion of non-native

species (see sidebar on Gray Ranch).

C o n s e rving fragile landscapes and 

h ab i t ats — the Gray Ra n ch

The Gray Ranch is a 321,000-acre working ranch in the shrub-steppe

country of southwestern New Mexico. Within its confines, the ranch capt u res a large portion of the environmental variability in the region and

thus is re p resentative of the region as a whole. The ranch contains

grassland, shrubland and woodland; a variety of biophysical enviro nments; and a high level of plant and animal species diversity. The ranch

p rovides habitat and refuge for a large concentration of federal and state

t h reatened and endangered species.

As part of its efforts to preserve the biological heritage of this country, the Nature Conservancy purchased the Gray Ranch — the larg e s t

p u rchase in the history of the Conservancy at that time. The ranch is

now owned by the Animas Foundation, which has undertaken longt e rm re s e a rch on the impacts of grazing and fire on the flora and fauna

of the ranch.

P r ivate fo re s t l a n d

Fifty-eight percent of this country’s

f o restland is private land (Figure 13;

Smith et al. In press), and 84 perc e n t

of that is in small non-industrial tracts

owned by more than 10 million individuals. USDA analyses indicate that

the amount of forestland has been

relatively stable since the 1920s

because losses of forestland to development and other land uses have

been offset by re f o restation and natural reversion of abandoned cro p l a n d

and pastures to forest (USDA 2000a). 

Small non-industrial fore s t l a n d s

c u r rently produce 59 percent of the

annual timber supply (Smith et al. In

p ress). But these lands, when managed in a sustainable way, do much

m o re than provide wood. They store

carbon, shelter diverse wildlife, off e r

re c reational opportunities and help

cleanse the nation’s waters. 

FIGURE 13.

Pe rcent of n o n - fe d e ral areas in fo re s t , 1 9 9 7

Watersheds are defined as

U.S. Geologial Survey

Hydrologic Cataloging Units 

(8-digit).

Total non-federal forestland

acres: 504,955,200

Percent of 

non-federal area 

in forest

75 or more

30.0% of total

10.3% of watersheds

50 to 75

40.5% of total

18.4% of watersheds

25 to 50

18.5% of total

14.0% of watersheds

5 to 25

10.0% of total

21.2% of watersheds

Less than 5

1.0% of total

36.1% of watersheds

95% or more

Federal area

Hawaii

Data unavailable for the

following regions: Alaska and

the Pacific Basin including

Guam, Northern Marianas and

American Samoa.

Puerto Rico
48

Conditions and trends 

While the forestland base is expected to remain relatively stable in the

f u t u re, population increases will lead

to greater conversion of forests for

development purposes. Studies show

that forestland is becoming incre a singly fragmented as large- and 

medium-sized forest tracts are 

subdivided into smaller parc e l s

owned by more people. 

The average size of individual

holdings is declining steeply. About

70 percent of all new forestland owners in recent years, for example,

a c q u i red parcels between 10 acre s

and 49 acres in size, many of which

w e re formerly part of larger tracts

( B i rch 1996, Sampson and DeCoster

1997). The average size of all private

non-industrial forests tracts dro p p e d

f rom 44 acres in 1953 to 24 acres in

1994 and is expected to drop to 17

a c res by 2010 (Figure 14; USDA

2000a). 

Every year, about 100,000 owners

harvest 2.5 million acres of timber

f rom parcels in the 10- to 49-acre size

range. USDA estimates that nearly 15

million acres of small non-industrial

f o restland is subject to a timber harvest within the next few years

(Sampson and DeCoster 1997).

A p p roximately 40 percent of private forestland would benefit fro m

conservation practices. But only

about 10 percent of private fore s t l a n d

a c res are managed through conservation planning. One report indicates

that owners of smaller tracts view forest management for conservation and

timber as only occasionally necesThe Current Landscap e

FIGURE 14.

Ave rage size of fo rest parcels owned 

by indiv i d u a l s, 1 9 5 3 - 2 0 1 0

Sources: 1953-1994 estimates from Birch 1996, 

extrapolation to 2010 from Sampson and DeCoster 1997

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

44

30.5

23.9

16.7

1953 1978 1994 2010
49

The Current Landscap e

sary, primarily because of the lower

economic re t u rns and higher costs

associated with managing small tracts

(USDA 2000b). Increasingly, owners

of these smaller parcels make the

decision that it is not cost-eff e c t i v e

for them to implement conservation

techniques such as planting new

t rees, improving existing timber

stands or facilitating natural re g e n e r ation of trees. Thus, smaller parc e l

sizes, increased management costs

and landowner decisions have had

an impact on the availability of timber from private land. These factors

have also led indirectly to degradation of associated soil, water and air

quality, as well as a reduction in

habitat for certain wildlife species

and an increase in fire hazards. 

In most cases with small acre a g e

p a rcels, timber harvest will be a

once-in-the-ownership experience,

which makes it likely that landowners will have little or no experience

with various aspects of timber and

re s o u rce management. Without experience or knowledge of forest dynamics, landowners may make expensive

or damaging errors. A case in point is

when a landowner purchases land

and simply allows “nature to takes its

course.” In many such instances,

invasive tree species, insect epidemics and wildfires have cre a t e d

detrimental forest conditions that

h a rm the public. As a result, educational, technical and financial assistance for this growing constituency is

critical to maintain forest health. 

Public benefits are not the only

benefits that accrue from proper forest management. A North Caro l i n a

study found that where consulting

f o resters were used, landowners’

income from timber sales incre a s e d

by 20 percent (Cubbage 1996,

Sampson and DeCoster 1997).

As the population and the economy continue to grow, U.S. demand

for domestic wood products is

expected to increase. Historically,

m o re than 88 percent of wood pro ducts used in this country have been

p roduced domestically (Haynes et al.

1995). As demand for additional

housing space grows and a cutback

of timber supplies on national fore s t s

occurs, it becomes more likely that

small forest tracts will be used for

both non-timber and timber purposes. These factors make skilled timber

harvest and long-term sustainability

critical to the health of the U.S. economy and its natural re s o u rc e s .

In some regions of the country, voluntary cost-share and easement programs such as the Forest Legacy

P rogram (see page 11) have proved to

be effective in encouraging landowners to engage in forestry practices to

cope with existing re s o u rce pro b l e m s .

The goal is to foster income that

re w a rds landowners for the social,

e n v i ronmental and community benefits provided by sustainable management of their forest tracts. 

Since 1978, owners of small forest

tracts have cooperated with state

forestry agencies and USDA to

improve more than five million acres

of private forestland through the

Forestry Incentives Program (see

page 11). In Fiscal Year 2000, there

was only enough money in this program to fund about 50 percent of

the applications received for costshare projects.

Every year, about

100,000 landowners

harvest 2.5 million

acres of timber

from parcels in 

the 10- to 49-acre

size range. 

USDA estimates

that nearly 15

million acres of

small non-industrial

forestland is

subject to timber

harvest within the

next few years.
50

Depending on the amount of

a c reage they own, diff e rent landowners have diff e rent needs. USDA

re s e a rchers have found that those

with less than 10 acres generally

request educational materials about

p roper tree care and wildlife. Those

with holdings between 10 acres and

100 acres in size also request educational materials along with occasional

technical assistance to help them

with ecosystem planning and general

f o rest and timber management. The

F o rest Stewardship Program (see

page 11) provides the needed technical assistance to such landowners

t h rough forest management planning,

restoration of riparian areas, wildlife

enhancement and improved supplies

of tree seed for re f o re s t a t i o n .

Owners of 100-acre to 499-acre

f o restland tracts — who are traditionally assisted by USDA — often

request both technical and financial

assistance. Owners of parcels larg e r

than 500 acres in size may hire

their own forestry consultants, but

still look for re s e a rch assistance and

tax incentives for timber management (Sampson and DeCoster

1997). 

In a survey conducted by North

C a rolina State University, the majority

of respondents favored some type of

f o restry incentives (Megalos and

Blank 1997). Nearly 57 perc e n t

f a v o red income or property tax

incentives, while one-third would

likely to participate in cost-share programs, green investment accounts

and low-interest loans. More than 50

p e rcent indicated a willingness to

participate in on-site visitation by

technical experts.

Wi l d l i fe hab i t at

Working lands in this country are

the storehouse of many vibrant ecological communities, including wetlands and other aquatic habitats,

riparian areas, fore s t s

and grasslands.

Management of these

lands plays a critical ro l e

in sustaining healthy fish

and wildlife populations.

How the land is used is

the principal factor

d e t e rmining the abundance of wildlife

species. There are multire s o u rce consequences

f rom land management decisions,

whether lands are managed for multire s o u rce objectives (economic agric u l t u re, soil sustainability, water quality, wildlife habitat, etc.) or for a single purpose objective. The purpose

of technical assistance to land users is

to expand their vision for the conservation of the broad re s o u rce base

(soil, water, wildlife and re l a t e d

re s o u rc e s ) .

A number of USDA pro g r a m s

(described more fully on pages 6 to

13) assist landowners to impro v e

wildlife habitat on their lands, while

other programs discourage practices

that degrade wildlife habitat. The

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Pro g r a m

p rovides financial incentives to develop fish and wildlife habitat. In 1999,

a p p roximately 720,000 acres — comprising upland, wetlands, riparian

and aquatic habitats — were enro l l e d

The Current Landscap e

Waterfowl benefit from

conservation practices on

agricultural lands.
51

The Current Landscap e

in this program, bringing the total

number of acres in the program to

1 , 3 9 2 , 0 0 0 .

The Conservation Reserve Pro g r a m

o ffers incentives to establish conservation cover on environmentally sensitive cropland and to carry out conservation practices such as riparian

f o rests buffers, filter strips,

h e d g e rows and grassed waterways.

E n rolled lands provide food and

cover for upland wildlife species and

reduce sediment delivery to stre a m s ,

which helps improve habitat quality

for fish and other aquatic life.

C u r rently, nearly 33.5 million acre s

a re enrolled in the pro g r a m .

The Wetlands Reserve Pro g r a m

p rovides incentives to re s t o re form e rly degraded wetlands to more naturally functioning conditions, with

emphasis on high-quality wildlife

habitat. As of March 2001, there were

1,048,629 acres enrolled in the program. Concomitantly wetlands conservation provisions discourage land

users from converting wetlands for

agricultural pro d u c t i o n .

Other conservation programs such

as the Environmental Quality

Incentives Program, Fore s t r y

Incentives Program and Farm l a n d

P rotection Program hold the potential

for substantial fish and wildlife habitat benefits.

Conditions and tre n d s

Management of land affects wildlife

habitat in two principal ways. Some

land management actions result in

d i rect changes in land use (kinds of

vegetation) while other actions re s u l t

in changes in management practices.

Changes in habitat quality and availability directly affect wildlife at both

individual and population levels.

Fragmentation and loss of habitat

f rom urban and suburban development, intensive agricultural uses and

the introduction of invasive species,

among other factors, contribute to the

decline in populations of many game

and non-game species. 

In many cases, these effects have

resulted in the need to list declining

species as threatened or endangere d

under provisions of the Endangere d

Species Act. Eighty-five percent of

listed species are threatened or

e n d a n g e red because of loss and

degradation of their habitat (Wi l c o v e

et al. 2000). 

In the United States, there are now

1,234 species of plants and animals

listed by the federal government as

t h reatened or endangered (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 2000). While

a p p roximately 33 percent of known

populations of threatened and endang e red species occur on federal land,

the majority of listed species occur

on non-federal land (or water). The

o c c u r rence of threatened and endang e red species is not uniform acro s s

the United States but is clustered in

“hotspots” of species endangerm e n t

( F i g u re 15, page 52; Flather et al.

1999). 

Grasslands re p resent an important

habitat type providing crucial habitat

for more than one-half of this country’s nesting ducks, as well as many

other grassland-dependent wildlife

species. Grasslands used within their

capability continue to support multiple

activities such as livestock grazing in

addition to wildlife habitat. When

used beyond their capability, their
52

value as habitat diminishes. Pasture

and rangeland habitats declined by 7.5

million acres from 1992 to 1997 (NRCS

2000a) as 6.1 million acres of pasture

and 1.4 million acres of rangeland

w e re converted to other uses. The

change from 1982 to 1997 was a

decline of 22.8 million acres — 12

million acres of pasture with rangeland accounting for the re m a i n d e r. 

During the period 1966 thro u g h

1996, there were also substantial

declines in grassland and shrubland

nesting birds. Twelve of 27 (44 percent) grassland nesting species and

26 of 85 (31 percent) shrubland nesting bird species exhibited significant

d e c reasing population trends during

this period (Flather et al. 1999). 

The northern bobwhite (quail) is

an example of a bird that has exhibited rangewide declines in abundance

over the last three decades. Based

on data from the USGS Bre e d i n g

B i rd Survey (estimating mean abundances over a minimum of thre e

years within five-year windows cent e red on specific years), bobwhite

distribution has undergone re d u c t i o n

and centers of abundance have

become more fragmented (Figure

16). These declines in abundance

a re the result of direct habitat losses

as well as degradation in quality of

existing habitat. It is presumed that

technological advances have made

possible more intensive use of the

land in addition to competition fro m

other land uses.

Population trends for some

species from 1985 to 1996 show

signs of possible recovery. The proportion of grassland nesting bird s

with decreasing trends dropped to

22 percent and shrubland-nesting

b i rds with decreasing trends to 19

p e rcent (Resources Planning Act data

on file with Flather and Brady). CRP

has likely played an important role in

the observed changes in the population trends of these two groups. In a

summary of the literature, Heard et

al. (2000) found that grassland bird

abundance and nest density in midw e s t e rn CRP fields exceeded abundance and nest density in surro u n ding cropland habitats and that nesting

success on CRP lands equals or

exceeds that in alternative nesting

c o v e r.

Grassland habitats on land enro l l e d

in CRP have also proven valuable to

nesting waterfowl in the Prairie

Pothole Region of the upper

Midwest. For example, CRP lands in

the Pothole area of North Dakota,

The Current Landscap e

FIGURE 15.

D i s t r i bution of t h re atened and 

e n d a n ge red species by county

Source: Flather et al. 1999

Number of species

None known

1

2-3

4-8

9-29
53

The Current Landscap e

South Dakota and Montana re p re s e n t

only six percent of the nesting cover

in this area. But they account for 31

p e rcent of all duck nesting activity

( H e a rd et al. 2000). Studies show

that between 1992 and 1997, those

CRP lands contributed to a 30-percent improvement in duck pro d u ction, or 10.5 million additional ducks

( H e a rd et al. 2000). 

While such gains in grassland

habitats can be attributed to CRP

and other habitat conservation programs, they may also be offset by

continued conversion of grasslands

to other uses.

The structure and function of

f o rests, riparian and wetlands are a s

on working lands support a bro a d

diversity of terrestrial and aquatic

wildlife species, many of which are

listed as threatened or endangere d .

But these habitats have been aff e c ted by conversion to cropland and

urban development, drainage, pollution, overgrazing and invasive

species. In the eastern portion of the

country, less than one percent of

original old-growth forest re m a i n s ,

and 99 percent of grasslands and

m o re than one-half of pre - c o l o n i a l

wetlands have been converted to

other uses (Wildlife Management

Institute 2001). While non-federal

f o rest area has increased by 3.6 million acres since 1982, the additional

a c reage is not all suitable habitat.

F o rests that provide suitable wildlife

habitat generally consist of a bro a d

array of tree and shrub species

adapted to the site. Stands planted to

single species (for example, pines)

for intensive cultivation generally

result in poor habitat.

A p p roximately 2.7 million acres are

e n rolled in CRP in the southeastern

states, with more than 62 percent of

the total acreage dedicated to tre e

FIGURE 16.

D i s t r i bution and re l at ive abundance of the 

n o rt h e rn bobwh i t e, 1972 and 1997

Relative abundance was estimated from the USGS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) based on

three-year averages of each route within a five-year window centered on the year of interest.

Contour lines represent the average number of bobwhites observed on BBS routes and were

drawn at intervals of 0, 10, 30, 50, 70 and 90 bobwhites per route.

1972

1997
54

The Current Landscap e

planting. However, much of this are a

is planted in monoculture pine

stands, and potential wildlife benefits

in the region remain unre a l i z e d

( H e a rd et al. 2000). Wetlands re s t o re d

t h rough programs such as the WRP

a re making a significant contribution

to wetlands wildlife conservation,

particularly in areas of high enro l lment such as the lower Mississippi

Valley and are partially offsetting past

losses of wetlands wildlife habitat

( H e a rd et al. 2000). 

E fforts such as the Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program, Conservation

Reserve Program and We t l a n d s

Reserve Program have done much to

conserve and establish habitat for

wildlife. However, they reach only a

small proportion of the non-federal

land base. Effective habitat management for wildlife is best achieved

when integrated into the overall land

management plan. Generally as soilconserving measures incre a s e ,

wildlife habitat quality also impro v e s .

Some soil conservation techniques

d i rectly benefit habitat quality in that

they provide one or more critical

habitat elements incidental to their

e rosion control function. Often, conservation technical assistance is all

that is needed to change an economic enterprise into an ecologically sustainable operation with multiple

re s o u rce benefits.
55

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s

A

doption of conservation techniques by many of this nation’s

private landowners has helped

reduce the impacts of food and fiber

p roduction on soil, water and air

quality. Conservation of the land’s

re s o u rces is an ongoing pro c e s s ,

h o w e v e r. Much remains to be done

to ensure the healthy soils and clean

water and air needed to support

urban and rural communities, a

s t rong economy and important environmental attributes such as wildlife

h a b i t a t .

As examples, 29.9 percent of working U.S. cropland is eroding at rates

g reat enough to have adverse

impacts on long-term soil pro d u c t i v ity and overall soil quality. Agriculture

p roduction continues to contribute to

water quality problems through sediment, inefficient irrigation, misuse of

pesticides and seepage of excessive

livestock and poultry nutrients. Air

quality is affected by agricultural production — emissions from farm

machinery, dust from cultivation and

unpleasant odors from animal feeding operations. But agriculture also

plays an important role in helping

the nation achieve the so-far elusive

“no net loss of wetlands” goal.

The nation has expressed a stro n g

will to address conservation issues

t h rough federal legislation such as the

Wi l d e rness Preservation Act, National

Historic Preservation Act, Soil and

Water Resources Conservation Act,

National Environmental Pro t e c t i o n

Act, Clean Water Act and Clean Air

Act. Numerous states and localities

have adopted environmental policy

and land-use planning legislation.

Public opinion polls continue to rate

conservation of natural re s o u rces as a

major concern. 

To determine soil, water and re l a t e d

conservation needs and approaches to

meet those needs, USDA drew fro m

regulatory and legal re q u i rements, its

own expertise and the work and

reports of other federal agencies, local

conservation districts and state agricult u re and forestry departments.

USDA examined the findings from a

diverse array of agricultural-re l a t e d

entities and forums, including pre s idential and congressional commissions

such as the National Drought Policy

Commission and the Commission on

21st Century Production Agriculture ;

examined testimony from nationwide

hearings of the House Agriculture

Committee; and reviewed the re s u l t s

f rom national listening sessions of the

Soil and Water Conservation Society

and USDA’s Policy Advisory

Committee. The Department also

requested comments and inform a t i o n

f rom approximately 60 agricultural and

e n v i ronmental interest groups. 

Major conservation needs and re commendations for improvement fro m

these sources are presented in this

section, organized in three general

categories: (1) enhance USDA 

technical assistance and service

delivery; (2) improve re s e a rch, 

development of technology and 

technology transfer; and (3) expand

economic incentives for conservation. 

Conservation of

the land’s

resources is an

ongoing process.

Much remains to

be done to ensure

healthy soils,

clean water and

viable habitat for

w i l d l i f e .

Appendix B provides an overview of public attitudes and common

themes running through many of the reports and publications used in

p reparation of this report and their suggestions for action. 
56

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s

1 . Enhance USDA

t e chnical assistance and

s e rvice delive ry

USDA faces challenges in key

aspects of its conservation pro g r a m s .

The Soil and Water Conservation

Society, for example, held public

meetings across the nation in 2000

with local and state leaders who are

well versed in USDA conservation

p rograms (Soil and Wa t e r

Conservation Society 2000). In re l a t i o n

to the demand for technical assistance,

the Society found, “Many more producers ask for conservation assistance

than can be accommodated....

Participants expected the gap between

demand for conservation assistance

and its supply to widen over the next

few years unless action is taken soon.”

F u r t h e rm o re, “Conservation programs currently work better for ro w -

c rop operations than for other types

of farms and ranches. As a re s u l t ,

t h e re was strong sentiment among

many participants that large regions of

the country do not receive their fair

s h a re of conservation assistance even

though they face important conservation and environmental problems.” 

The National Drought Policy

Commission reported concerns about

equitable service delivery during

hearings in 1999 and 2000, finding,

“Many tribes noted the need for technical and financial assistance to plan

and implement conservation meas u res.... They emphasized that this

assistance must be easily and locally

accessible to tribal members.”

O v e r a rching recommendations for

i m p rovement included calls for conservation technical assistance at the

levels needed to achieve pro g r a m

goals. Several sources indicated the

need to deliver re s e a rch results and

transfer technology in a more eff i c i e n t

manner; the need for increased elect ronic access to information; the need

to increase USDA technical assistance

in the areas of agronomy, soil science, engineering, wildlife and plant

sciences; and the need for technical

expertise in disciplines not curre n t l y

re p resented in USDA’s field-level

w o r k f o rce. 

Additional re c o m m e n d a t i o n s

i n c l u d e :

O ve rall improve m e n t s

• Foster broad-based appro a c h e s

to natural re s o u rce management, including strategies that

p rotect whole watersheds and

e c o s y s t e m s .

• P rovide producers incre a s e d

technical assistance to help

them address increasing federal,

state and local legislation and

re g u l a t i o n s .

• P rovide interpretation for 

landscape analysis and new

technologies for precision 

f a rming and surface geophysical

m e a s u re m e n t s .

• R e s t o re conditions in key watersheds to support ecological functions and beneficial water uses.

• Expand federal/tribal/state/local/

n o n - g o v e rnmental org a n i z a t i o n

partnerships in support of state,

tribal and federal natural

re s o u rce goals.

The soil re s o u rc e

• I m p rove control of excessive

e rosion through proven combinations of technical assistance,
57

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s

conservation compliance and

conservation incentives. 

• C reate a national soil quality

goal; for example, “By the year

2015, all lands will be ero d i n g

at a non-degrading level to the

g reatest extent possible.”

• P romote practices that build up

the level of soil organic matter

on lands where soil erosion is

not excessive. Such practices

also help control erosion and

p rotect water quality. 

• E n s u re that soil survey inform ation is made available to pre v iously underserved are a s .

The water re s o u rce —

quality issues

• I n c rease assistance to landowners for better management of

nutrients and pesticides to

reduce the risk of contaminating

water re s o u rces. Help livestock

and poultry producers re d u c e

their potential for contributing

to water quality and associated

natural re s o u rce pro b l e m s .

• Implement a system with

national standards to assess

watershed conditions.

• P rovide more information to

landowners concerning buff e r s ,

particularly their economic and

operational benefits.

The water re s o u rce —

quantity issues

• Update appropriate planning

and application tools and

i n c rease assistance to implement innovative on-farm water

management techniques such as

o ff - s t ream storage and water

harvesting to decrease irrigation’s dependency on gro u n dwater and stream flow.

• Encourage water management

activities through enhanced support of federal/state/local coalitions that coordinate water quality goals and water quantity

needs at all levels of activity.

• Conduct on-going hazard mitigation planning to help communities reduce their vulnerability

to aging watershed pro j e c t s

t h rough more compre h e n s i v e

p ro g r a m s .

• Evaluate methods to determ i n e

when dams should not be re h abilitated but re m o v e d .

C l i m ate ch a n ge

• Using information and eduction,

expose field staff, conservation

partners and land managers to

the basics of global climate

change and principles of mitigation and adaptation.

• Establish a network of 

watershed-scale pilot projects to

serve as demonstration sites for

the development of inform a t i o n ,

technology, outreach and 

a p p l i c a t i o n .

S p raw l , land use and

p l a n n i n g

• Identify science-based principles

and criteria to help local communities manage growth and assist

communities with land evaluation and area-wide planning.

• I m p rove guidance and cre a t e

database tools to assist federal

agencies in complying with the

F a rmland Protection Policy Act,
58

which re q u i res NRCS to monitor federal agencies and provide them with technical assistance to hinder the conversion

of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses.

• E n s u re that urban-influenced

conservation districts re c e i v e

technical assistance relating to

soil information, storm - w a t e r

management, erosion contro l

and floodplain and wetlands

p ro t e c t i o n .

We t l a n d s

• Continue assessment of wetlands through wet-soil monitoring to support ecosystem and

landscape analysis of wetlands

in degraded settings.

• Continue investigations and

development of sub-aqueous

soil mapping techniques in tidal

and freshwater marshes.

• Continue development of hydric

soil indicators for use in identifying wetlands.

• Conduct routine, multi-tiere d

assessments and monitoring for

a sample of wetlands re s t o r a t i o n

and enhancement sites in diff e rent settings.

G razing land

• P rovide more technical assistance to landowners in applying

the latest technology for grazing

land management decisions.

• Encourage owners of grazing

lands to consider diversification

so that they and society can

achieve multiple benefits fro m

grazing lands.

P r ivate fo re s t l a n d

• P romote re f o restation after timber harvest to reclaim marg i n a l

or degraded areas, control erosion and capture the benefits of

carbon sequestration.

• I n c rease technical assistance in

the areas of forest education

and forest management 

planning. 

• Emphasize forest planning that

meets the objectives of the

landowners and responds to

i n c reasing public demands for

w a t e r, re c reation, wildlife habitat, timber, carbon sequestration

and other public benefits fro m

f o restland. 

Wi l d l i fe hab i t at

• Reduce the adverse effects of

agricultural production practices

on fish and wildlife populations

t h rough broader adoption of

integrated pest management

systems, conservation tillage,

conservation buffers, eff e c t i v e

nutrient management, water

conservation and similar 

m e a s u re s .

• I n c rease fish and wildlife habitat-oriented technical assistance

to private landowners and managers during the conservation

planning pro c e s s .

• Expand partnerships with

landowners, tribes, private org anizations and public agencies to

foster fish and wildlife conservation on private lands.

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s
59

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s

2 . I m p rove re s e a rch ,

d evelopment of

t e ch n o l ogy and

t e ch n o l ogy tra n s fe r

The Commission on 21st Century

P roduction Agriculture Resourc e s ,

echoed by the findings and re c o mmendations of many other parties,

identified re s e a rch as a significant

need for USDA conservation pro g r a m s

into the future. The Commission

emphasized four re s e a rch areas for

i m p rovement: providing voluntary

incentive-based programs to enhance

a g r i c u l t u re’s positive contribution to

air and water quality; developing a

means to compensate producers who

establish environmentally beneficial

practices, with funding from a separate environmental program; establishing a baseline measure of agriculture ’ s

positive contribution to air and water

quality; and focusing on priority issues

including, but not limited to, carbon

sequestration, control of gre e n h o u s e

gases emissions, manure management

and alternative fuels.

Other entities focused on the need

to fill critical data gaps on the curre n t

status of watersheds and ecosystems

and for better technology to monitor

the effects that conservation practices

and systems have on water quality

and watershed health. Some pointed

to the need for greater cooperation

among USDA and private entities such

as certified crop consultants who are

engaged in assessing natural re s o u rc e

conditions and providing assistance to

l a n d o w n e r s .

USDA’s Agricultural Air Quality Ta s k

F o rce noted several re s e a rch needs to

i m p rove air quality. Foremost, data are

c u r rently inadequate to determine the

e ffectiveness of control measures for

agricultural operations. Observations

must be augmented with reliable scientific evidence, particularly in re g a rd

to data that can quantify reductions in

air quality associated with specific

techniques and practices.

Additional recommendations for

re s e a rch and technology development and transfer include: 

O ve rall improve m e n t

• Develop new technologies and

i m p roved management practices

that enable landowners to minimize the impact of their activities on the environment. 

• Expand re s e a rch in support of

integrated, system-wide

a p p roaches to meet the ecological challenges of water quality

and management. 

• E n s u re that education, extension

and technology transfer activities

encourage the adoption of more

e n v i ronmentally friendly practices.

• Deliver re s e a rch results and

transfer technology in a more

e fficient manner.

The soil re s o u rc e

• P rovide digital soil surveys to

p roperly analyze watersheds

and landscapes for their nonpoint source pollution potential

and effects through ecosystem

m o d e l i n g .

• Conduct re s e a rch and economic

analysis on the potential to

i n c rease storage of carbon in the

soil. Identify and validate carbon

c redits for agriculture and fore s t

conservation practices.

• R e s e a rch the use of carbon

c redit trading, which holds the

potential to enhance soil quality
60

t h rough the build-up of soil

o rganic matter and help

sequester carbon to re d u c e

g reenhouse gases.

• P rovide statistical data and

analysis on agricultural chemical

uses, production methods, land

p roductivity and integrated pest

management practices and

establish relationships with local

soil and re s o u rce inventories.

The water re s o u rce —

quality issues 

• Conduct additional re s e a rc h

related to the effectiveness of

b u ffers at specific sites and for

specific purposes to update

practice specifications.

Document results that can be

achieved through the use of

b u ffers on a watershed scale.

The water re s o u rce —

quantity issues

• I n c rease USDA re s e a rch for irrigation and related water re s o u rc e s

activities to assure continued

development and implementation

of state-of-the-art water- s a v i n g

t e c h n o l o g y .

• Incorporate digital soil survey

and landscape analysis modeling in irrigation design systems. 

• Conduct landscape modeling on

a watershed basis for impro v e d

e fficiency of water use.

• Assess the condition of all watershed dams as well as the population at risk, hazard classification and risk of failure acro s s

the nation. Provide geophysical

m e a s u rement tools to measure

sediment load and potential

weaknesses in dam structure s .

Air quality

• Define appropriate and eff e c t i v e

particulate control measures that

a re economically and technologically feasible. Quantify particulate reductions re s u l t i n g

f rom each control measure .

• Develop accurate emissions

inventories for agricultural 

o p e r a t i o n s .

• Support the priorities and funding for re s e a rch re c o m m e n d e d

by USDA’s Agricultural Air

Quality Task Forc e .

• Conduct re s e a rch to impro v e

p rediction models for downwind concentrations of particulate matter, develop the best

sampling techniques for monitoring agricultural burn i n g ,

d e t e rmine emission factors,

evaluate techniques for re d u cing harmful emissions from agricultural burns and create alternatives to agricultural burn i n g .

C l i m ate ch a n ge 

• Conduct re s e a rch and economic

analysis concerning the potential to increase storage of carbon in vegetation and soil.

• Develop quantitative usedependent databases, including

ecological site descriptions, for

all soil mapping units and link

them to spatial databases.

• Develop new risk management

tools integrating support payments and private markets to

underwrite adoption of conservation technologies at the farm

l e v e l .

• I n c rease collaboration among

NRCS and re s e a rch institutions,

including universities, the

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s
61

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s

Agricultural Research Service

and others to refine and develop improved models, further

i m p rove measurement technologies and systems and impro v e

understanding of the ecological

p rocesses that support agricultural pro d u c t i o n .

S p raw l , land use and

p l a n n i n g

• Expand development and transfer of “green infrastructure ”

technology to manage storm

water and control sediment.

We t l a n d s

• R e s e a rch a comprehensive conservation approach to wetlands

that takes into consideration the

condition of the landscape as

well as the treatments needed

to maintain or improve wetlands functional conditions.

• Identify geographic locations in

the current National Resourc e s

Inventory that continue to

exhibit significant declines in

wetlands acreage. Conduct a

detailed examination of the

causes of those declines and

identify strategies to achieve the

nation’s no net loss of wetlands

a c reage goal on private lands. 

• I n c rease the use of non-invasive

geophysical measurement tools

such as ground penetrating

radar and electro m a g n e t i c

induction to measure water

tables, depth of peat material

and deep-water sediment loads.

• Continue development of hydric

soil indicators for use in identifying wetlands.

G razing land

• Develop and improve tre a tments to assure the long-term

p roductivity and ecological

health of U.S. grazing lands.

P r ivate fo re s t l a n d

• Develop strategies to minimize

the impact of urban sprawl on

f o re s t l a n d s .

• P rovide re s e a rch assistance on

f o rest steward s h i p .

• Digitize and update soil surveys

in forested areas to support

m o re intensive uses.

• Expand development of new

a g ro f o restry technologies to

t reat waste, provide odor and

visual screens, develop altern ative crops, diversify incomes

and improve productivity on

limited acre s .

Wi l d l i fe hab i t at

• Continue to re s t o re and

enhance aquatic habitats and

i m p rove current technology to

achieve this objective. 

• I m p rove technology and the

capability to reduce the impact

of invasive plant and animal

species on native ecosystems and

fish and wildlife communities.

• Develop mechanisms to minimize the impact of suburban

sprawl and urban development

on agricultural lands and the

wildlife they support.

• C reate effective methods to

monitor the response of fish

and wildlife populations to agricultural conservation practices

and land management activities.
62

3 . Expand economic

i n c e n t ives fo r

c o n s e rvat i o n

Nearly all comments, identified

needs and recommendations conc e rning future agricultural conservation efforts emphasized the need to

continue or expand existing economic incentive programs and consider

the creation of new incentives. 

People focused on the ability of

land easement and reserve pro g r a m s ,

as well as other economic incentivebased approaches, to re w a rd

landowners for re s o u rce conservation

practices. They called for extension

and modification of existing programs, including increased funding

and expanded eligibility. For example, USDA’s broad-based conservation program, the Enviro n m e n t a l

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),

o ffers financial assistance for conservation practices based on the level of

expected environmental benefits.

Data indicate that demand for EQIP

assistance is three to four times more

than available funding. 

The incentives just mentioned focus

on future conservation efforts. But there

is a growing interest in a new economic incentive that re w a rds private

landowners for conservation goals that

they have already achieved because of

the secondary benefits (public goods)

that have accrued from past re s o u rc e

conservation on private lands.

Among the recommendations were

the following:

O ve rall improve m e n t s

• P rovide financial and other

incentives to landowners to

practice good stewardship. 

• I n c rease funding for the

E n v i ronmental Quality

Incentives Pro g r a m .

• Emphasize federal/state/local

partnerships in support of state

and federal funding initiatives

and devise a priority ranking

system for watershed pro j e c t

rehabilitation. 

The soil re s o u rc e

• Expand reserve programs to

re t i re highly erodible or other

fragile lands while allowing

agricultural and forest lands to

maintain their pro d u c t i v i t y .

The water re s o u rce —

water quality

• Within the Conservation Reserve

P rogram: (1) refine statutory

language and program administration to ensure flexibility in

the use of buffers for achieving

water quality and other conservation purposes at the farm or

ranch level, (2) maintain the

holdback acreage for buff e r s ,

(3) create financial incentives to

encourage landowners to act

collectively along a stre a m

course or within a watershed

and (4) make all agricultural

land eligible for participation in

the continuous sign-up.

The water re s o u rce —

water quantity

• Expand pilot watershed re h a b i l itation pro j e c t s .

• Fund rehabilitation thro u g h

loans and cost-share assistance. 

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s
63

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s

Air quality 

• Develop a guidance document

for agricultural producers to

include control measures and

estimated reductions of particulates associated with each

abatement strategy.

• Assist local elected officials fro m

soil and water conservation

districts in administering

voluntary air quality compliance

p rograms. 

• Develop state implementation

plans, allocating credits based

on the rate of participation (percentage of land mass and/or

p e rcentage of participants) and

on yearly certification by conservation district officials. 

• F o rego re c o rd keeping and

reporting re q u i rements by participants beyond those alre a d y

needed for participation in

other USDA pro g r a m s .

• A d d ress smoke management

using a two-tiered appro a c h :

Tier 1 — a voluntary pro g r a m

for areas where agricultural

b u rning rarely causes or contributes to air quality pro b l e m s ,

and Tier 2 — a more structure d

p rogram for areas where agricultural burning contributes to

violations of air quality stand a rds or to visibility impairm e n t

in federal Class I areas. 

C l i m ate ch a n ge

• S t r u c t u re farm and ranch support programs to optimize all

e n v i ronmental benefits, including improvements in operationlevel greenhouse gas balances,

using pilot projects as models.

S p raw l , land use and

p l a n n i n g

• I n c rease funding and enro l l m e n t

of farmland in perpetual easements to slow development of

prime farmland. 

• P rovide cost-share and dire c t

payments to agricultural producers to strengthen the economic and ecological viability

of farms, decrease the amount

of land sold to developers and

p e rmit greater appreciation of

rural landscapes through local

cultural and heritage tourism

p ro g r a m s .

We t l a n d s

• I n c rease enrollment of wetlands

and associated uplands in the

Wetlands Reserve Pro g r a m .

G razing land

• C reate a grazing land or

grassland reserve pro g r a m .

A recent study (Environmental Defense 2001) based on USDA data

found that inadequate funding of USDA conservation incentives prevents: (1) half of the farmers and ranchers seeking technical assistance

to improve tillage practices or install streamside buffers from getting that

assistance; (2) three out of four farmers seeking financial assistance to

re s t o re lost wetlands and woodlands, use less water or improve manure

management from receiving that assistance; (3) more than 2,700 farm e r s

hoping to re s t o re 560,000 acres of wetlands from participating in the

restoration pro g r a m .

In addition, thousands of farmers in the path of sprawl off e red to sell

their development rights to USDA or state and local programs, but there

w e re insufficient funds to accommodate them.
64

P r ivate fo re s t l a n d

• I n c rease enrollment in fore s t r y

p rograms that emphasize re f o restation and promote wise use

of forest re s o u rces such as timb e r, carbon sequestration,

wildlife habitat and re c re a t i o n .

• Expand current cost-share and

incentive programs to encourage owners of non-industrial

private forestland to manage

their lands for private and public benefits. 

Wi l d l i fe hab i t at

• I n c rease financial incentives to

f a rmers and ranchers for activities that help to maintain stable

wildlife populations and

i n c rease populations that have

experienced recent declines. 

• P reserve habitat gains made

t h rough incentive programs by

linking eligibility for financial

incentives with basic conservation standard s .

• Maintain existing and establish

additional conservation programs and incentives to re s t o re ,

p rotect and manage (over the

long term) native communities

such as wetlands, native grasslands and riparian are a s .

• C reate incentives such as Safe

Harbor Agreements for

landowners to improve habitat

for listed and candidate thre a tened and endangered species

and provide landowners assurances re g a rding future use of

lands that support these species.

I m p roving A m e r i c a ’s Conservation Effo rt s
65

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

A n a lysis of a l t e rn at ive s

The following analysis pre s e n t s

results from evaluation of diff e re n t

p rogram alternatives. The altern a t i v e s

a re based on conservation needs and

recommendations identified thro u g h

public forums and discussions held

during the year 2000 by entities and

institutions such as USDA, the Soil

and Water Conservation Society, the

National Association of Conservation

Districts and the Wildlife Management

Institute. 

The models used in the analysis

and described below considere d

c ropland, CRP lands, pasture l a n d ,

federal and non-federal grazing lands,

irrigation water use (surface and

pumped sources) and labor (family

and hired). Crops covered in the

models include barley, oats, rice,

wheat, corn, sorghum, soybeans, cotton, potatoes, hay, tomatoes, oranges,

grapefruit, sugar beets and sugar

cane. Livestock includes cattle, dairy,

hogs, poultry and sheep.

The analysis involved use of the

economic Agricultural Sector Model

(ASM) for estimating baseline conditions in the U.S. agricultural sector

and then comparing results with the

baseline. The baseline model solution is calibrated so that its estimated re s o u rce and commodity market

outcomes are consistent with the

commodity market conditions for

2000 as reported in the USDA

Agricultural Outlook Baseline

(USDA 2000c). Additional re s o u rc e

availability and management conditions were calibrated to data for

year 1997 using the Census of

A g r i c u l t u re and the National

R e s o u rces Inventory.

Auxiliary models linked to and

employed in this analysis include the

E n v i ronmental Policy Integrated

Climate model (EPIC; also known as

the Erosion Productivity Impact

Calculator) and the Hydrologic Unit

Model of the United States (HUMUS),

which provide estimates of soil erosion, sediment delivery, nitrogen, and

phosphorus leaching and runoff at

both the field and watershed levels

of aggregation. Design and pro d u ction of analysis products from the

systems were developed by NRCS in

partnership with USDA's Agricultural

R e s e a rch Service and Texas A&M

University. (See Appendix C for a

detailed explanation of methods, proc e d u res and sources of data incorporated in the analysis.)

The analysis products contain

regional-level information for natural

re s o u rce program managers, legislators and policy officials to use in

their deliberations about new and

expanded conservation program proposals. Results from the analysis

show significant potential for

i m p rovements in soil, water and

e n v i ronmental condition measure s

t h rough sustained and enhanced voluntary incentives for agricultural 

p roducers. 

The ASM model output was linked

with the results from other modeling

systems as well as agency technical

s t a ff workload and cost data to provide information such as the following

at state, regional and national levels:

• changes in levels of commodity

p roduction, costs, income and

social welfare measures; 

• changes in crop acres and land

uses; 
66

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

• changes in the mixes of cro p s

a c ross soils, tillage types and

conservation practices; 

• changes in levels of pro d u c t i o n

and income by region that can

be related to farm size and

demographic producer gro u p s

using Census of Agriculture

data; 

• changes in crop acres and land

use to estimate water quality

impacts for selected scenarios

using the HUMUS model;

• c rop acreage distributions and

management information combined with the per- a c re re s u l t s

f rom biophysical models to

show a variety of economic and

e n v i ronmental impacts such as

e rosion, sediment, phosphorus

and nitrogen losses to surf a c e

water and groundwater; and

• technical and financial assistance

needs associated with each

a l t e rn a t i v e .

In the analysis, the BASE scenario

re p resented current programs and

c u r rent conditions as appro x i m a t e d

by the USDA baseline for 2000, the

1997 Census of Agriculture, the 1997

National Resources Inventory and

Conservation Reserve Program and

b u ffer program data as of September

2 0 0 0 .

The analysis estimated the impact

of the following selected conservation

a l t e rnatives above the BASE scenario:

I n c rease bu ffe rs to two million

miles (BU F 2 ) : Simulate imposed

e n rollment of sufficient buffer acre s

to reach the two-million-mile goal

under the assumption of current 

rules for CRP, installation costs and

rental rates.

Expand the Conservation

Reserve Program to 45 million acres (CRP45): Simulate

imposed enrollment of acreage to

expand the Conservation Reserve

Program to 45 million acres under

the assumption of continuing with

current rules.

I n i t i ate a Grazing Lands

Re s e rve Program (GLR) 

G L Ra : Fund Grazing Land Reserve

at $50 million annually, distributed

p roportionate to acre s .

G L Rv : Fund Grazing Land Reserve

at $50 million annually, distributed

p roportionate to value.

D o u ble the national acre age in

mu l ch and ze ro till (TILL2X)

f rom 37 percent to 74 perc e n t

o f c ro p l a n d .

C ropland Stewa rd s h i p

P roposal (CSP)

C S P 1 : Redistribute $5.57 billion in

payments within each state to cro pland and pasture land that alre a d y

incorporate sustainable re s o u rc e

management systems.

C S P 2 : CSP1 plus simulate imposition of erosion control on re m a i n i n g

c ropland to conservation compliance

l e v e l s .

C S P 3 : CSP1 plus simulate imposition of erosion control on re m a i n i n g

c ropland to sustainable re s o u rc e

management systems.
67

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

S i multaneous BU F 2 , C R P 4 5

and CSP2. Implementation of

b u ffers, CRP45 and CSP2 simultaneously to capture economies. 

S i multaneous BU F 2 , C R P 4 5

and CSP3. Implementation of

b u ffers, CRP45 and CSP3 simultaneously to capture economies. 

I n c rease funding for the

Fa rmland Protection Progra m

to $65 million annu a l ly

( F P P 6 5 ) .*

D o u ble the Wetlands Re s e rve

P rogram acre age by enro l l i n g

250,000 acres annu a l ly for five

ye a rs (WRP250).*

I n c rease funding for the

Fo re s t ry Incentives Progra m

by $38 million a year (FIP38).*

I n c rease funding for the

Wi l d l i fe Hab i t at Incentive s

P rogram to $50 million

a n nu a l ly (WHIP50).*

Reduce re s o u rce degra d at i o n

( F i g u re 17)

Analysts combined the results for

several alternatives to estimate the economic, environmental and pro g r a m

impacts that would accrue to re d u c e

the rate of re s o u rce degradation. This

a l t e rnative included program elements

discussed in most of the public forums

held during 2000 and in reports that

w e re issued up through September

2000. The alternative includes achieving

conservation compliance levels on all

land at the CSP2 level, completion of

two million miles of conservation

b u ffers, enrolling 250,000 additional

a c res per year in WRP, slightly expanding FPP to $65 million and FIP to $38

million annually, establishing WHIP at

$50 million annually, initiating a modest

grazing land reserve and enrolling 45

million acres in CRP. These initiatives

respond to the need to improve water

and soil quality, reduce soil ero s i o n ,

conserve marginal lands and wetlands,

i m p rove the condition of private grazing lands and provide economic incentives for land stewardship. 

This alternative (and the one below

to improve re s o u rce health) incorporate cost information with results of

the analysis indicating that total costs

to meet expected demand for conservation would be an additional $2.4

billion, while estimated enviro n m e ntal benefits totaled $7.4 billion.**

The benefits are significant, and overall long-term social costs would be

balanced by reduced degradation to

soil and water re s o u rces and fewer

e n v i ronmental risks. 

Additional financial incentives needed were estimated at $2.0 billion.

* These alternatives were not explicitly

modeled, but estimated impacts were

developed based on program specifications and results of other scenarios.

** Estimated environmental benefits

include soil, water, air quality and wildlife

habitat benefits. The analysis pre s u m e s

that additional acreage re t i red and conservation treatments are optimally located to

maximize environmental benefits.

Complete accounting and quantifiable estimates for all environmental benefits are

not yet available in the literature. Of the

benefit estimates that have been quantified

for CRP, wildlife habitat accounts for just

over 50 percent, water quality for 35 percent, soil productivity for 10 percent and

air quality for 4 percent of the total.

Recent analyses of national and re g i o n a l

benefits can be found in Claassen et al.

(2001) and Feather et al. (1999).
68

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

Technical assistance needs amounted

to an additional $737 million for the

federal share and $189 million for the

partner share, totaling $0.9 billion. The

overall benefit/cost ratio was 3.2. 

I m p rove re s o u rce health

( F i g u re 17)

To improve re s o u rce health, analysts

added sustainable re s o u rce management systems on all cropland at the

CPS3 level to the initiatives used in the

a l t e rnative to reduce re s o u rce degradation described above. This altern a t i v e

a d d ressed the highest level of conservation considered in the analysis.

The total social costs increased to

$6.4 billion per year, with estimated

e n v i ronmental benefits of $10.7 billion.

Additional financial incentives totaled

$2.7 billion. Technical assistance needs

amounted to an additional $1.8 billion

for the federal share and $0.8 billion

for the partner share, totaling $2.8 billion. Technical assistance costs ro s e

substantially because of re q u i re m e n t s

for intensive re s o u rce management

systems under this scenario. The overall estimated benefit/cost ratio was 1.7. 

D i s c u s s i o n

To implement initiatives such as

those presented above, USDA pro v i d e s

technical assistance, financial incentives, and re s e a rch and educational

services for conservation and enviro nmental enhancement under a number

of legislated authorities. The principal

p rograms that deliver these services

a re described on pages 6 to 13. 

Costs to accomplish the conservation and environmental enhancements

p resented in the analysis likely establish lower bound thresholds for several

reasons. First, the principal means of simulating

conservation accomplishments in the analysis is

t h rough imposition of

successively higher levels

of erosion control constraints or through re q u i ring levels of the conservation practices (contouring,

residue management, strip

c ropping and terraces)

that are in the model system. Data on the costs

and effects of intensive

re s o u rce management

systems, including costs

for comprehensive nutrient and pesticide management systems, are not

yet available at the

regional levels of detail

FIGURE 17.

Benefits and costs to continue conservat i o n

i nvestments at current leve l s, reduce re s o u rc e

d egra d ation and improve re s o u rce health

Current level

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0

Reduce resource

degradation

Improve resource

health

Environmental benefits

Total costs

Direct federal financial assistance

Total technical assistance
69

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

needed for incorporation into the

modeling systems. 

Second, modeled agricultural production costs did not include various

non-modeled costs that are typically

incurred as farmers change practices;

for example, accelerated equipment

replacement, losses associated with

application of unfamiliar technology

and incentives to cover the costs of

changing to new and more intensive

resource management systems. 

T h i rd, cost estimates for conservation practices are based on surveys of

p roducers currently implementing the

practices. Those estimates may not

be re p resentative of the conditions

faced by producers who have not yet

adopted the practice. 

Fourth, the model used in this

analysis (like any other model) does

not include all options available to

p roducers. As incentives change, both

technology development and technology adoption occur, which lowers the

cost of adoption and changes likely

outcomes from the technologies that

a re currently available.

A l t e rn at ive s

The remainder of this section provides additional details concern i n g

each of the alternatives considered in

this analysis.

BA S E . Baseline conditions in the

analysis match closely with curre n t

land use and economic and re s o u rc e

conditions as shown by the following:

• Just under 332 million acres of

c ropland planted.

• About 35 percent of cro p l a n d

incorporating conservation

tillage, strip cro p p i n g ,

contouring or terrace systems.

• About 32 million acres of land

in the Conservation Reserve

P rogram. 

• About $7.2 billion in dire c t

federal financial assistance to

agricultural producers thro u g h

CRP and AMTA payments.

• About $1.1 billion in federal technical assistance and support service costs for technology development, delivery and re s o u rc e

i n f o rmation such as inventories

and soil and snow surveys.

Extend the bu ffer program to

a ch i eve two million miles

( BU F 2 ; F i g u re 18, Table 5) 

The annual cost to

consumers/taxpayers to extend the

b u ffer program to two million miles

is $1.2 billion — $524 million as

payments to producers and $673

million in higher farm gate commodity prices. However, pro d u c e r s

receive both the government payments and the higher commodity

prices, for a net gain of $529 million, so that the overall net financial

cost to society is $668 million.

• Prices increase by 1.4 perc e n t

while production is down by

0.7 perc e n t .

• Variable cost increases, but by

less than do receipts, both in

total and per acre .

• Net farm income is increased by

0.8 perc e n t .

• The benefit/cost ratio is 4.1.

• With 4.5 million acres of

additional cropped land placed

into buffers, 0.4 million acres of

p reviously idled cropland and

0.7 million acres of forest and
70

caption

FIGURE 18.

E s t i m ated percent reduction in total sediment yield (M A P 1) ,

p h o s p h o rus yield (M A P 2) and nitrogen yield (M A P 3 , n ext page) if

bu ffe rs on cropland are increased to two million miles

25 or more

3.7% of watersheds

21.9% of total reduction

15 to 25

13.3% of watersheds

39.9% of total reduction

10 to 15

12.4% of watersheds

18.2% of total reduction

2 to 10

31.4% of watersheds

19.5% of total reduction

Less than 2

39.2% of watersheds

0.5% of total reduction

25 or more

12.7% of watersheds

40.1% of total reduction

15 to 25

19.6% of watersheds

38.4% of total reduction

10 to 15

11.8% of watersheds

13.2% of total reduction

2 to 10

25.1% of watersheds

7.9% of total reduction

Less than 2

30.8% of watersheds

0.4% of total reduction

Data unavailable for the following regions: Alaska, Hawaii,

Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin including Guam, Northern

Marianas and American Samoa.

Data unavailable for the following regions: Alaska, Hawaii,

Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin including Guam, Northern

Marianas and American Samoa.

MAP 1

Percent reduction

MAP 2

Percent reduction

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s
71

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

25 or more

5.2% of watersheds

14.7% of total reduction

15 to 25

13.3% of watersheds

38.8% of total reduction

10 to 15

13.5% of watersheds

23.2% of total reduction

2 to 10

30.8% of watersheds

22.6% of total reduction

Less than 2

37.3% of watersheds

0.7% of total reduction

Data unavailable for the following regions: Alaska, Hawaii,

Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin including Guam, Northern

Marianas and American Samoa.

MAP 3

Percent reduction

p a s t u re land are converted to

c ropping in the model so that

c ropped land decreases by 3.5

million acre s .

• C ropland rental value incre a s e s

by $2.84 (3.9 percent) per acre .

• E ffects of this program on the

U.S. trade surplus are negligible

(-/+0.01 perc e n t ) .

• Regional impacts on pro d u c e r

income range from -2.4 perc e n t

($238 million) in the Mountain

states to 2.1 percent ($214

million) in the Pacific states.

• Impacts on levels of national

re s o u rce use (cro p l a n d ,

irrigation water, grazing land

and labor) are negligible (less

than 1.5 perc e n t ) .

• Reductions in potential

pollutants to water bodies are

16 percent for sediment, 11

p e rcent for nitrogen and 12

p e rcent for phosphorus (see

F i g u re 18).

• Technical assistance needs total

TABLE 5.

Impact of accomplishing two million miles 

o f c o n s e rvation bu ffe rs ( bu f 2 )

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 5 2 8 . 9

U.S. consumer Million $ - 6 7 3 . 1

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 5 2 3 . 6

Total sector impact2 Million $ - 6 6 7 . 7

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 1 2 5 . 1

P a r t n e r Million $ 0 . 0

Total technical assistance Million $ 1 2 5 . 1

Total cost2 Million $ 7 9 2 . 8

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ 3 2 8 8 . 1

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 4 . 1

P r o d u c e r s ’i n c o m e % change 0 . 8 1

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change n / a

S e d i m e n t % change - 1 5 . 6

Total nitrogen % change - 1 0 . 8

Total phosphorus % change - 11 . 7

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.
72

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

$125 million.

Expand CRP to 45 million

a c res (CRP45; Table 6)

The annual cost to consumers/taxpayers to extend the CRP program

to 45 million acres is $2.1 billion —

$713 million as payments to producers and $1,434 million in higher

farm gate commodity prices.

However, producers receive both

the government payments and the

higher commodity prices, for a net

gain of $1,890 million, so that the

overall net financial cost to society is

$256 million.

TABLE 6.

Impact of expanding the Conservation Re s e rve

P rogram to 45 million acres ( c rp 4 5 )

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 1 8 9 0 . 2

U.S. consumer Million $ - 1 4 3 3 . 7

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 7 1 2 . 9

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 2 5 6 . 4

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 2 9 0 . 9

P a r t n e r Million $ 0 . 0

Total technical assistance Million $ 2 9 0 . 9

Total cost2 Million $ 5 4 7 . 3

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ 1 5 3 2 . 8

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 2 . 8

Producers income % change 2 . 9 1

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change - 6 . 9

S e d i m e n t %. change - 6 . 7

Total nitrogen % change - 2 . 8

Total phosphorus % change - 4 . 5

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.

• Prices increase by 3.6 perc e n t

while production is down by

1.9 perc e n t .

• Variable costs increase, but by

less than do receipts, both in

total and per acre .

• Net farm income is increased by

2.9 perc e n t .

• The benefit/cost ratio is 2.8.

• With 14.6 million additional

a c res of cropland placed in CRP

in this analysis, 1.7 million acre s

of previously idled cro p l a n d

and 0.8 million acres of fore s t

and pasture are converted to

c ropping in the model, so that

c ropped land decreases by 12.1

million acre s .

• C ropland rental value incre a s e s

by $6.51 (8.9%) per acre .

• The trade surplus declines by

$229 million (1.1 perc e n t ) .

• Regional distribution of impacts

varies slightly; CRP re d u c e s

c ropping more on highly

e rodible land relative to other

c ropland classes.

• Potential environmental impacts

of extending the CRP to 45

million acres include re d u c t i o n

of total erosion and sediment

by seven percent, nitrogen by

t h ree percent and phosphorus

by about five perc e n t .

• Technical assistance needs total

$291 million.
73

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

Two options for a $50 million

( a n nual) Grazing Land Re s e rve

( Table 7)

The two Grazing Land Reserve

options simulate enrollment of

approximately two percent of the

nation’s pasture and private rangeland in a non-agricultural use

reserve. Because the benefit/cost

ratio relies heavily on erosion, which

is not directly measured on rangeland, it does not accurately account

for benefits on grazing lands. The

national impacts on other land and

water resources and on erosion are

generally on the order of less than

one percent. 

In some regions, reducing the

amount of grazing land means

reduced livestock production and

reduced feed production from cro pland — hence, reduced erosion. In

other regions, more feed is pro d u c e d

on cropland, and erosion incre a s e s

s l i g h t l y .

A l l o c ation to states pro p o rt i o n ate to state gra z i n g

a c re age (GLRa ; Table 7) 

This acreage alternative costs consumers/taxpayers $691 million — $50

million in payments to producers and

$641 million from higher farm gate

commodity prices. However, farm e r s

receive the payments and benefit

f rom higher prices for a net gain of

$709 million.

• Economic welfare for the United

States increases by $17.5

million, while overall welfare at

the world level declines at the

expense of trading partners.

• Prices increase by 0.2 perc e n t ,

while production is down 

TABLE 7.

Impact of a $50 million (annual) Grazing 

Land Re s e rve Progra m

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

G L Ra G L Rv

U.S. agricultural sector impact:

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 7 0 8 . 5 5 9 6 . 2

U.S. consumer Million $ - 6 4 1 . 0 - 5 4 3 . 7

U.S taxpayers2 Million $ 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0

Total financial cost2 Million $ 1 7 . 5 2 . 5

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 1 2 . 6 1 2 . 6

P a r t n e r Million $ 8 . 5 8 . 5

Total technical assistance Million $ 2 1 . 1 2 1 . 1

Total cost2 Million $ 3 8 . 6 2 3 . 7

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ - 1 6 . 9 - 3 1 . 3

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o - 0 . 4 - 1 . 3

Producers Income % change 1 . 1 0 . 9

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change 0 . 1 0 . 1

S e d i m e n t %. change 0 . 1 0 . 1

Total nitrogen % change 0 . 0 0 . 1

Total phosphorus % change 0 . 1 0 . 1

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.

by less than 0.1 perc e n t .

• In the livestock sector, variable

costs decrease as re c e i p t s

i n c re a s e .

• Net farm income is increased by

1.1 perc e n t .

• The trade surplus increases by

$36 million (0.2 perc e n t ) .

• When $50 million annually is

spent to enroll land in a grazing

reserve with distribution

p roportional to acreage (GLRa),

0.8 million acres of cropland are

converted to pasture land.

H o w e v e r, just over one-half of

this conversion comes fro m
74

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

p reviously idled cropland, and

c ropped acreage decreases by

0.4 million acre s .

• C ropland rental value incre a s e s

by $0.80 per acre .

• Estimated enviro n m e n t a l

impacts are less than 0.1

p e rcent, since only about two

p e rcent of the land is aff e c t e d .

• Technical assistance needs total

$21 million.

A l l o c ation to states pro p o rt i o n ate to state grazing land

value (GLRv ; Table 7)

This value alternative costs consumers/taxpayers $646 million — $50

million in payments to producers and

$544 million from higher farm gate

commodity prices. However, farm e r s

receive the payments and benefit

f rom higher prices, for a net gain of

$596 million, implying that the overall cost to society is near zero .

• Economic welfare for the United

States increases by $2.5 million,

while overall welfare at the

world level declines at the

expense of trading partners.

• Prices increase by 0.1 perc e n t

while production is down by

less than 0.1 perc e n t .

• In the livestock sector variable

cost decreases as re c e i p t s

i n c re a s e .

• Net farm income is increased by

0.9 perc e n t .

• Livestock producers benefit the

m o s t .

• The trade surplus declines by

$17 million (0.1 perc e n t ) .

• When $50 million annually is

spent to enroll land in a grazing

reserve with distribution

p roportional to rental value

(GLRv), 0.6 million acres of

c ropland are converted to

p a s t u re land. However, just over

one-half of this conversion

comes from previously idled

c ropland, and cropped acre a g e

d e c reases by 0.2 million acre s .

• C ropland rental value incre a s e s

by $0.80 per acre .

• Estimated enviro n m e n t a l

impacts are less than 0.1

p e rcent, since only two perc e n t

of the land is aff e c t e d .

• Technical assistance needs total

$21 million.

D o u bling of c o n s e rvat i o n

t i l l age (TILL2X; Table 8)

The effects of doubling conservation tillage were simulated without

explicitly addressing the policy or

p rogram mechanisms re q u i red to

bring about that result. Acreages of

both reduced tillage and zero tillage

w e re forced to double in the model,

with greater relative increases forc e d

in areas that have lower historical

rates of adoption.

The annual cost to consumers/taxpayers from forcing a doubling of

conservation tillage is $6.1 billion

dollars — $383 million in higher farm

gate commodity prices and a loss in

net farm income of $5.7 billion dollars (mostly attributed to limitations

in the model that forced cropping on

m a rginal lands). Financial assistance

needs were just over an additional

$1.8 billion, with total costs estimated

at $9.8 billion. Benefits totaled $4.9

billion for a benefit/cost ratio of 0.5. 

Actual costs in a volunteer pro g r a m

would likely be higher than the
75

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

model estimates as producers face

costs of accelerated equipment

replacement, education and risk associated with adopting new technology.

Also, technical assistance costs and

g o v e rn m e n t - s p o n s o red technology

development costs would likely be

higher per acre than that observed

for previous adopters, especially if

adoption were forced to the level

simulated in the model.

• The model was forced to

simulate a pro p o r t i o n a t e

i n c rease in use of conservation

tillage within each state with the

p roportion varying by state. In

many situations, technological

considerations such as cro p s

g rown in rotation for which

conservation tillage is not an

option (for example, potatoes)

resulted in overall increases in

c rop acreage and/or use of less

than optimal crop mixes and/or

p roduction technologies.

Consequently, production was

nearly stable, but at an

i n c reased cost. With higher costs

and stable production, prices

( revenue) change little as costs

i n c rease; consequently both

p roducers and consumers lose.

• Even though on a per- a c re basis

conservation tillage may "pay

for itself," in some cases cro p

yields are lower, and changes in

overall cropping patterns occur

because of crop mix, ro t a t i o n

and land availability constraints.

It is expected that many of

these costs would be moderated

or even offset over time

t h rough education and financial

and technical assistance.

TABLE 8.

Impact of d o u bling acre age of

c o n s e rvation tillage ( t i l l 2 x )

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e

P r o d u c e r s Million $ - 5 7 2 3 . 6

U.S. consumer Million $ - 3 8 3 . 0

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 1 8 0 1 . 9

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 7 9 0 8 . 4

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 11 5 8 . 4

P a r t n e r Million $ 7 8 6 . 6

Total technical assistance Million $ 1 9 4 5 . 0

Total cost Million $ 9 8 5 3 . 4

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ 4 9 6 0 . 4

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 0 . 5

Producers income % change - 8 . 8 0

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change - 2 2 . 3

S e d i m e n t %. change - 2 7 . 3

Total nitrogen % change - 7 . 2

Total phosphorus % change - 1 4 . 4

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.

• Implementation of a single

m e a s u re to address needs

re q u i res a technology in many

parts of the country where it

may not be practicable or

feasible. 

• Balanced systems of altern a t i v e

management practices, ro t a t i o n s ,

cover crops, buffers and

enduring practices would yield

higher potential enviro n m e n t a l

and economic gains.

• In the modeled simulation in

this analysis, variable costs

i n c rease by 7.9 percent, while

p roduction decreases by 0.9

p e rc e n t .
76

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

• The benefit/cost ratio is 0.5.

• Prices increase by only 1.4

p e rcent, and net farm income

d e c reases by 8.8 perc e n t .

• The trade surplus declines by

$424 million (two perc e n t ) .

• The $6,107-million cost to society

divided by the 138 million acre s

adopting conservation tillage in

this alternative implies a total

adoption cost of $44.25 per acre. 

• Meeting the conservation-tilled

a c reage constraint results in an

artificial scarcity of cropland in

some areas, resulting in an

average rent increase of $35 per

a c re (48 perc e n t ) .

• The net effect is conversion of

1.6 million acres of forest and

p a s t u re to cropping to meet the

0.8 million-acre increase in

c ropped and idled land. 

• C ropland rental value incre a s e s

by $35.11 per acre (48.0

p e rc e n t ) .

• Impacts on levels of national

re s o u rce use (cro p l a n d ,

irrigation water, grazing land

and labor) are in the range of -

4.3 percent (groundwater) to 1.5

p e rcent (moderately ero d i b l e

c ro p l a n d ) .

• Regional impacts vary gre a t l y .

E rosion reduction ranges fro m

6.4 percent in the Appalachian

region to 38.9 percent in the

Pacific re g i o n .

• P roducer income impact ranges

f rom +2.4 percent in the Delta

region to -22.6 percent in the

S o u t h e rn Plains re g i o n .

• Reductions in potential

pollutants to water bodies are

estimated at 15 percent for

e rosion, 19 percent for

sediment, five percent for

n i t rogen and 10 percent for

p h o s p h o r u s .

• D i rect financial assistance needs

total $1.8 billion.

• Technical assistance needs total

$2 billion.

Overall implications are that technical and financial assistance are needed to aid farmers in addressing all

natural re s o u rce use management

changes, including:

• tillage, supporting practices,

rotations and re s o u rc e

management systems;

• change of cropping pattern s

a c ross soils within a sub-re g i o n

and across sub-re g i o n s ;

• shifts in irrigation;

• establishing buffers; and 

• p rotecting land idled in CRP by

either developing re s e r v e

p rograms and/or developing

a l t e rnative conservation

management systems to

continue use of land for

p roduction purposes.

C ropland stewa rdship 

p roposal — Level 1 (CSP1)

S t e w a rdship payments were interp reted in this analysis to pro v i d e

re w a rds to producers who are alre a d y

practicing sustainable re s o u rce management. Consequently, the payments

w e re simulated as being added to

f a rm income as a transfer in such a

way as to not affect current re s o u rc e

management. No effects would re s u l t

at national or regional levels, since

the only effect is that $5.57 

billion in direct payments to 
77

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

p roducers within states are re a l l o c a t e d

to crop and pasture land already adequately pro t e c t e d .

Table 9 shows estimates of average

payment levels for already existing

s t e w a rdship by region, assuming no

i n t e r regional redistribution of the current $5.57 billion in direct payments

to pro d u c e r s .

Further comprehensive analysis is

needed to estimate benefits and eff e c t s

for incentive systems, re s o u rce management systems (including nutrient

management, pesticide management,

and wildlife habitat management)

associated with stewardship pro v i s i o n s

c u r rently being discussed. Av a i l a b i l i t y

of data, modeling constraints and the

time frame limited what could be

included in this analysis.

C ropland stewa rdship pro p o sal — Level 2; c o n t rolling all

e rosion to compliance leve l s

( C P S 2 ; Table 10)

The annual cost to consumers/taxpayers to extend erosion control at

conservation compliance levels to all

c ropland is $981 million — $751 million of which stems from higher farm

gate commodity prices and a net of

$231 million of income losses to producers despite the higher prices.

• The cost is $1.78 per ton of

e rosion reduction for about 12

million additional acres tre a t e d

with conservation techniques.

• Prices increase 1.2 percent as 

p roduction declines by 0.4

p e rcent. 

• Total financial cost for the

agricultural sector is just under

$1.2 billion.

TABLE 9.

Ave rage stewa rdship payment for acres of c rop and pasture alre a dy

a d e q u at e ly protected ( c s p 1 )

Estimated stewardship 

Crop and pasture Current payments payment for crop and pasture

Farm production adequately protected to producers already adequately protected

r e g i o n ( % ) (Billions $) ($ per acre)

A p p a l a c h i a n 7 5 0.20 7.22 

Corn Belt 7 8 1.55 18.10 

Delta States 8 3 0.54 21.65 

Lake States 7 2 0.54 15.38 

M o u n t a i n 6 9 0.37 11.67 

N o r t h e a s t 8 0 0.08 4.75 

Northern Plains 7 9 1.19 15.83 

P a c i f i c 7 7 0.33 17.17 

S o u t h e a s t 7 8 0.15 7.65 

Southern Plains 7 5 0.63 13.87 

National To t a l 7 7 5.57 14.62 

Note: Analysis precludes interregional redistribution of payments at this time but does allow redistribution within

regions from all crop & pasture to land already adequately protected ( i.e., eroding <T).
78

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

• The benefit/cost ratio is 4.1.

• The trade surplus declines by

$28 million (0.1 perc e n t ) .

• Regional impacts on farm income

range from -7.1 percent ($-711

million) in the Southern Plains

region to 3.0 percent ($299

million) in the Pacific re g i o n .

• The erosion control constraint

resulted in a decrease in acre s

c ropped of 1.7 million acres; 0.4

million acres of this land is

converted to forest and pasture

use and the per- a c re re n t

declines by $0.82.

• Idled land increases by 1.3

million acres, resulting in a

TABLE 10.

Impact of s e c o n d - l evel cropland stewa rd s h i p

p ro p o s a l : c o n t rol all cropland to conservat i o n

compliance levels ( c s p 2 )

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e

P r o d u c e r s Million $ - 2 3 0 . 7

U.S. consumer Million $ - 7 5 0 . 5

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 2 1 8 . 4

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 11 9 9 . 5

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 2 7 8 . 1

P a r t n e r Million $ 1 8 8 . 9

Total technical assistance Million $ 4 6 7 . 0

Total cost2 Million $ 1 6 6 6 . 5

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ 6 8 2 7 . 9

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 4 . 1

P r o d u c e r s ’i n c o m e % change - 0 . 3 5

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change - 3 0 . 7

S e d i m e n t %. change - 3 3 . 2

Total nitrogen % change - 1 2 . 5

Total phosphorus % change - 1 9 . 7

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.

decline in total rental re v e n u e

of $98.7 million (at base re n t

r a t e ) .

• E rosion is reduced by 31

p e rcent (550 million tons):

- where the erosion index is less

than 8, by 10 percent (42

million tons)

- where erosion index is

between 8 and 20, by 46

p e rcent (138 million tons)

- where the erosion index is

g reater than 20, by 65 perc e n t

(115 million tons)

- where in Classes IIIw-VIIIw

(some is highly erodible land),

by 57 percent (82 million tons)

• Regional reductions range fro m

nine percent in the Delta re g i o n

to 64 percent in the Southern

Plains re g i o n .

• C ropped acreage drops by 11

p e rcent for land with an ero s i o n

index greater than 20.

• National use of other re s o u rc e s

changes by less than one

p e rcent, except for a thre e -

p e rcent increase in use of

g ro u n d w a t e r.

• C ropland with conservation

tillage, strip cro p p i n g ,

contouring or terraces incre a s e s

by 11.8 million acres per year.

• Potential environmental benefits

reduce erosion by 31 perc e n t ,

sediment by 33 perc e n t ,

n i t rogen by 13 percent and

phosphorus by 20 perc e n t .

• Total financial cost to the

agricultural sector is $1.2 billion.

• Technical assistance needs total

$467 million — $278 million for

the federal share and $189

million for partners.
79

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

C ropland stewa rdship pro p o sal — Level 3; s u s t a i n abl e

re s o u rce management on all

c ropland (CSP3; Table 11)

The annual cost to consumers/taxpayers to implement re s o u rce management systems is $2.9 billion.

Under this scenario, consumers/taxpayers lose $5.1 billion because of

higher commodity prices, while producers realize a net gain of $2.2 billion because the higher prices off s e t

their variable cost incre a s e .

• The cost is $3.45 per ton of

e rosion reduction for about 40

million additional acres tre a t e d

with conservation techniques. 

• Prices increase by 8.2 percent as

p roduction declines by 2.6

p e rc e n t .

• Total costs are estimated at $6.3

b i l l i o n .

• The benefit/cost ratio is 1.7.

• C rop variable cost is up

nationally by 2.5 percent ($4.12)

per acre and 1.5 percent overall,

while sustainable level results in

a decrease in cropland by 7.1

million acres, of which cro p

revenue is up 7.4 perc e n t

($15.25 per acre ) .

• If all the crop variable cost

i n c rease were confined to the

a c res treated with new

conservation techniques, then

on those acres the per- a c re

i n c rease would be 21 perc e n t

( $ 3 5 ) .

• C o n t rolling erosion to the one

million acres are converted to

f o rest and pasture use. 

• C ropland rent value incre a s e s

by $5.05 per acre (6.9 perc e n t ) ,

but total rental revenues would

d e c rease $442 million because

of an additional six million

a c res of land that would be

i d l e d .

• Commodity prices increase by

enough for producer re v e n u e

i n c reases to exceed cost

i n c re a s e s .

• Regional impacts on farm

income range from -3.5 perc e n t

($351 million) in the Southern

Plains region to 9.9 perc e n t

($995 million) in the Pacific

re g i o n .

• E rosion is reduced by 47

p e rcent (840 million tons):

TABLE 11.

Impact of t h i rd - l evel cropland stewa rd s h i p

p ro p o s a l : s u s t a i n able re s o u rce manage m e n t

systems on all cropland ( c s p 3 )

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 2 1 8 2 . 6

U.S. consumer Million $ - 5 0 8 4 . 9

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 9 5 4 . 7

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 3 8 5 7 . 0

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 1 4 5 1 . 5

P a r t n e r Million $ 9 8 5 . 6

Total technical assistance Million $ 2 4 3 7 . 0

Total cost2 Million $ 6 2 9 4 . 0

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ 1 0 4 2 8 . 0

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 1 . 7

Producers income % change 3 . 3 6

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change - 4 6 . 9

S e d i m e n t %. change - 5 5 . 5

Total nitrogen % change - 1 5 . 8

Total phosphorus % change - 2 6 . 3

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.
80

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

- where the erosion index is less

than 8, by 22 percent (91

million tons)

- where the erosion index is

between 8 and 20, by 70

p e rcent (212 million tons)

- where the erosion index is

g reater than 20, by 90 perc e n t

(158 million tons)

- where in Class IIIw-VIIIw

(some is highly erodible land),

by 62 percent (88 million tons)

• Regional reductions range fro m

20 percent in the Delta re g i o n

to 73 percent in the Southern

Plains re g i o n .

• C ropped acreage drops by 29

p e rcent for land with an ero s i o n

index greater than 20.

• National use of other re s o u rc e s

changes by less than two

p e rcent, except for a sevenp e rcent increase in use of

g ro u n d w a t e r.

• As much as 21 percent of the

total acreage of a crop (potatoes

is the extreme) is shifted fro m

the most highly erodible land to

less erodible land. 

• C ropland with conservation

tillage, strip cropping contouring

or terraces increases by about 40

million acres per year.

• Potential environmental benefits

reduce erosion by 47 perc e n t ,

sediment by 56 perc e n t ,

n i t rogen by 16 percent and

phosphorus by 26 perc e n t .

• Total financial cost to the

agricultural sector is $3.8 billion.

• Technical assistance needs total

$2.4 billion — $1.5 billion

federal and $0.9 billion partners.

S i multaneous BU F 2 , C R P 4 5

and CSP2 (Table 12)

All of the previous altern a t i v e s

w e re analyzed independently of one

another to assess their individual

e ffects. Additional model simulations

w e re conducted to simultaneously

analyze potential effects of concurrently achieving existing conservation

b u ffer goals, expanding the CRP and

accomplishing diff e rent levels of conservation enhancements on cro p l a n d .

The annual cost to the U.S. economy from simultaneously extending

the buffer program to two million

miles, expanding the CRP to 45 million acres and requiring erosion cont rol on all cropland at the conservation compliance levels is estimated to

be $1.85 billion. Total financial costs

to society decrease by $200 million

f rom the CSP2 level because of

economies and efficiencies fro m

simultaneous implementation of these

p rograms. The benefits that accrue

f rom reduced erosion and sediment

a re $7.43 billion, for a benefit/cost

ratio of 4.0.

• P roducers have a net benefit of

$3.7 billion because of higher

market prices and $1.6 billion in

d i rect financial assistance. 

• Consumers lose $3.0 billion

because of higher market prices. 

• Taxpayers spend, in addition to

the $1.6 billion in direct financial

assistance, $0.9 billion in

technical assistance to producers. 

• C rop prices increase by 5.7

p e rcent, while production is

down by 2.5 perc e n t .

• Variable cost increases, but by

less than do receipts, both in

total and per acre .
81

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

• Net farm income is increased by

5.6 perc e n t .

• The U.S. trade surplus declines

by 1.6 percent ($332 million).

• The CRP and buffers incre a s e

by a total of 19.6 million acre s ,

but cropping is reduced by only

16.5 million acres because 1.9

million acres of previously idled

c ropland and 0.7 million acre s

of forest and pasture would

become cro p p e d .

• C ropland rent value increases by

$7.82 (10.7 percent) per acre .

• C ropland erosion is reduced by

33.4 percent (598 million tons),

with the largest re d u c t i o n

occurring on land with higher

e rosive potential or hazard .

Other pollutant re d u c t i o n s

i n c l u d e :

- Sediment movement off farm

fields is reduced 36.0 perc e n t .

- Total nitrogen and total

phosphorus movement off farm

fields (and/or through the ro o t

zone) is reduced 17.9 perc e n t

and 25.7 percent, re s p e c t i v e l y .

• The percent of cropland with

applied conservation measure s

i n c reases by six perc e n t .

• C ropped acreage decreases by

4.7 percent and the lost rent on

this land, valued at baseline

rental rates, is $1.2 billion or 4.7

p e rcent of base rent. However,

this loss is partially offset by the

rental payments received for the

b u ffer and CRP enro l l m e n t s .

• Use of groundwater for

irrigation increases by 5.8

p e rcent while use of surf a c e

water decreases by 1.1 perc e n t .

• Use of hired labor decreases by

0.6 percent, pasture use

i n c reases by 0.2 percent and

changes in grazing land and

family labor use are less than

0.1 perc e n t .

• D i rect financial assistance needs

a re estimated to total an

additional $1.6 billion.

• Technical assistance costs total

$862 million — $682 federal

and $180 million from partner

c o n t r i b u t i o n s .

TABLE 12.

Impact of s e c o n d - l evel cropland stewa rd s h i p

p roposal plus conservation bu ffe rs to t wo million

miles and CRP at 45 million acre s

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 3 6 6 8 . 6

U.S. consumer Million $ - 3 0 4 0 . 9

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 1 6 11 . 1

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 9 8 3 . 4

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 6 8 1 . 5

P a r t n e r Million $ 1 8 0 . 3

Total technical assistance Million $ 8 6 1 . 8

Total cost Million $ 1 8 4 5 . 2

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ 7 4 2 6 . 1

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 4 . 0

P r o d u c e r s ’ i n c o m e % change 5 . 6 4

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change - 3 3 . 4

S e d i m e n t %. change - 3 5 . 9

Total nitrogen % change - 1 7 . 9

Total phosphorus % change - 2 5 . 7

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.
82

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

S i multaneous BU F 2 , C R P 4 5

and CSP3 (Table 13)

The annual cost to the U.S. economy from simultaneously extending

the buffer program to two million

miles, expanding the CRP to 45 million acres and requiring erosion cont rol on all cropland at re s o u rce management system levels is estimated to

be $5.89 billion. Total financial costs

to society decrease by $676 million

f rom the CSP3 level because of

economies and efficiencies fro m

simultaneous implementation of these

p rograms. The benefits that accrue

f rom reduced erosion and sediment

a re $10.67 billion, for a benefit/cost

ratio of 1.8.

• P roducers have a net benefit of

$6.3 billion because of higher

market prices and the $2.3

billion in direct financial

assistance. 

• Consumers lose $7.2 billion

because of higher market

prices. 

• Taxpayers spend, in addition to

the $2.3 billion direct financial

assistance, $2.7 billion in

technical assistance to

p roducers. 

• C rop prices increase by 12.9

p e rcent while production is

down by 4.6 perc e n t .

• Variable cost increases, but by

less than do receipts, both in

total and per acre .

• Net farm income is increased by

9.7 perc e n t .

• The U.S. trade surplus declines

by 3.3 percent ($702 million).

• The CRP and buffers incre a s e

by a total of 19.6 million acre s ,

but cropping would be re d u c e d

by 20.9 million acres because

e rosion control measures on

some previously cro p p e d

a c reage would be costly.

• About 0.2 million acres of

c ropland would be expected to

convert to pasture and

f o re s t l a n d .

• Idled land would increase by

1.7 million acres, resulting in

d e c reased cropland re n t a l

revenue of $121.2 million,

although cropland rent value

would increase by $13.92 (19

p e rcent) per acre .

TABLE 13.

Impact of t h i rd - l evel cropland stewa rd s h i p

p roposal plus conservation bu ffe rs to t wo million

miles and CRP at 45 million acre s

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 6 2 8 5 . 4

U.S. consumer Million $ - 7 2 0 9 . 6

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 2 2 5 7 . 3

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 3 1 8 1 . 5

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 1 7 8 0 . 7

P a r t n e r Million $ 9 2 6 . 7

Total technical assistance Million $ 2 7 0 7 . 4

Total cost Million $ 5 8 8 8 . 9

Estimated environmental benefits3 Million $ 1 0 6 6 6 . 5

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 1 . 8

P r o d u c e r s ’ i n c o m e % change 9 . 6 7

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change - 4 7 . 9

S e d i m e n t %. change - 5 5 . 5

Total nitrogen % change - 1 9 . 6

Total phosphorus % change - 3 1 . 0

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.
83

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

• C ropland erosion is reduced by

47.9 percent (859 million tons),

with the largest share of this

occurring on land with higher

e rosive potential or hazard .

Other pollutant re d u c t i o n s

i n c l u d e :

- Sediment movement off farm

fields is reduced 55.5 percent. 

- Total nitrogen and total

phosphorus movement off farm

fields (and/or through the ro o t

zone) is reduced 19.6 perc e n t

and 31.0 percent, re s p e c t i v e l y .

• The percent of cropland with

applied conservation measure s

i n c reases by 14.7 percent. 

• C ropped acreage decreases by

6.0 percent, and the lost rent on

this land, valued at baseline

rental rates, is $1.5 billion or 6.0

p e rcent of base rent. However,

this loss is partially offset by the

rental payments received for the

b u ffer and CRP enro l l m e n t s .

• Use of groundwater for

irrigation increases by 10.1

p e rcent, while use of surf a c e

water decreases by 1.4 perc e n t .

• Use of hired labor decreases by

0.8 percent, pasture and range

land labor use decreases by 0.1

p e rcent and 0.3 percent, while

changes in grazing land and

family labor use are less than

0.1 perc e n t .

• D i rect financial assistance needs

a re estimated at $2.3 billion.

• Technical assistance costs total

$2.7 billion — $1.8 billion for

the federal share and $.9 billion

for partners.

• Technical assistance costs rise

m o re than financial assistance

relative to results at the CSP2

level because of significantly

expanded re q u i rements for

intensive re s o u rce management

s y s t e m s .

Reduce re s o u rce degra d at i o n

( Table 14)

Analysts combined the results for

several alternatives to estimate the

economic, environmental and program impacts that would accrue to

reduce the rate of re s o u rce degradation. This alternative included program elements discussed in most of

the public forums held during 2000

and in reports that were issued up

t h rough September 2000. The altern ative includes achieving conservation

compliance levels on all cropland at

the CSP2 level, completion of two

million miles of conservation buff e r s ,

e n rolling 250,000 additional acres in

W R P, slightly expanding FPP to $65

million, establishing WHIP at $50 million, increasing funding for FIP by

$38 million, initiating a modest grazing land reserve and enrolling 45 million acres in CRP. These initiatives

respond to the need to impro v e

water and soil quality, reduce soil

e rosion, conserve marginal lands and

wetlands, improve the condition of

private grazing lands and pro v i d e

economic incentives for land 

s t e w a rdship. 

It was not possible to dire c t l y

incorporate consequences fro m

implementation of conditions for FPP,

W H I P, FIP and WRP provisions in the

modeling system, although cost information was available. This altern a t i v e

(and the one below to impro v e

re s o u rce health) incorporate cost

i n f o rmation with results from the

analysis for extending buffers to two
84

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

million miles, increasing CRP to 45

million acres and adopting CSP at

levels 2 and 3. 

An additional 1.3 million acres of

wildlife habitat would be enhanced

annually at $50 million for WHIP

and 115,000 additional acres of f a rmland would be protected annually

t h rough $65 million in funding for

F P P. WRP would enroll 250,000 acre s

annually for an additional $286 million per year. 

The annual cost to the U.S. economy from simultaneously extending

the buffer program to two million

miles, expanding the CRP to 45 million acres and requiring erosion cont rol on all cropland at conservation

compliance levels is estimated to be

$2.3 billion. The environmental benefits were not re-estimated from those

in the simultaneous BUF2CRP45CSP2

scenario because of a lack of information, but they would be expected

to increase proportionate to

enhanced wildlife habitat and wetlands. The benefit/cost ratio is 3.2

without adjustments to the earlier

benefit estimates. 

All other agriculture sector impacts

remain unchanged from that pre s e n ted for simultaneous BUF2CRP45CSP2

with the exception of financial and

technical assistance needs.

• D i rect financial assistance needs

a re estimated to total an

additional $2 billion.

• Technical assistance costs total

$926 million — $737 for the

federal share and $189 million

in partner contributions.

I m p rove re s o u rce health

( Table 14)

To achieve a higher level of

resource protection and improve

resource health, analysts added sustainable resource management systems on all cropland at the CPS3

level to the initiatives needed to

slow resource degradation. This scenario addressed the highest level of

TABLE 14.

Impact of i m p l e m e n t ation of second- and third -

l evels of c ropland stewa rdship proposal plus

c o n s e rvation bu ffe rs to two million miles and CRP

at 45 million acre s, WRP at 250,000 acre s, FPP at

$65 million, WHIP at $50 million and FIP

E s t i m ated ch a n ges from baseline conditions (2000)

R e d u c e I m p r o v e

r e s o u r c e r e s o u r c e

d e g r a d a t i o n h e a l t h

g l r, wrp, fpp g l r, wrp, fpp

whip and fip1 whip and fip1

U.S. agricultural sector impact: U n i t M e a s u r e m e n t

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 3 6 6 8 . 6 6 2 8 5 . 4

U.S. consumer Million $ - 3 0 4 0 . 9 - 7 2 0 9 . 6

Direct federal financial assistance Million $ 2 0 2 0 . 7 2 6 6 6 . 8

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 1 3 9 2 . 9 - 3 5 9 1 . 1

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 7 3 7 . 4 1 8 3 6 . 6

P a r t n e r Million $ 1 8 8 . 9 9 3 5 . 2

Total technical assistance Million $ 9 2 6 . 3 2 7 7 1 . 9

Total cost Million $ 2 3 1 9 . 3 6 3 6 2 . 9

Estimated environmental 

b e n e f i t s3 Million $ 7 4 2 6 . 1 1 0 6 6 6 . 5

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 3 . 2 1 . 7

Producers Income % change 5 . 6 4 9 . 6 7

Environmental impacts6

E r o s i o n % change - 3 3 . 4 - 4 7 . 9

S e d i m e n t %. change - 3 5 . 9 - 5 5 . 5

Total nitrogen % change - 1 7 . 9 - 1 9 . 6

Total phosphorus % change - 2 5 . 7 - 3 1 . 0

See Table C-2 in Appendix C (pages C-11-C-14) for more detail and footnotes.
85

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

conservation considered in the

analysis.

The annual cost to the U.S. economy from simultaneously extending

the buffer program to two million

miles, expanding the CRP to 45 million acres and requiring erosion cont rol on all cropland at sustainable

re s o u rce management system levels is

estimated to be $6.4 billion.

E n v i ronmental benefits were not re -

estimated from those in the simultaneous BUF2CRP45CSP3 scenario

because of a lack of information, but

they would be expected to incre a s e

p roportionate to enhanced wildlife

habitat and wetlands. The benefit/cost

ratio is 1.7 without adjustments to the

earlier benefit estimates. 

All other agriculture sector impacts

remain unchanged from those presented for simultaneous

BUF2CRP45CSP3 with the exception

of financial and technical assistance

n e e d s .

• D i rect financial assistance needs

a re estimated at $2.7 billion.

• Technical assistance costs total

$2.8 billion — $1.8 billion for

the federal share and $.9 billion

for partners.

• Technical assistance costs rise

m o re than financial assistance

relative to results at CSP3

because of significantly

expanded re q u i rements for

intensive re s o u rce management

s y s t e m s .
86

A n a lysis of C o n s e rvation A l t e rn at ive s

C o n cl u s i o n

Adoption of conservation practices

by many of this nation's private

landowners has helped to reduce the

impacts of food and fiber pro d u c t i o n

on soil, water and air quality.

Conservation of the land's re s o u rc e s

is an ongoing process, however.

Much remains to be done to ensure

healthy soils and clean water and air

to support viable communities (both

urban and rural), contribute to a

s t rong economy and our national

security and protect important environmental attributes such as wildlife

h a b i t a t .

The increasing human population

and prevailing public views challenge

landowners and agribusinesses to

p roduce food and fiber without

h a rming the nation's natural

re s o u rces. The public looks to the

g o v e rnment to ensure that farm e r s

and ranchers produce an abundance

of safe food and fiber at aff o rd a b l e

prices while protecting and sustaining

the nation's natural re s o u rce base.

F a rmers and ranchers look to the

g o v e rnment for technical and financial assistance, re s e a rch and technology and an income safety net needed

to meet the challenge.

An effective program to achieve

natural re s o u rce conservation goals

will consider these needs. Each 

p rogram element should re c o g n i z e

the important connection among

technical assistance, education,

re s e a rch and technology and economic incentives for landowners who

practice high-level stewardship. 

As an example, to reduce ero s i o n

rates on all cropland to acceptable

levels will re q u i re conservation techniques across a variety of soils, terrains, crops and climates. It will be

m o re challenging in some parts of

the country than in others. Likely,

many farmers and ranchers will

request technical assistance to apply

the conservation measures, and

because "one size will not fit all,"

new or improved technology springing from re s e a rch will be necessary.

In some areas, financial incentives

and assistance will help ease any

economic burden of achieving the

goal. 

To meet the needs identified by

the public and achieve re s o u rce conservation goals, this country must

recommit to a conservation pro g r a m

— a program to ensure that private

landowners, who are the stewards of

70 percent of this nation's land, have

the technical assistance, re s e a rch and

financial incentives to sustain our

soil, water, air and wildlife habitat in

p e r p e t u i t y .
A-1

Appendix A

Fa c t s

A gr i c u l t u re

• T h e re are less than two million farms in the United States today, far less

than the peak of 6.5 million farms in the 1920s (ranches are included in

all uses of the word “farm”). 

• The amount of land on U.S. farms peaked at about 1.2 billion acres in

the 1950s and declined to a little more than 0.9 billion acres in 1997. The

amount used for crops plus idled cropland has remained about 0.4

billion acres since the 1920s. 

• The current market value of U.S. farmland is more than one trillion

dollars, or $1,030 per acre on average. Cropland values were highest

($3,460 per acre) in the Pacific region and lowest ($668 per acre) in the

N o r t h e rn Plains re g i o n .

• The total value of U.S. agricultural commodities sold in 2000 was $191

b i l l i o n .

• With less than one percent of the world’s farmers, 4.5 percent of the

world’s population and 7 percent of the world’s land, the U.S. pro d u c e s

m o re than 20 percent of the world’s cotton, 46 percent of the world’s

soybeans, 13 percent of the world’s wheat and 41 percent of the world’s

c o rn. 

• Most (99 percent) of U.S. farms are family owned, family-held

corporations or partnerships.

• Only 0.05 percent of U.S. farms (0.3 percent of all farmland) are nonfamily corporations with more than 10 stockholders.

• M o re than half of U.S. farms (14 percent of all farmland) average less

than $10,000 in sales a year (1.5 percent of all U.S. agricultural sales).

Average net farm income for these small farms is negative, but non-farm

income brings the total family income to near the community average.

• Fifty percent of farm acreage is on the 435,000 farms (22.8 percent of all

f a rms) with sales between $50,000 and $500,000 a year. These middlesized farms, whose numbers are rapidly dwindling, account for 36.6

p e rcent of total sales. 

• Fifty-six percent of total sales stem from the 70,000 farms (3.6 percent of

all farms) with sales over $500,000 a year.

• U.S. agricultural exports account for about 25 percent of gross cash farm

receipts. These exports are pivotal in farm profitability. 

• In 1999, average farm household income was $64,347 compared to

$54,842 for average U.S. household income. But only $6,359 of the farm

income average came from farming activities.

• In 1997, 26 percent of all farmers were 65 years of age or older, and the

average age was 54.3 years. In 1978, only a little more than 15 percent of

all farmers were above re t i rement age. Ninety-seven percent of farm e r s

a re White/non-Hispanic. 
A-2

Appendix A

• Most of the traditional USDA payments go to the “grain and oilseed”

f a rmers, 98.7 percent of whom are White/non-Hispanic and whose lands

comprise 22 percent of total farm acreage. 

• The number of farms operated by Hispanics increased 58.6 perc e n t

during the 10 years from 1987 to 1997. The number of farms operated by

Asians, American Indians and women is also rising steadily. 

• The number of farms operated by African Americans has steadily

declined, from a peak of 925,710 farms in 1920 to 18,451 farms in 1997. 

Fo re s t l a n d

• F o u r-fifths, or nearly 393 million acres, of this nation’s timber land

(capable of 20 cubic feet of wood per year) is non-federal. 

• The forest products industry accounts for more than seven percent of the

total U.S. manufacturing output, employs 1.7 million people and ranks

among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 46 states. 

• Nationwide harvest of timber is expected to increase from slightly more

than 16 billion cubic feet in 1991 to nearly 22 billion cubic feet in 2040.

M o re than 80 percent of the increase in harvest is expected to be on

non-federal fore s t s .

• Eighty-five percent of the wood products consumed in this country come

f rom U.S. fore s t s .

• It is estimated that urban and community forests provide a variety of

e n v i ronmental and social benefits, estimated to be worth $3 billion per

year nationwide.

• In the continental United States, non-federal forests store an estimated

38.6 billion metric tons of carbon (90 percent of the national total), and

Alaskan forests store an additional 16 billion metric tons.

• F o rests are the source of approximately 60 percent of the nation’s total

s t ream flow.

FIGURE A - 1 .

Number of fa rms operated by minorities,

1978 to 1997 

African American Asian-Pacific 

American Indian Islander Other Hispanic

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

1978 1982 1987 1992 1997
A-3

Appendix A

Urban 

• Sixty-seven percent of the American public support measures to pre s e r v e

f a rmland and open space.

• Fifty-eight percent of this country’s counties are seriously concerned over

loss of farmland because of expected growth in coming years, and 61

p e rcent are seriously concerned over the loss of wildlife.

• M o re than 50 percent of the counties surveyed by General Accounting

O ffice report a moderate to high concern for unsightly commerc i a l

development, traffic congestion, air and water pollution and the need for

new infrastructure .

• About 45 percent of new construction from 1994 to 1997 occurred in

rural are a s .

• New housing construction averaged about 1.5 million units per year, with

single-family home construction at more than 1 million per year. Fortyfive percent of new housing construction from 1994 to 1997 occurred in

rural are a s .

G razing lands

• A p p roximately 1.1 billion acres of public and private land in the United

States are classified by the government as grazing land.

• The nation’s grazing lands total 588 million acres of non-federal land and

include pasture land, rangeland and grazed forestland. Combined,

p a s t u re land and rangeland amount to nearly 526 million acres, or 35

p e rcent of non-federal land.

• Private and public grazing lands usually are stocked with more than 60

million cattle and eight million sheep, supporting a livestock industry that

annually contributes $78 billion in farms sales to the U.S. economy.

• T h e re are 785,672 cattle farm and ranches in the United States, totaling

474,966,508 acres, and 29,938 sheep and goat operations, totaling

20,359,376 acre s .

Wi l d l i fe hab i t at

• Wildlife species have important ecologic, economic and aesthetic benefits

for society. Their abundance is to a large extent a result of how the land

is tre a t e d .

• All land is wildlife habitat, but the quality varies greatly and is often

d e t e rmined by how the land is used.

• Seventy-nine percent of the United States is in non-federal ownership,

and there f o re most habitat is managed by private landowners.

• White-tailed deer populations may be too abundant in some portions of

their range, the result of favorable habitat, harvest management strategies

and decreases in populations of natural pre d a t o r s .

• Small-game populations and populations of species associated with

grassland, early successional regimes (for example, scrub-shrub) and
A-4

Appendix A

f a rmland habitats have declined in recent decades. The northern

bobwhite is an example of one such species whose populations have

exhibited significant declines for more than three decades.

• Studies revealed that fields enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Pro g r a m

had from 1.4 to 10.5 times greater bird abundances than did cro p p e d

fields. Nest abundance in CRP fields was reported to be from 8.8 to 27

times greater than nest abundance in cropped fields.

• The combined effect of CRP and the amelioration of drought conditions

since 1993 in the Northern Plains region resulted in a dramatic re c o v e r y

of waterfowl populations (and populations of Le Conte’s sparrow) that

was substantially greater than if either CRP or the favorable weather had

been absent.

• By establishing needed vegetation, CRP has improved habitat; pre v e n t e d

loss of topsoil; improved water quality by reducing sediment, pesticide

and fertilizer runoff; and provided billions of dollars in enviro n m e n t a l

benefits over the life of the pro g r a m .

• CRP and the Wetlands Reserve Program combined re p resent less than 2.4

p e rcent of non-federal wetlands in this country. Excellent opportunities

for habitat management also exist on working lands through judicious

selection of management practices that yield multiple re s o u rce benefits.

S o u rc e s

American Farm Bureau Federation 2000; Best et al. 1998; Brady 1985; Bureau of

Labor Statistics undated; Economic Research Service undated; Flather et al.

1999; Follett et al, 2001; General Accounting Office 2000; NASS 1998, 2000a, b;

NRCS 2000a; National Research Council 1998; Ryan et al. 1998; Sampson and

DeCoster 1997; Samson et al. 1998; The Statistical Abstract of the United States

undated; Wa rner and Brady 1994.
B-1

Appendix B

P u blic perc eptions of c o n s e rvation policies

F a rmers, ranchers, suburban homeowners, urban residents, communities and

other private landowners are the stewards of the nation’s basic natural

re s o u rces: soil, water and air. It is they who determine, through their actions,

whether we will have healthy soil, pure water and breathable air. Their attitudes and opinions re g a rding the success of existing programs and the changes

and modifications that need to be made in the future are important inputs in

the development of conservation policy. These opinions are expressed thro u g h

individual actions and the collective actions of agricultural, environmental and

commodity groups. They provide a significant source of information for the

development of the 2002 Farm Bill. 

This appendix provides an overview of those attitudes, gleaned from surveys,

C o n g ressional testimony, listening sessions and publications. A review of this

i n f o rmation indicates a number of common themes running through many of

the reports and publications. The appendix describes these common themes

and provides more detailed information on recommended actions and policy

decisions that they suggest.

◆ Extension and modification of existing programs with

i n c reased funding and expanded eligibility.

Among all of the opinions sampled, there was nearly unanimous agre e m e n t

that none of the existing conservation programs should be eliminated, but all of

them should be expanded and funded to include more land and more

landowners. In a number of listening sessions sponsored by the Soil and Wa t e r

Conservation Society, there was nearly unanimous agreement that "expanding

the reach of existing USDA conservation programs should be the most important conservation objective of the next farm bill.” Participants recommended a

combination of increased funding and programmatic re f o rm, but agreed that

m o re funding is by far the most important factor (Soil and Water Conservation

Society 2001). The American Farm Bureau testified before the House

Agricultural Committee in the spring of 2001 that the Environmental Quality

Incentives Program should be increased nearly tenfold from previous fiscal year

levels (U.S. House of Representatives 2001).

The report of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture also

recommends the continuation of both the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), with modifications

in CRP to target buffer strips, filter strips, wetlands, grass waterways and partial

field enrollments. The report also recommends sufficient modifications in these

p rograms so that underfunded groups such as minority and limited re s o u rc e

f a rmers are not excluded (Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture

2 0 0 1 ) .

Several organizations, including the Soil and Water Conservation Society,

noted the current bias toward land re t i rement as a means to conserve

re s o u rces. They cited the need for a better balance between financial assistance
B-2

Appendix B

for land treatment and land re t i rement so that farmers can keep on farming in a

manner that enhances the environment, rather than having to leave farming to

conserve re s o u rces (American Farmland Trust 2001a, Cox 2001, Defenders of

Wildlife 2000, Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture 2001). Some

comments noted a variety of constraints to program participation that should be

a d d ressed in the upcoming Farm Bill. These include the complexity of applications, inconsistency of programs and the “one size fits all” approach. Several

g roups called for the provision of more flexibility for small and limited re s o u rc e

f a rmers, as well as a greater variety of management practices and economic

incentives for the landowner to choose fro m .

T h e re is some sentiment for NRCS to expand its programs and activities in

urban and rapidly growing areas, particularly with farmers on the urban fringe.

The USDA Policy Advisory Committee on Farmland Protection and Land Use

has recommended that USDA “ensure that its programs and policies are flexible

enough to meet the needs of each community’s unique set of re s o u rces and

p roblems” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2000a).

◆ E s t ablishment of n ew progra m s, and modification of ex i s t i n g

p rograms to enable fa rm e rs and ra n ch e rs to increase fa rm

income while conserving nat u ral re s o u rces (for ex a m p l e,

“ green pay m e n t s ” ) .

The concept of “green payments” has been a topic of interest for several

years. Green payments are a “subset of agri-environmental payment pro g r a m s

that have both environmental and farm income objectives” (Claassen et al.

2001). According to the Economic Research Service (ERS), “Green payments are

f requently discussed as an alternative for, or supplement to, current farm

income and environmental programs.” Such a program must be designed carefully, according to ERS, to avoid unintended consequences and to assure the

g reatest environmental benefit. The American Farm Bureau, National Corn

G rowers Association, National Farmer’s Union, National Grain Sorg h u m

P roducers, American Soybean Association and U.S. Rice Producers Association

have all supported a voluntary environmental incentives program that pays producers for conservation practices already in place or to be applied (U.S. House

of Representatives 2001).

Defenders of Wildlife support the concept of green payments in their re c e n t

policy paper. They refer to the objectives of the proposed Conservation Security

Act (CSA), which allow for green payments to producers in exchange for providing environmental and ecological benefits on their land. Not surprisingly,

they are interested in green payments because they would allow agricultural

p roducers to be compensated for the “environment amenities they provide on

private lands, including the restoration and conservation of native wildlife habitat” (Defenders of Wildlife 2000).

The Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center (ACIC) of the American

F a rmland Trust has proposed “creating an agricultural wetlands trust that
B-3

Appendix B

i n c reases farm income and environmental values” (American Farmland Tr u s t

2001a). Because the high cost of existing mitigation systems precludes most

f a rmers and ranchers from participating, the ACIC proposes a wetland mitigation trust that is environmentally sound, and aff o rdable for the farmer by using

a “trust” model rather than a “bank” model.

In its report “How Much is Enough for 2002?” (Wildlife Management Institute

2001), the Wildlife Management Institute recommends the establishment of a

conservation security program that would reimburse landowners for pro v i d i n g

key conservation practices on their land. A system of “conservation cre d i t s ”

would assure that the landowner would receive higher payments for more conservation. Support for an easement program to retain native grassland has also

g a t h e red widespread support (U.S. House of Representatives 2001).

◆ S t ewa rdship-based agr i c u l t u ral conservation policy that

rewa rds landow n e rs for re s o u rce conservation pra c t i c e s.

The Soil and Water Conservation Society has challenged policymakers to

make natural re s o u rce stewardship one of the most important components of

the new farm policy. They recommend re w a rding good actors “who have been

investing in and implementing conservation systems, often without any governmental assistance or financial compensation” (Cox 2001).

Participants in the SWCS listening sessions felt strongly that current conservation programs often penalize farmers and ranchers who are already good conservationists, as well as penalizing early adopters of new conservation systems

and practices (Soil and Water Conservation Society 2001). They want to see a

conservation policy that re w a rds good actors and helps to keep farmers on the

lands through conservation.

The Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture also supports this

a p p roach by recommending the establishment of “an incentive-based conservation program (that provides) conservation payments and technical assistance to

further encourage the application of locally appropriate conservation practices

and technologies that are consistent with crop and livestock activities...”

(Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture 2001). Enviro n m e n t a l

Defense recommended incentive payments as a means of augmenting farm and

ranch income (National Association of Conservation Districts 2001b).

As a panelist at the Leopold Center commented, “Achieving sustainability in

a g r i c u l t u re re q u i res more than just changing farm practices. It also includes sustaining those who care for the land” (Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

1 9 9 9 ) .

◆ G re ater awa reness of the re l at i o n s h i p s, and possible contrad i c t o ry intera c t i o n s, b e t ween production programs and cons e rvation progra m s.

A commonly held attitude is the belief that unintended conflicts and contradictions among various agricultural and conservation policies has resulted in
B-4

Appendix B

negative impacts on the ability of landowners to practice conservation.

Defenders of Wildlife’s report, for example, notes that “the issue of consistency

between the Title III conservation objectives of the Farm Bill and the objectives

of other Titles (for example, commodity and risk management programs) is

important in determining how effective re s o u rce conservation incentives can

be. In some circumstances, other farm legislation may provide disincentives for

p roducers to practice re s o u rce conservation” (Defenders of Wildlife 2000).

As a result of a nationwide survey in 1997, the American Farmland Trust re commends a policy audit to identify and eliminate policies and programs that

work at cross purposes to good land stewardship (American Farmland Tr u s t

Undated). Participants in Soil and Water Conservation workshops also agre e d

that “agricultural commodity and risk management programs should not exacerbate conservation and environmental problems by encouraging production on

e n v i ronmentally sensitive or fragile land or intensifying agricultural pro d u c t i o n

systems (Soil and Water Conservation Society 2001).

Finally, the Wildlife Management Institute, in its recommendations for the

2002 Farm Bill, proposes linking agricultural support payments to conservation

compliance. The Institute maintains that “public monies spent via farm bill programs should be based on comprehensive land stewardship, including wildlife,

rather than on commodity production” (Wildlife Management Institute 2001).

◆ I n c reased capacity for Nat u ral Re s o u rces Conservat i o n

S e rvice conservation technical assistance in the field.

All of the policy proposals and program comments reviewed emphasized the

need for additional technical support from NRCS, including training and additional staff. To fill this need, they unanimously recommended increased funding

for NRCS conservation technical assistance.

The National Drought Policy Commission strongly recommended, “Congre s s

should fund existing drought pre p a redness programs such as the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Technical Assistance Program (Public

Law 46) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (16 U.S.C. 3839)....”

They also recommended modernization, expansion and coordination of observation technologies such as the Soil Climate Analysis (SCAN) and Snowpack

Telemetry (SNOTEL; National Drought Policy Commission 2000).

One of seven recommendations Defenders of Wildlife has proposed for the

USDA Conservation Program states that “Federal funding for conservation technical and administrative assistance, agricultural re s e a rch, and extension should

be substantially increased to assist private landowners to meet mandated environmental and ecological standards (Defenders of Wildlife 2000). A similar re commendation can be found in the report of the Wildlife Management Institute

( Wildlife Management Institute 2001).

F a rmers and ranchers engaged in operations where animal waste is pro d u c e d

a re concerned about the availability of NRCS technical specialists to assist in the

p reparation of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans and the availability
B-5

Appendix B

of funding support for animal waste structures (National Milk Pro d u c e r s

Federation 2000).

◆ P rogram elements that provide a “safe harbor” to pro d u c e rs,

with a balance of reg u l at o ry and vo l u n t a ry ap p ro a ch e s.

Defenders of Wildlife addresses the concept of “safe harbor” in their re c e n t

policy paper. The group suggests that agricultural producers could be aff o rd e d

a certain level of regulatory security if they integrate a safe harbor program into

a re s o u rce conservation agreement (Defenders of Wildlife 2000).

Several groups commented on the balance between voluntary and re g u l a t o r y

p rograms and policies. Based on a survey of farm, ranch and forestland owners, the American Farmland Trust recommends that environmental and land use

policies should offer a “fair, effective combination of regulations and incentives,

including a dramatic increase in conservation funding and elimination of count e r p roductive subsidies” (American Farmland Trust Undated).

◆ Re c ognition of the secondary benefits or public goods of

agr i c u l t u ral re s o u rce conservat i o n .

A final theme in the reports, meetings and papers was the concept of agricult u re as a source of societal benefits other than food and fiber as well as the fact

that conservation policy often fails to recognize these benefits. Several authors

and speakers have pointed out the “multifunctionality” of farming; that is,

“ f a rmland that provides environmental, landscape and rural viability benefits in

addition to producing food and fiber” (Center for the Study of Rural America

2000). As one author writes, “the farm is still the one link in the agrifood chain

accounting for the largest share of agriculture’s public goods, including half the

world’s jobs, many of its most vital communities, and many of its most diverse

landscapes” (Kirschenmann 2000). Another notes that “other public goods fro m

a g r i c u l t u re might be clean air, reduced global warning, and biodiversity as well

as food and feedstuffs (Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture 1999).

The Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture has acknowledged

the importance of agriculture in carbon sequestration by recommending the

p rovision of “appropriate incentives and technical assistance to establish and

compensate producers for on-farm carbon sequestration...” (Commission on

21st Century Production Agriculture 2001). Their question is: If agriculture contributes so much to society in general, shouldn’t farmers and ranchers benefit
C-1

Appendix C

A n a lysis of A l t e rn at ive s

Models Used in the A n a ly s i s

Although a variety of models and other analytical tools were used in the

analysis, the three main simulation models were: Environmental Policy

Integrated Climate (EPIC), also known as the Erosion Productivity Impact

Calculator (Putman et al. 1988, Rosenberg et al. 1992, Edwards et al. 1994,

Williams 1995, Wu et al. 1996, Campbell 2000); Agriculture Sector Model (ASM;

Chang et al. 1992, McCarl 1993, McCarl and Callaway 1993, McCarl et al. 1993,

Chang et al. 1994, Chen 1998, Atwood et al. 2000, Schneider 2000); and the

H y d rologic Unit Modeling of the United States (HUMUS; Srinivasan and Arn o l d

1994, Arnold et al. 1998, Srinivasan et al. 1998). For this analysis, design, development and production of analysis products from these systems were in partnership with Texas A&M University and the Agricultural Research Service.

EPIC is a field-scale model providing a detailed simulation of hydro l o g i c ,

nutrient, carbon, soil and vegetative growth processes, with environmental consequences simulated to the edge of the field and to the bottom of the ro o t

zone. Environmental consequences include estimates of erosion, nutrient and

pesticide leaching and runoff and changes in the quantity and quality of the

soil re s o u rce. Besides producing environmental consequence estimates dire c t l y ,

EPIC is used to calculate per- a c re model coefficients for the ASM for altern a t i v e

c rop management technologies and soil types. Some of the data developed for

EPIC is also used in the HUMUS modeling system.

The ASM simulates the simultaneous market equilibrium determ i n a t i o n

p rocess for primary and processed commodities and for land, labor and water

re s o u rces in the United States, accounting for export and import markets and

supply of production inputs. Cropland is divided into classes based on ero d i b i lity and other environmental characteristics. Alternative crop production technologies are included, with the model solution process for a given scenario

choosing the set of technologies most likely to be used by producers in the situation simulated by the scenario. Model output includes estimates of commodity prices, production, exports, imports; re s o u rce use and prices; a description of

agricultural technology used and estimates of sheet and rill and wind ero s i o n .

HUMUS consists of three major components: (1) A set of basin-scale Soil and

Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) runs that model surface and subsurface water

quality and quantity at the 8-digit hydrologic accounting unit scale (2,150 watershed areas); (2) a geographic information system (GIS) to collect, manage, analyze and display the spatial and temporal inputs and outputs; and (3) re l a t i o n a l

databases needed to manage non-spatial data and drive the models. The acre s

of crops by watershed can be determined by the ASM model for each altern ative scenario and passed to the HUMUS system. Modeling routines for simulating some scenario characteristics such as diff e rent types of buffer strips were

developed for the SWAT model at a regional scale and were incorporated into

the national HUMUS system as part of the analysis.
C-2

Appendix C

Modeling ch a n ges in agr i c u l t u ral market re l ationships 

and policy or program ch a n ge s

The ASM model is initially set up and calibrated for a specific baseline, usually for the most recent year for which published information is available on

commodity prices, yields and disposition and on re s o u rces used in pro d u c t i o n .

The parameters of the market relationships in the model for domestic demand

and exports and imports of each primary and secondary (processed) commodity can then be changed to reflect the nature of a future scenario. The market

relationships are specified with three parameters — baseline quantity, baseline

price and the elasticity coefficient for the ratio of percent change in quantity to

p e rcent change in price. Supply functions for cropland, gro u n d w a t e r, hire d

labor and private pasture and range re s o u rces have the same three parameters.

For example, a scenario to reflect higher export demand for wheat incre a s e s

the quantity associated with the baseline price and/or changes the re s p o n s i v eness of the quantity to price. Similarly, an increase in Conservation Reserve

P rogram land can be simulated by reducing the amount of land supplied at a

given price. Simulating an increase in the use of conservation tillage is accomplished by imposing a constraint requiring the use of that type of technology in

cases where it was not previously employed.

For this analysis, the baseline model solution was calibrated with commodity

market conditions for 2000 as reported in the USDA Agricultural Outlook baseline (USDA 2000c). Additional re s o u rce availability and management conditions

w e re calibrated to data for year 1997 using the Census of Agriculture and

National Resources Inventory data. 

The ASM model output was linked with the results from other modeling systems to provide information such as the following:

• changes in levels of production, costs, income and social welfare

m e a s u res 

• changes in crop acres and land uses 

• changes in the mixes of crops across soils, tillage types and conservation

practices 

• changes in levels of production and income by region that can be re l a t e d

to farm size and demographic producer groups using Census of

A g r i c u l t u re data 

• changes in crop acres and land use to estimate water quality impacts for

selected scenarios using the HUMUS model

• c rop acreage distributions and management information combined with

the per- a c re results from bio-physical models to show a variety of

economic and environmental impacts such as erosion, sediment,

phosphorus and nitrogen losses to surface water and gro u n d w a t e r

• technical and financial assistance needs associated with each alternative

(technical assistance costs based on results from the NRCS Workload

Analysis System combined with land treatment needs from the ASM)

The following alternatives were directly analyzed:
C-3

Appendix C

BA S E : C u r rent program and current conditions as approximated by the USDA

baseline for 2000, the 1997 Census of Agriculture, the 1997 National Resourc e s

Inventory and Conservation Reserve Program and buffer program data as of

September 2000.

I n c rease bu ffe rs to two million miles (BU F 2 ) : Simulate imposed enro l lment of sufficient buffer acres to reach the two-million-mile goal under the

assumption of current rules for CRP, installation costs and rental rates.

Expand the Conservation Re s e rve Program to 45 million acre s

( C R P 4 5 ) : Simulate imposed enrollment of acreage to expand the Conservation

Reserve Program to 45 million acres under the assumption of continuing with

c u r rent rules.

I n i t i ate a Grazing Lands Re s e rve Program (GLR) 

G L Ra : Fund Grazing Land Reserve at $50 million annually, distributed pro p o rtionate to acre s .

G L Rv : Fund Grazing Land Reserve at $50 million annually, distributed pro p o rtionate to value.

S i mu l ate conservation compliance level of e rosion control for all

c ropland (CCALL).

D o u ble the national acre age in mu l ch and ze ro till (TILL2X).

C ropland Stewa rdship Proposal (CSP)

C S P 1 : Redistribute $5.57 billion in payments in each state to cropland and

p a s t u re land that already incorporate sustainable re s o u rce management systems.

C S P 2 : CSP1 plus simulate imposition of erosion control on remaining cro p l a n d

to conservation compliance levels.

C S P 3 : CSP1 plus simulate imposition of erosion control on remaining cro p l a n d

to sustainable re s o u rce management systems.

S i multaneous BU F 2 , CRP45 and CSP2.

S i multaneous BU F 2 , CRP45 and CSP3.

I n c rease funding for the Fa rmland Protection Program to $65

million annu a l ly (FPP65).*

D o u ble the Wetlands Re s e rve Program acre age by enro l l i n g

250,000 acres annu a l ly for five ye a rs (WRP250).*

I n c rease funding for the Fo re s t ry Incentives Program by $38 
C-4

Appendix C

million a year (FIP38).*

I n c rease funding for the Wi l d l i fe Hab i t at Incentives Program 

to $50 million annu a l ly (WHIP50).*

(*Not explicitly modeled, but estimated impacts were developed based on 

p rogram specification and results of other scenarios.)

BASE — The baseline was calibrated to 1997 conditions

for U. S. agr i c u l t u re

R e s o u rce availability and technical data components of ASM were first updated with available 1997 data from the Census of Agriculture (CEN), the National

R e s o u rces Inventory (NRI) and other sources. The model solution was calibrated

to simulate agricultural commodity and re s o u rce market outcomes consistent

with 1997 conditions. Conservation compliance (CC) participation was assumed

to continue at the 1997 level. Miles of conservation buffers were translated to

a c res in buffers at the rate of 3.6 acres per mile, which is used for program planning purposes.

Only the crop production component of ASM was updated with 1997 NRI

data because the full NRI was not available at the start of the analysis. Acre a g e s

for pasture, range and irrigation water land components were based on the 1992

NRI and will be updated later. Three crop simulation updates were applied:

• split of cropland into four cropland classes (based on wetness and

e rosion hazard) by sub-re g i o n

• adjustment of per- a c re cost, erosion (USLE and Wind) and yields of

c ropping technologies to 1997 conditions

• calibration so that in the model solution, use of various tillage types and

supporting practices were consistent with the NRI and the Crop Residue

Management Survey 

BUF2 — Increase national miles of c o n s e rvation bu ffe rs to

t wo million miles

In 1997, USDA launched a national initiative to develop two million miles of

conservation buffer strips. As of September 2000, 750,000 miles of buffers had

been installed (based on 3.6 acres of cropland per mile of buffer). Of that

a c reage, 1.2 million acres were formally enrolled as part of the nation's 36.4

m i l l i o n - a c re Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) through Continuous Signup

(CONCRP) provisions. The remaining 1.5 million acres associated with the current buffers were assumed to be distributed in the same proportionate manner

a c ross sub-regions and soils as the CONCRP acres. 

The BUF2 scenario simulated achievement of the two million-mile buffer initiative by requiring an additional 1.25 million miles of buffers, bringing the total

to two million miles (4.5 million additional acres of cropland). Regular CRP and

CONCRP signup were simulated separately. The additional buffer strip acre a g e
C-5

Appendix C

was treated as CONCRP signup with the same per- a c re costs (private and gove rnment) and benefits as land previously enrolled in the CONCRP. BUF2 was

simulated by putting cropland-using buffer activities into the model by subregion and cropland class (for example, adding an additional crop with subregional and soil class level constraints on the level of the crop). 

The distribution of the additional buffer acres was based on an NRCS comp rehensive study of ideal buffer strip distribution for the Buffer Initiative and

for program planning for the CONCRP. For this analysis, the sum of curre n t

CONCRP enrollment and the additional buffer acres was distributed pro p o r t i o nally to sub-regions based on that ideal distribution as follows: within each subregion, the new buffer acres were allocated across cropland classes in the same

p roportions as the classes were allocated to total cropland. 

For BUF2:

• expand the CONCRP enrollment by a factor of 2.25 in each sub-region to

i n c rease the national total to 2.7 million acres for the buffer "base" (as of

September 2000, no explicit distribution data for the buffer acres not

e n rolled in CONCRP were available)

• redistribute 160,000 acres from the 12 sub-regions where the expansion

exceeds the ideal value to the 35 sub-regions with the gre a t e s t

d i v e rgence from ideal

• i n c rease buffer acreage by 20 percent in every sub-re g i o n

• calculate the diff e rence (if positive) by sub-region between the ideal

distribution and 120 percent of the baseline buffer acre a g e

• after deducting the 20-percent increase from the total needed 4.5 milliona c re increase, distribute the remaining re q u i red increase across subregions proportionate to each sub-region's share of the national

d i ff e rence between the 120 percent baseline buffer level and the ideal

The costs and benefits of buffer strips were calculated separately for curre n t l y

e n rolled CONCRP acres and for the expanded buffer acres to reflect additional

incentives now being off e red for enrollments. The following assumptions were

used for current CONCRP (rent, cost share and maintenance values were all

taken from the current enrollment database):

• the average enrollment contract covers a 12.5-year period

• a discount rate of six percent is used for annualization

• the government cost share is 50 percent of the cost of establishing cover

• the annual maintenance cost paid by the government is included in the re n t

With these assumptions:

g o v e rnment cost = (rent + (cost share ) * 0 . 1 1 6 ) )

p roducer benefit = (rent - (cost share*0.116) - maintenance)

For the new buffer acres the following assumptions were made:

• average enrollment contract covers a 12.5-year period

• a discount rate of six percent is used for annualization

• cost share is 50 percent of the cost of establishing cover
C-6

Appendix C

• g o v e rnment pays an additional incentive equal to 40 percent of private

costs of establishing cover 

• g o v e rnment pays a signup bonus of $10 per acre per year of enro l l m e n t

p e r i o d

• g o v e rnment pays an additional $3.50 per acre maintenance incentive annually

• cost share, maintenance and rent values for previous CONCRP

e n rollments are used

With these assumptions:

g o v e rnment cost = (rent + 3.5 + (1.8*cost share*0.116) + (125*0.116))

p roducer benefit = (rent + 3.5 - (0.2*cost share*0.116) - maintenance + 

( 1 2 5 * 0 . 1 1 6 ) )

P e r- a c re estimates of sheet and rill and wind erosion for CRP land were calculated from the NRI data and used for both current CONCRP and new buffer acre s .

CRP45 — Expand Conservation Re s e rve Program (CRP) to 

45 million acre s

Baseline CRP enrollment was set at the statutory limit of 36.4 million acre s ,

which is actually a few million acres above current enrollment because of the

holdouts for CONCRP and the state-partnered CRP Enhancement Pro g r a m s

(CREEP). The additional 8.6 million acres for the CRP45 scenario were distributed based on the "likely to enroll" database that the Farm Services Agency

(FSA) constructed using NRI and economic data provided by the Economic

R e s e a rch Service for the "likely to enroll" estimates. That database considere d

the environmental benefits scoring used to rank enrollment bids, probable CRP

rent level, and estimated profit from continued cropping. However, sample size

and other considerations dictated that those estimates be made at the aggre g a t e

USDA Farm Production Region 10-region level. Also, the estimates were for the

t h ree land classes of ASM that are based on the erosion index (ei) because the

"likely to enroll" database does not include Land Capability Class and sub-class

i n f o rmation. Government costs, producer benefits and erosion coefficients for

CRP land were calculated in the same manner as for the BUF2 scenarios. 

To allocate the 10-region acreage estimates to ASM sub-region and soil class,

we took the following steps: 

• calculate the proportional increase by USDA 10-region need to move

f rom the estimated base to the 45 million-acre CRP

• allocate enrollment to the four ASM land classes assuming the same

p roportionate split of the new CRP across the four land classes as for

p revious enro l l m e n t s

• allocate from the 10 regions to the ASM sub-regions based on the

distribution of current CRP

G L Ra and GLRv — Grazing Land Re s e rve Progra m

Few specifics accompany the proposal that $50 million be spent annually on

a grazing land reserve program. Some discussion has focused on pro t e c t i n g

land with unique ecological functions, while other discussion centers on
C-7

Appendix C

i n c reasing grazing productivity and/or production of various enviro n m e n t a l

benefits. For purposes of this simulation, it was assumed that grazing land

would be removed from production with compensation paid to the landowners

in a program similar to the CRP. Two alternative methods of distributing the

funds across the nation were simulated:

• GLRa distributes the funds proportionately across sub-regions based on

s u b - region proportion of national grazing acre s .

• GLRv distributes the funds proportionately across sub-regions based on

s u b - region proportion of national grazing rent value.

ASM re p resents grazing land in three categories: 

• privately owned pasture land where transactions are in terms of acre s

• public grazing land (range) where transactions are in terms of Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

• privately owned grazing land (range) where transactions are in terms of AUMs

A c reage values in ASM for pasture and AUMs for rangeland are taken fro m

Agricultural Statistic and Census related "use" surveys and are generally less

than the NRI estimates of pasture and rangeland, particularly in the Appalachian

and Southeast regions. Note also that in the ASM, the supply of public grazing

by sub-region is re p resented by fixed quantity and price, while supply of past u re and private grazing are re p resented by price-responsive supply functions. 

The GLRa distribution of grazing land was developed using the following steps:

• d e t e rmine national acreage shares of pasture and private range in ASM

after converting the private AUMs to an acreage basis

TABLE C-1.

C h a n ges in cropland use (1000 acre s )

C R P C R P B u f f e r C o v e r * Total Crop Marginal rent C h a n g e

C r o p p e d r e g u l a r c o n t i n u o u s ( n o n - C R P ) or idle p o t e n t i a l value ($/acre) in rent

B A S E 3 4 8 2 7 8 . 2 3 0 4 2 7 . 6 1 5 0 0 . 8 11 9 8 . 5 1 7 5 4 4 . 1 3 9 8 9 4 9 . 2 7 3 . 1 6

C h a n g e :

b u f 2 - 3 4 5 8 . 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 4 4 9 9 . 9 - 3 5 5 . 7 6 8 5 . 4 7 6 . 0 0 2 . 8 4

c r p 4 5 - 1 2 0 5 9 . 9 1 4 5 6 6 . 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 - 1 7 3 6 . 6 7 7 0 . 1 7 9 . 6 7 6 . 5 1

Ti l l 2 x 7 9 6 . 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 3 6 . 4 1 6 3 2 . 8 1 0 8 . 2 7 3 5 . 11

G l r A - 3 5 2 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 - 4 0 6 . 8 - 7 5 8 . 8 7 4 . 0 4 0 . 8 0

G l r V - 2 2 8 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 - 3 4 8 . 8 - 5 7 6 . 8 7 3 . 9 8 0 . 8 0

c s p 2 - 1 7 3 5 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 3 4 8 . 8 - 3 8 6 . 3 7 2 . 6 6 - 0 . 8 2

c s p 3 - 7 0 6 3 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 4 4 . 0 - 1 0 1 9 . 2 7 8 . 2 1 5 . 0 5

b c 2 4 5 2 - 1 6 4 8 1 . 5 1 4 5 6 6 . 5 0 . 0 4 4 9 9 . 9 - 1 9 3 3 . 4 6 5 1 . 5 8 0 . 9 8 7 . 8 2

b c 2 4 5 3 - 2 0 8 9 1 . 7 1 4 5 6 6 . 5 0 . 0 4 4 9 9 . 9 1 6 5 6 . 0 - 1 6 9 . 3 8 7 . 0 8 1 3 . 9 2

* Total crop potential is sum of cropped, CRP, buffers, and cover or idle. Increases in total represent conversions from forest and

pasture; decreases are conversion of cropland to forest and pasture.
C-8

Appendix C

• divide the $50 million between national pasture and range pro p o r t i o n a t e

to their total acre a g e s

• divide each of pasture's and range's national fund allocation among subregions based on sub-region shares of total acre a g e

GLRa calculations showed 391.3 million acres of pasture and 152.6 million

a c res of range, resulting in 72 percent of the funds going to pasture and 28 percent to range. 

GLRv distribution of grazing land was developed as follows: 

• d e t e rmine national value shares of pasture and private range in ASM by

summing up across states the product of base use and base re n t

• divide the $50 million to pasture and range proportionate to their share s

of national rent value

• divide each of pasture's and range's national fund allocation among subregions based on sub-region shares of total value

The GLRv calculations show national rent values of $6,451 and $642 million

for pasture and range, resulting in national GLR shares of 91 percent for pasture

and nine percent for range. 

The GLR scenarios are modeled in ASM by adding GLR pasture and range

activities in each sub-region that "pay" the BASE scenario rent rates and "use"

s u fficient grazing land re s o u rces to expend the allocated GLR funds. The solution showed both the use level and the per- a c re cost of enrolling the land by

s u b - region. Technically, removing that land from production would cause a

small increase in the rental rate, implying that actual program implementation

would re q u i re paying slightly more than the BASE rates. However, in most subregions, less than two percent of the grazing land was taken out of pro d u c t i o n ,

though as much as 10 percent was removed in a couple of sub-regions. And

the ASM solution contains an estimate of how much the rents increase. 

CCALL — All cropped acre age will have erosion limited to 

the CC leve l s

The conservation compliance (CC) rules have applied to farmers who had traditionally participated in federal farm programs and who farm any highly ero d ible land (HEL). Those farmers have had qualifying production plans fully implemented since 1995. However, excess erosion continues to be a problem, both

f rom land not covered by the CC provisions and from some CC land. The intent

of this scenario is to estimate the costs and benefits to the agricultural sector of

requiring that all land be treated in a CC type manner. This simulation re q u i re s

setting allowable erosion limits as a proxy for the erosion levels associated with

a p p roved conservation plans. The implied CC limits assumed for this study are :

• for non-HEL both USLE and wind erosion must be less than six tons

• for HEL both USLE and wind erosion must be less than 10 tons.

Since the erosion levels associated with some of the baseline solution production technologies exceed the CC limits, in the CCALL scenario the ASM will

choose the next best (based on economics) cropping activities that meet the CC

e rosion levels. These next-best technologies may have higher production costs
C-9

Appendix C

and/or lower yields. The ASM estimates welfare impacts for the sector and

describes a new mix of tillage, practices, rotations and, in some cases, diff e re n t

c rop mixes by region and cropland class. 

TILL2X — Double acre age in reduced tillage at the nat i o n a l

l evel re l at ive to the baseline

Adoption of reduced tillage has slowed at the national level since 1995. This

scenario explores the impacts of doubling the current 37 percent of cro p l a n d

that uses some form of reduced tillage. TILL2X is simulated in ASM by imposing a minimum acreage constraint for each of conservation and zero tillage use

in each sub-region. The ASM solution will show both the sector impacts and

the sub-regional marginal per- a c re costs of adopting those levels of re d u c e d

tillage (shadow price of the constraints). 

The pro c e d u re for developing the distribution of increased reduced tillage

a c ross sub-regions has the following steps:

• using Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) 1997 data,

calculate the proportion of cropped acreage in conservation and zero till

for each sub-re g i o n

• apply a formula that increases the proportions in these tillage types by subregion more for areas with lower 1997 proportions and less for areas with

higher 1997 proportions, with the cumulative effect of the pro p o r t i o n a t e

i n c reases resulting in national doubling of each type of tillage

• after review by CTIC and NRCS staff, reduce the increase to a doubling in

Montana, Oregon, Texas, Washington and Wyoming and to 20 percent in

Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah and Ve rm o n t

• s p read the remaining acreage needed to meet the national doubling of

conservation tillage across sub-regions with large cropland acre a g e s

C S P 1 , C S P 2 , CSP3 — Cropland Stewa rdship Pro p o s a l

The Cropland Stewardship Proposal (CSP) simulated in these scenarios was to

reflect current policy debates concerning the principal that farmers and landowners should be re w a rded for good stewardship already accomplished and that

society should be able to expect some stewardship behavior from the landowners in exchange for further government assistance to agriculture. Three model

runs were made to simulate CSP, but it should be noted that the analysis was in

actuality conducted on the basis of attempting to evaluate implementation of successively higher levels of erosion control rather than assessing pro g ressive levels

of incentive payments. Availability of data, time constraints, and modeling constraints limited the scope of what could be incorporated in this analysis. A more

c o m p rehensive analysis is needed to estimate benefits and effects for re s o u rc e

management systems, new comprehensive nutrient management, pesticide management, and wildlife habitat management systems to adequately address proposed stewardship incentive provisions currently being considere d .
C-10

Appendix C

CSP1 involves a lump sum redistribution (within each sub-region) of $5.57

billion in direct payments to acres of cropland and pasture currently managed

at erosion levels below the soil loss tolerance rate (T). These payments were

added to the objective function as income to the farming sector by sub-re g i o n

and are also included in government cost accounting at the sub-region level.

The pro c e d u res for allocating these payments are :

• d e t e rmine by sub-region the 1997 NRI acreages of crop and pasture with

e rosion less than T

• apply the following formula in each sub-region to solve for a pasture

payment rate (y), and the calculate rates for the cropland classes as

multiples of the pasture rate as shown

$ A M TA = yP + 3.5yW + 3.5yL + 4.5yM + 6.5yS

w h e re

$ A M TA is the AMTA payment total;

P is acreage of qualifying pasture ;

W is acreage of qualifying cropland with Class III-VIII, subclass w;

L is the non-W qualifying cropland with erosion index less than 8.;

M is the non-W qualifying cropland with erosion index between 8 and 20; and

S is the non-W qualifying cropland with erosion index greater than 20.

The average per- a c re payments and the national allocations by ASM cro p l a n d

class were :

The CSP1 payments were also included in the CSP2 and CSP3 scenarios. The

intent of CSP2 was to determine the additional economic impact of re q u i r i n g

that erosion is reduced to six tons per- a c re on non-HEL and 10 tons per- a c re

on HEL. This solution should be the same (for re s o u rce allocation and management) as CCALL because the CSP1 payments are included only as lump sum

transfers. The erosion control aspects of this scenario are set up as in CCALL

(that is, by eliminating cropping activities where either wind or water ero s i o n

exceeds the specified limits). However, farm income and government payment

estimates will be diff e rent from CCALL because of the CSP1 payments. 

CSP3 is similar to CSP2, except that both water and wind erosion (individually) will be reduced to the soil loss tolerance level for all cropland as a means of

simulating implementation of re s o u rce management systems. 

B C 2 4 5 2 Simultaneous BUF2, CRP45, and CSP2

B C 2 4 5 3 Simultaneous BUF2, CRP45, and CSP3

ASM class per acre acres allocation 

( m i l l i o n s ) ( m i l l i o n s )

P P a s t u r e $ 4 . 4 8 11 2 . 9 $ 5 0 5 . 8

W III-VIII with w $ 1 9 . 5 5 3 3 . 7 $ 6 5 8 . 8

L ei < 8 $ 1 8 . 2 4 1 8 9 . 1 $ 3 4 4 9 . 2

M 8 < = e i < 2 0 $ 1 9 . 7 9 3 6 . 2 $ 7 1 6 . 4

S ei >=20 $ 2 6 . 1 9 9 . 1 $ 2 3 8 . 3
C-11

Appendix C

U.S. agricultural sector impact: b u f 2 c r p 4 5 Ti l l 2 X G l r A G l r V c s p 1 * c c a l l c s p 2

P r o d u c e r s Million $ 5 2 8 . 9 1 8 9 0 . 2 0 - 5 7 2 3 . 6 0 7 0 8 . 5 5 9 6 . 2 0 - 2 3 0 . 7 - 2 3 0 . 7

U.S. consumer Million $ - 6 7 3 . 1 - 1 4 3 3 . 7 0 3 8 3 - 6 4 1 - 5 4 3 . 7 0 - 7 5 0 . 5 - 7 5 0 . 5

U.S. taxpayers2 Million $ 5 2 3 . 6 7 1 2 . 9 1 8 0 1 . 9 0 5 0 5 0 0 2 1 8 . 4 2 1 8 . 4

Total financial cost2 Million $ - 6 6 7 . 7 - 2 5 6 . 4 - 7 9 0 8 . 4 0 1 7 . 5 2 . 5 0 - 11 9 9 . 5 0 - 11 9 9 . 5

Technical A s s i s t a n c e

F e d e r a l Million $ 1 2 5 . 1 2 9 0 . 9 11 5 8 . 4 0 1 2 . 6 1 2 . 6 0 2 4 7 . 1 2 7 8 . 1

P a r t n e r Million $ 0 . 0 0 7 8 6 . 6 8 . 5 8 . 5 0 1 6 7 . 8 1 8 8 . 9

Total technical assistance Million $ 1 2 5 . 1 2 9 0 . 9 1 9 4 5 . 0 0 2 1 . 1 2 1 . 1 0 4 1 4 . 9 4 6 7

Total cost2 Million $ 7 9 2 . 8 5 4 7 . 3 9 8 5 3 . 4 0 3 8 . 6 2 3 . 7 0 1 6 1 4 . 4 0 1 6 6 6 . 5 0

Estimated environmental 

b e n e f i t s 3 Million $ 3 2 8 8 . 1 0 1 5 3 2 . 8 0 4 9 6 0 . 4 0 - 1 6 . 9 - 3 1 . 3 0 6 8 2 7 . 9 0 6 8 2 7 . 9 0

Benefit cost ratio R a t i o 4 . 1 2 . 8 0 . 5 - 0 . 4 - 1 . 3 0 4 . 2 0 4 . 1 0

P r o d u c e r s ’ i n c o m e % change 0 . 8 1 2 . 9 1 - 8 . 8 1 . 0 9 0 . 9 2 0 - 0 . 3 5 - 0 . 3 5

Crop commodity indices:

P r o d u c t i o n I n d e x 9 9 . 3 2 9 8 . 1 2 9 9 . 1 4 9 9 . 9 4 9 9 . 9 5 1 0 0 9 9 . 5 7 9 9 . 5 7

P r i c e I n d e x 1 0 1 . 3 6 1 0 3 . 6 2 1 0 1 . 4 1 1 0 0 . 1 7 1 0 0 . 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 . 1 9 1 0 1 . 1 9

Total Cropped A c r e s % change - 1 . 0 0 - 3 . 5 0 0 . 2 0 - 0 . 1 0 - 0 . 1 0 0 - 0 . 5 0 - 0 . 5 0

Cropland with 

new conservation4 % change 2 . 4 0 2 . 9 0 - 0 . 2 0 - 0 . 2 0 3 4 . 2 0 0 4 . 0 0 4 . 0 0

Crops per-acre change (%):

Variable costs % change 1 . 0 9 3 . 0 2 4 . 7 4 - 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 6 6

R e c e i p t s % change 1 . 6 4 4 . 8 8 0 . 9 2 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 6 0 1 . 3 4 1 . 3 4

P r o f i t % change 4 . 0 4 1 2 . 9 5 - 1 5 . 6 1 0 . 8 7 0 . 3 4 0 4 . 2 8 4 . 2 8

Crops per-acre change ($):

Variable costs $ change 1 . 8 2 5 . 0 3 7 . 9 1 - 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 0 1 0 1 . 1 0 1 . 1 0

R e c e i p t s $ change 3 . 3 8 1 0 . 0 2 1 . 9 0 . 3 2 0 . 1 2 0 2 . 7 5 2 . 7 5

P r o f i t $ change 1 . 5 6 4 . 9 9 - 6 . 0 1 0 . 3 4 0 . 1 3 0 1 . 6 5 1 . 6 5

Sector change (%):

C r o p R e c e i p t s 0 . 6 7 1 . 6 8 0 . 5 4 0 . 11 0 . 0 7 0 0 . 7 5 0 . 7 5

C r o p Va r. costs 0 . 1 9 - 0 . 9 8 7 . 3 2 - 0 . 1 3 - 0 . 0 8 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4

C r o p P r o f i t 3 . 1 3 1 5 . 3 8 - 3 4 . 4 5 1 . 3 5 0 . 8 7 0 4 . 4 3 4 . 4 3

L i v e s t o c k R e c e i p t s 0 . 2 3 - 0 . 1 2 - 0 . 3 2 1 . 4 1 1 . 3 4 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 9

L i v e s t o c k Va r. costs - 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 0 - 0 . 0 5 - 0 . 0 3 0 - 0 . 0 5 - 0 . 0 5

L i v e s t o c k P r o f i t 0 . 4 4 - 0 . 1 4 - 0 . 7 1 2 . 8 1 2 . 6 5 0 0 . 2 3 0 . 2 3

TABLE C-2.

Fa rm income implications from National Conservation Program 

A n a ly s i s, ave rage annual ch a n ges from current leve l s
C-12

Appendix C

reduce resource improve resource

degradation: glr, health: glr,wrp, 

c s p 3 b c 2 4 5 2 b c 2 4 5 3 w r p f p p w h i p f i p wrp, fpp, whip & fip1 fpp, whip & fip

2 1 8 2 . 6 0 3 6 6 8 . 6 6 2 8 5 . 4 n / a n / a n / a n / a 3 6 6 8 . 6 6 2 8 5 . 4

- 5 , 0 8 4 . 9 0 - 3 0 4 0 . 9 - 7 2 0 9 . 6 n / a n / a n / a n / a - 3 0 4 0 . 9 - 7 2 0 9 . 6

9 5 4 . 7 1 6 11 . 1 0 2 2 5 7 . 3 0 2 6 3 . 5 2 3 . 5 4 1 . 3 3 1 . 3 2 0 2 0 . 7 0 2 6 6 6 . 8 0

- 3 8 5 7 . 0 0 - 9 8 3 . 4 - 3 1 8 1 . 5 0 2 6 3 . 5 2 3 . 5 4 1 . 3 3 1 . 3 - 1 3 9 2 . 9 0 - 3 5 9 1 . 1 0

1 4 5 1 . 5 0 6 8 1 . 5 1 7 8 0 . 7 0 2 2 . 5 5 . 1 9 6 . 8 7 3 7 . 4 1 8 3 6 . 6 0

9 8 5 . 6 1 8 0 . 3 9 2 6 . 7 0 0 0 0 1 8 8 . 9 9 3 5 . 2

2 4 3 7 . 0 0 8 6 1 . 8 2 7 0 7 . 4 0 2 2 . 5 5 . 1 9 6 . 8 9 2 6 . 3 2 7 7 1 . 9 0

6 2 9 4 . 0 0 1 8 4 5 . 2 0 5 8 8 8 . 9 0 2 8 6 2 8 . 6 5 0 . 2 3 8 . 1 2 3 1 9 . 3 0 6 3 6 2 . 9 0

1 0 , 4 2 8 . 0 0 7 4 2 6 . 1 0 1 0 , 6 6 6 . 5 0 n / a n / a n / a n/a 7 4 2 6 . 1 0 1 0 , 6 6 6 . 5 0

1 . 7 4 1 . 8 n / a n / a n / a n/a 3 . 2 1 . 7

3 . 3 6 5 . 6 4 9 . 6 7 n / a n / a n / a n/a 5 . 6 4 9 . 6 7

9 7 . 3 5 9 7 . 4 5 9 5 . 4 1 n / a n / a n / a n/a 9 7 . 4 5 9 5 . 4 1

1 0 8 . 2 4 1 0 5 . 6 9 11 2 . 9 1 n / a n / a n / a n/a 1 0 5 . 6 9 11 2 . 9 1

- 2 . 0 0 - 4 . 7 0 - 6 . 0 0 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 4 . 7 0 - 6 . 0 0

1 3 . 7 0 6 . 0 0 1 4 . 7 0 n / a n / a n / a n/a 6 . 0 0 1 4 . 7 0

2 . 4 7 4 . 0 5 5 . 9 3 n / a n / a n / a n/a 4 . 0 5 5 . 9 3

7 . 4 3 7 . 6 3 1 4 . 1 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a 7 . 6 3 1 4 . 1 9

2 8 . 9 2 3 . 1 6 4 9 . 9 5 n / a n / a n / a n/a 2 3 . 1 6 4 9 . 9 5

4 . 1 2 6 . 8 9 . 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a 6 . 8 9 . 9

1 5 . 2 5 1 5 . 7 2 9 . 1 n / a n / a n / a n/a 1 5 . 7 2 9 . 1

11 . 1 3 8 . 9 2 1 9 . 2 5 n / a n / a n / a n/a 8 . 9 2 1 9 . 2 5

5 . 4 1 3 . 11 7 . 8 3 n / a n / a n / a n/a 3 . 11 7 . 8 3

1 . 4 8 - 2 . 11 - 0 . 9 1 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 2 . 11 - 0 . 9 1

2 5 . 7 3 0 . 0 4 5 2 . 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a 3 0 . 0 4 5 2 . 9

0 . 5 2 0 . 7 9 0 . 7 8 n / a n / a n / a n/a 0 . 7 9 0 . 7 8

- 0 . 1 9 - 0 . 2 3 - 0 . 3 3 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 0 . 2 3 - 0 . 3 3

1 . 2 1 . 7 7 1 . 8 4 n / a n / a n / a n/a 1 . 7 7 1 . 8 4

table continues on next page
C-13

Appendix C

To t a l R e c e i p t s 0 . 3 6 0 . 4 6 - 0 . 0 4 0 . 9 9 0 . 9 3 0 0 . 3 0 . 3

To t a l Va r. costs 0 . 0 7 - 0 . 4 9 3 . 3 5 - 0 . 0 9 - 0 . 0 5 0 - 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 0 1

To t a l P r o f i t 0 . 8 1 . 9 - 5 . 1 5 2 . 6 2 2 . 4 2 0 0 . 7 8 0 . 7 8

Sector change (Million $):

C r o p R e c e i p t s 4 5 7 . 5 11 4 5 . 0 0 3 6 7 . 2 7 4 . 9 4 9 . 7 0 5 1 4 . 7 5 1 4 . 7

C r o p Va r. costs 11 0 . 2 - 5 5 9 . 2 4 1 8 5 . 8 0 - 7 4 . 8 - 4 7 . 1 0 2 3 . 8 2 3 . 8

C r o p P r o f i t 3 4 7 . 2 1 7 0 4 . 2 0 - 3 8 1 8 . 6 0 1 4 9 . 7 9 6 . 8 0 4 9 0 . 9 4 9 0 . 9

L i v e s t o c k R e c e i p t s 3 0 9 . 4 - 1 6 6 . 3 - 4 5 5 . 5 2 0 2 3 . 1 0 1 9 1 9 . 7 0 0 1 2 8 . 5 1 2 8 . 5

L i v e s t o c k Va r. costs - 1 5 . 6 - 6 1 . 1 6 7 . 9 - 3 5 . 8 - 2 1 . 7 0 - 3 6 . 6 - 3 6 . 6

L i v e s t o c k P r o f i t 3 2 4 . 9 - 1 0 5 . 2 - 5 2 3 . 4 2 0 5 8 . 9 0 1 9 4 1 . 4 0 0 1 6 5 . 1 1 6 5 . 1

To t a l R e c e i p t s 7 6 6 . 9 9 7 8 . 7 - 8 8 . 3 2 0 9 8 . 0 0 1 9 6 9 . 4 0 0 6 4 3 . 2 6 4 3 . 2

To t a l Va r. costs 9 4 . 7 - 6 2 0 . 3 4 2 5 3 . 7 0 - 11 0 . 7 - 6 8 . 8 0 - 1 2 . 8 - 1 2 . 8

To t a l P r o f i t 6 7 2 . 2 1 5 9 9 . 0 0 - 4 3 4 2 . 0 0 2 2 0 8 . 6 0 2 0 3 8 . 2 0 0 6 5 6 6 5 6

Change in cropped 

a c r e a g e Mil. acres - 3 . 5 - 1 2 . 1 0 . 8 - 0 . 4 - 0 . 2 0 - 1 . 7

Change in cropland rent5 $ per acre 2 . 8 4 6 . 5 1 3 5 . 11 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 - 0 . 8 2

Trade surplus % change 0 . 0 1 - 1 . 0 8 - 1 . 9 9 0 . 1 7 0 . 0 8 0 - 0 . 1 3 - 0 . 1 3

Trade surplus Million $ 2 - 2 2 8 . 8 - 4 2 3 . 5 3 5 . 9 1 6 . 7 0 - 2 8 . 4 - 2 8 . 4

Environmental Impacts6

E r o s i o n % change n / a - 6 . 9 - 2 2 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 - 3 0 . 7 - 3 0 . 7

S e d i m e n t % change - 1 5 . 6 - 6 . 7 - 2 7 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 - 3 3 . 2 - 3 3 . 2

Total nitrogen % change - 1 0 . 8 - 2 . 8 - 7 . 2 0 0 . 1 0 - 1 2 . 5 - 1 2 . 5

Total phosphorus % change - 11 . 7 - 4 . 5 - 1 4 . 4 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 - 1 9 . 7 - 1 9 . 7

Footnotes for Tables 5-8, 10-14 and C-2:

* No change in impacts because payments were held constant for each region even though

there could be income redistribution to producers in each region who already have fully implemented conservation systems.

n/a not available.

Technical Assistance costs based upon results from the NRCS workload analysis system combined with land treatment needs from Agricultural Sector model.

1 W R P, FPP, WHIP, and FIPcould not be included in the modeling analysis and are not included

in benefit estimates for bc2452 and bc2453. ERS estimates a benefit cost ratio of 2.21 for

treatments on highly erodible cropland (Economic Research Service 1997).

2 U.S. taxpayer cost represents direct payments to producers for rent and practice installations.

Total sector impact equals impact on producers plus consumers less direct payments. To t a l

cost is positive sum of sector impact plus technical assistance.

3 Estimated environmental benefits include soil, water, air quality and wildlife habitat benefits.

The analysis presumes that additional acreage retired and conservation treatments are optimally located to maximize environmental benefits. Complete accounting and quantifiable estimates for all environmental benefits are not yet available in the literature. Of benefits currently

estimated, wildlife habitat is just over 50 percent, water quality is 35 percent, soil productivity is

10 percent, and air quality is four percent of the total. Arecent analysis of national and regional

benefits can be found in Claassen et al. 2001.

U.S. agricultural sector impact: b u f 2 c r p 4 5 Ti l l 2 X G l r A G l r V c s p 1 * c c a l l c s p 2

TABLE C-2. (continued from previous page)
C-14

Appendix C

2 . 1 1 . 5 4 3 . 0 5 n / a n / a n / a n/a 1 . 5 4 3 . 0 5

0 . 5 6 - 1 . 0 7 - 0 . 5 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 1 . 0 7 - 0 . 5 9 1

4 . 4 2 5 . 4 8 8 . 5 5 n / a n / a n / a n/a 5 . 4 8 8 . 5 5

3 6 9 1 . 6 0 2 1 2 4 . 1 5 3 4 0 . 2 n / a n / a n / a n/a 2 1 2 4 . 1 5 3 4 0 . 2

8 4 3 . 1 - 1 2 0 4 - 5 1 9 . 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 1 2 0 4 - 5 1 9 . 9

2 8 4 8 . 5 0 3 3 2 8 . 1 5 8 6 0 . 1 n / a n / a n / a n/a 3 3 2 8 . 1 5 8 6 0 . 1

7 4 7 11 3 5 . 3 111 8 n / a n / a n / a n/a 11 3 5 . 3 111 8

- 1 3 0 - 1 6 0 . 1 - 2 3 0 . 2 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 1 6 0 . 1 - 2 3 0 . 2

8 7 7 1 2 9 5 . 4 1 3 4 8 . 2 n / a n / a n / a n/a 1 2 9 5 . 4 1 3 4 8 . 2

4 4 3 8 . 6 0 3 2 5 9 . 4 6 4 5 8 . 2 n / a n / a n / a n/a 3 2 5 9 . 4 6 4 5 8 . 2

7 1 3 . 0 - 1 3 6 4 . 1 - 7 5 0 . 1 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 1 3 6 4 . 1 - 7 5 0 . 1

3 7 2 5 . 5 0 4 6 2 3 . 6 7 2 0 8 . 3 n / a n / a n / a n/a 4 6 2 3 . 6 7 2 0 8 . 3

- 7 . 1 - 1 6 . 5 - 2 0 . 9 n / a n / a n / a n / a - 1 6 . 5 - 2 0 . 9

5 . 0 5 7 . 8 2 1 3 . 9 2 n / a n / a n / a n / a 7 . 8 2 1 3 . 9 2

- 1 . 0 7 - 1 . 5 6 - 3 . 2 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 1 . 5 6 - 3 . 2 9

- 2 2 7 . 6 - 3 3 2 . 1 - 7 0 1 . 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 3 3 2 . 1 - 7 0 1 . 9

- 4 6 . 9 - 3 3 . 4 - 4 7 . 9 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 3 3 . 4 - 4 7 . 9

- 5 5 . 5 - 3 5 . 9 - 5 5 . 5 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 3 5 . 9 - 5 5 . 5

- 1 5 . 8 - 1 7 . 9 - 1 9 . 6 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 1 7 . 9 - 1 9 . 6

- 2 6 . 3 - 2 5 . 7 - 3 1 n / a n / a n / a n/a - 2 5 . 7 - 3 1 . 0

4 Acres with new conservation accounts for conservation tillage, terraces, contouring, strip cropping, or cropland idled to grass (but not in CRP). Does not include soil quality enhancing management practices, nutrient management, rotations, etc.

5 O ffset in buffer and CRP scenarios by government rent payments.

6 B u ffers to two million miles based upon HUMUS model outcome for estimated delivery to water

bodies, all other estimates based upon ASM/EPIC model results for edge of field. WRP a n d

F P P based upon 2001 budget, WHIP and FIP estimated. Partner technical assistance estimated at .679 of federal; CRP, buffers, and WRP are federal only. Total partner technical assistance and financial assistance was $734 million in 2000. Financial assistance needs for till2x,

csp2, csp3, bc2452, and bc2453 based on model output for cropland idled to grass, acres of

d r y, and irrigated land with new conservation tillage, terraces, contouring, or strip cropping

practices using the following dollar amounts: $10 per acre for crop idled to grass; $15 per acre

for conservation till and other practices. Based upon inflation adjusted A C Pa v e r a g e .

reduce resource improve resource

degradation: glr, health: glr,wrp, 

c s p 3 b c 2 4 5 2 b c 2 4 5 3 w r p f p p w h i p f i p wrp, fpp, whip & fip1 fpp, whip & fip
D-1

Appendix D

B i bl i ograp hy 

Agricultural Outlook Forum. 2001. Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, Arlington,

VA. (February 22-21)

American Farm Bureau Federation. 2000. Farm Facts. American Farm Bure a u

Federation, Park Ridge, IL.

American Farmland Trust. Undated. Sharing the Responsibility: What

Agricultural Landowners Think About Property Rights, Government Regulation

and the Environment. Washington, DC.

American Farmland Trust. 2001a. Proposal: Creating an Agricultural We t l a n d s

Trust That Increases Farm Income and Environmental Values. Agricultural

Conservation Innovation Center, Mt. Pleasant, SC. (January)

American Farmland Trust. 2001b. Press Release: Poll Shows Taxpayers Wa n t

Family Farms Preserved for Future Generations. Richmond, VA. (January 29) 

A rnold, J. G., R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttiah, and J. R. Williams. 1998. Large are a

h y d rologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J. Amer. Wa t e r

R e s o u rces Assoc. 34(1). (February)

Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. 2000. National Flood Programs in

Review. Madison, WI. (http://www.floods.org )

Atwood, J. D., B. McCarl, C. C. Chen, B.R. Eddleman, B. Nayda, and R.

Srinivasan. 2000. Assessing regional impacts of change: linking economic and

e n v i ronmental models. Agric. Systems 63: 147-159.

Best, L. B., H. Campa, III, K.., Kemp, R. J. Robel, M. R. Ryan, J. A. Savidge, H.

P. Weeks, Jr., and S. R. Winterstein. 1998. Avian abundance in CRP and cro p

fields during winter in the Midwest. Am. Midl. Nat. 139: 311-324.

B i rch, T. 1994. Private Forestland Owners of the United States. Res. Bull. NE134. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Brady, S. J. 1985. Important soil conservation techniques that benefit wildlife.

Pp. 55-62 in Technologies to Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife: Wo r k s h o p

P roceedings. OTA-BP-F-34. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Washington, DC. 

Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Te c h n i c a l

Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,

Vi c k s b u rg, MS. 

B u reau of Labor Statistics of the United States. Undated.

( h t t p : / / f t p . b l s . g o v / p u b / n e w s . release/empsit.txt) 

Caldwell, L. 2000. Rehabilitating Our Nation's Aging Flood Control Dams.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ,

Washington, DC.
D-2

Appendix D

Campbell, T. 2000. I_EPIC - EPIC model control system for Wi n d o w s .

( h t t p : / / w w w . p u b l i c . i a s t a t e . e d u / ~ e l v i s / i _ e p i c _ m a i n . h t m l )

Center for the Study of Rural America. 2000. Beyond Agriculture: New Policies

for Rural America. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, MO.

(October) 

Chang, C. C., B. A. McCarl, J. W. Mjelde, and J. W. Richardson. 1992. Sectoral

implications of farm program modifications. A m e r. J. Agric. Econ. 74(1): 38-49. 

Chang, C. C., J. D. Atwood, K. Alt, and B. A. McCarl. 1994. Economic impacts

of erosion management measures in coastal drainage basins. J. Soil and Wa t e r

Conservation 49(6): 06-611.

Chen, C. C. 1998. Development and Application of a Linked Global Tr a d e -

detailed U.S. Agricultural Sector Analysis System. Ph. D. Dissertation. Department

of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Claassen, R., L. Hansen, M. Peters, V. Breneman, M. We i n b e rg, A. Cattaneo, P.

F e a t h e r, D. Gadsby, D. Hellerstein, J. Hopkins, P. Johnston, M. More h a rd, and

M. Smith. 2001. Agri-Environmental Policy at the Cro s s roads: Guideposts on a

Changing Landscape. AER 794. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of

A g r i c u l t u re, Washington, DC. (January)

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 1996. 1996 Review — Wa t e r

Quality Standards for Salinity Colorado River System.

Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. 2001. Directions for Future

F a rm Policy: The Role of Government in Support of Production Agriculture .

Report to the President and Congress. Office of the Chief Economist, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

Cox, C. 2001. What Should Be the Role of Resource Stewardship in Future

F a rm Policy? Speech presented at U.S. Department Agricultural Outlook Forum

2001. (February) 

Cubbage, F. W., B. D. New, and R. J. Moulton. 1996. Evaluations of technical

assistance programs for nonindustrial private forest landowners. In Baughman,

M. J. (ed). Proceedings Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learn i n g

f rom the Past, Prospects for the Future. Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul,

MN. 

Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the

C o n t e rminous United States, Mid-1970's to Mid-1980's. Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Defenders of Wildlife. 2000. The USDA National Conservation Program: Issues

and Recommendations. Washington, DC. (December)
D-3

Appendix D

Eckles, S. D., A. Ammann, S. J. Brady, S. H. Davis, J. C. Hamilton, J. Hawkins,

D. Johnson, N. Melvin, R. O'Clair, R. Schiff n e r, and R. Wa r ren. Pending publication in 2001. Assessing Wetland Functional Condition Change in Agricultural

Landscapes. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of

A g r i c u l t u re, Washington, DC.

Economic Research Service. Undated. A History of American Agriculture. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

( h t t p : / / w w w . u s d a . g o v / h i s t o r y 2 / t e x t 3 . h t m )

Economic Research Service. 1997. Agricultural Resources and Enviro n m e n t a l

Indicators (AREI), 1996-97, Agricultural Handbook Number 712. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. (July)

Economic Research Service. 2000. Agricultural Resources and Enviro n m e n t a l

Indicators (AREI), 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

Economic Research Service. 2001. Cash Receipts from Farming. Agricultural

Outlook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. (April) 

E d w a rds, D. R., V. W. Benson, J. R. Williams, T. C. Daniel, J. Lemunyon, and R.

G. Gilbert. 1994. Use of the EPIC model to predict runoff transport of surf a c e -

applied inorganic fertilizer and poultry manure constituents. Trans. ASAE 3 7 ( 2 ) :

4 0 3 - 4 9 0 .

E n v i ronmental Defense. 2001. Losing Ground: Failing to Meet Farmer Demand

for Conservation Assistance. (http://www.enviro n m e n t a l d e f e n s e . o rg / h o m e p a g e )

Estes, J. R., R. J. Tyrl, and J. N. Brunken (eds.). 1982. Grasses and Grasslands:

Systematics and Ecology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 

F e a t h e r, P., D. Hellerstein, and L. Hansen. 1999. Economic Valuation of

E n v i ronmental Benefits and the Ta rgeting of Conservation Programs: The Case

of the CRP. AER 778. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of

A g r i c u l t u re, Washington, DC. (April)

F l a t h e r, C. H., S. J. Brady, and M. S. Knowles. 1999. Wildlife Resource Trends in

the United States: A Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Fore s t

Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-33. U.S. Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO.

Follett, R. F., J. M. Kimble, and R. Lal. 2001. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands

to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL.

F r a y e r, W. E., T. J. Monahan, D. C. Bowden and F. A. Graybill. 1983. Status and

Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States,

1950's to 1970's. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC. 

General Accounting Office. 2000. Local Growth Issues: Federal Opportunities

and Challenges. Washington, DC.
D-4

Appendix D

Gollehon, N., and W. Quinby. 2000. Irrigation in the American West: are a ,

w a t e r, and economic activity. Water Resources Development 16(2) 187-195.

Haynes, R. W., D. M. Adams, and J. R. Mills. 1995. The 1993 RPA Ti m b e r

Assessment Update (Gen Tech Rep RM-255). Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

H e a rd, L. P., A. W. Allen, L. B. Best, S. J. Brady, W. Burg e r, A. J. Esser, E.

Hackett, D. H. Johnson, R. L. Pederson, R. E. Reynolds, C. Rewa, M. R. Ryan, R.

T. Molleur, and P. Buck. 2000. A comprehensive review of farm bill 

contributions to wildlife conservation, 1985-2000. In W. L. Hohman and D. J.

Halloum (eds.). Wildlife Habitat Management Institute Technical Report,

USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Hedlund, J. S. 1993. Salt Primer — Water and Salt Budgets. Soil Conservation

Service, West National Technical Center, Portland, OR.

HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). 2000.

( h t t p : / / h u d u s e r. o rg / p u b l i c a t i o n s / p o l l e g / s o c 2 0 0 0 _ r p t . h t m l )

Interagency Task Force Report. 1979. Irrigation Water Use and Management. 

IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report, Shanghai Draft 21-01-2001. 2001. Posted at

UNFCC/IPCC website.

Karl, T. R., R. W. Knight, R. R. Easterling, and R. G. Quayle. 1996. The Bulletin

of the American Meteorological Society 77(2): 279-292. 

Kelsey. T. 1997. Fiscal Impacts of Diff e rent Land Use. Pennsylvania State

University. (http://cax.aers.psu.edu/landuse/cocs.htm)

Kirschenmann, F. L. 2000. How many farmers will we need? Leopold Center for

Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA. Leopold Letter, From the Director 1 2 ( 4 ) .

( Wi n t e r )

K u c h l e r, A. W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United

States. Spec. Publ. No. 36. American Geographical Society, New York, NY.

Lal, R., J. M. Kimble, R. F. Follett, and C. V. Cole. 1998. The Potential of U.S.

C ropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Ann Arbor

P ress, Chelsea, MI.

L a n d e r, Kellogg, Moffitt, and Gollehon. Undated. Manure Nutrients Relative to

the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and

Temporal Trends of the U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 1999. Farm Crisis Roundtable:

Summarized Transcript. Ames, IA. (August 30)

McCarl, B. A. May 1993. Agricultural Sensitivity to Climatic Changes. Te x a s

A g r i c u l t u re Experiment Station, SCS-TAES TR 93-3. 
D-5

Appendix D

McCarl, B. A., and J. M. Callaway. 1993. Carbon Sequestration Through Tre e

Planting on Agricultural Lands, Texas Agriculture Experiment. Station, SCS-TA E S

TR 93-2. (May)

McCarl, B. A., C. C. Chang, J. D. Atwood, and W. I. Nayda. 1993.

Documentation of ASM: The U.S. Agricultural Sector Model. Unpubl. Te c h .

Report. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College

Station, TX.

Megalos, M., and G. Blank. 1997. North Carolina Landowner Responsiveness to

F o restry Incentives. Poster presentation, Society of American Fore s t e r s ,

Memphis, TN.

NACD (National Association of Conservation Districts). 2001a. The state of

America’s private lands. NACD News & Views J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y .

NACD (National Association of Conservation Districts). 2001b. Experts Discuss

Outlook for Conservation on Private Lands. NACD Annual Meeting, Ft. Wo r t h ,

TX. (February)

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 1998. 1997 Census of Agriculture .

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2000a. Agricultural Statistics. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2000b. Agricultural Land Va l u e s .

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. (Marc h )

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). Undated Grazing Lands

Conservation Initiative data. (http://www.nrc s . u s d a . g o v / n rc s p ro g . h t m l # a n c h o rc o n s e r v a t i o n )

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1997. Protection of We t l a n d s

Final Rule, 7 CFR Part 650. Federal Register 11/17/97, vol. 62, no. 221, Rules

and Regulations pp. 61215 - 61217. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2000a. National Resourc e s

Inventory 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2000b. A Report to Congre s s

on Aging Watershed Infrastructure. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wa s h i n g t o n ,

D C .

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2000c. (http://www.wl.fb.neto rg / w r p - a c re s . g i f )

National Drought Policy Commission. 2000. Preparing for Drought in the 21st

Century. Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

National Milk Producers Federation. 2000. Correspondence, Washington, DC.

( S e p t e m b e r )
D-6

Appendix D

National Research Council. 1998. Forested Landscapes in Perspective: Pro s p e c t s

and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's Nonfederal Fore s t s .

National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Putman, J., J. Williams, and D. Sawyer. 1988. Using the erosion pro d u c t i v i t y

impact calculator (EPIC) model to estimate the impact of soil erosion for the

1985 RCA appraisal. J. Soil and Water Conservation 43(4): 321-326.

R e s e a rch & Polling, Inc. 1995. Is There a Better Way? Final Report Data (Part II,

Section II). Albuquerque, NM.

R o s e n b e rg, N. J., M. S. McKenney, W. E. Easterling, and K. M. Lemon. 1992.

Validation of EPIC model simulations of crop responses to current climate and

CO2 conditions: comparisons with census, expert judgment and experimental

plot data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 59: 35-51.

Ryan, M. R., L. W. Burg e r, and E. W. Kurzejeski. 1998. The impact of CRP on

avian wildlife: a review. J. Prod. Agric. 1 1 ( 1 ) : 6 1 - 6 6 .

Sampson, N. R., and L. A. DeCoster. 1997. Public Programs for Private Fore s t r y .

American Fore s t s .

Samson, F. B., F. L. Knopf, and W. R. Ostlie. 1998. Prairie integrity and legacies.

Pp. 463-466 in Mac, M. J., P. A. Opler, C. E. Puckett Haecker, and P. D. Doran

(eds.). Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources. Vol. 2. U.S.

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Reston, VA .

S c h n e i d e r, U. A. 2000. Agricultural Sector Analysis on Greenhouse Gas Emission

Mitigation in the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Agricultural

Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Sharpley, A. N., and J. R. Williams. 1990. EPIC — Ero s i o n / P roductivity Impact

C a l c u l a t o r. 1. Model Documentation. Tech. Bull. No. 1768. U.S. Department of

A g r i c u l t u re, Washington, DC.

Smith, B., et al. In press. Forest Resources of the United States, 1997. General

Technical Report NC-00. North Central Research Station, USDA Forest Service,

St. Paul. MN.

Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. M. Brinson. 1995. An Appro a c h

for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification,

R e f e rence Wetlands, and Functional Indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9, U.S.

A rmy Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vi c k s b u rg, MS.

Smith, O. B., and S. Koala. 1999. Desertification: Myths and Realities.

I n t e rnational Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Soil and Water Conservation Society. Undated. Sharing the Cost of

Conservation: An Agricultural Conservation Policy Project. Ankeny, IA 

Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2000. Seeking Common Ground for

Conservation: An Agricultural Conservation Policy Project. Ankeny, IA.
D-7

Appendix D

Srinivasan, R., and J. G. Arnold. 1994. Integration of a basin-scale water quality

model with GIS. Water Resources Bulletin 30(3): 453-462.

Srinivasan, R., T. S. Ramanarayanan, J. G. Arnold, and S. T. Bednarz. 1998.

L a rge area hydrologic modeling and assessment part II: model application. 

J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc.34(1). (February)

SRM (Society for Range Management). 2000. Assessment of USDA Conservation

P rograms on Private Rangelands. Report pre p a red for USDA's Natural Resourc e s

Conservation Service. Denver, CO.

Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 2000. Correspondence, Washington, DC.

( S e p t e m b e r )

The Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. 2001. Directions for

F u t u re Farm Policy: The Role of Government in Support of Pro d u c t i o n

A g r i c u l t u re. Report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC. (January)

The Statistical Abstract of the United States. Undated.

( h t t p : / / w w w . c e n s u s . g o v / p rod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html) 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1997. Agriculture Fact Book: 1997.

O ffice of Communications, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1999. United National Strategy for

Animal Feeding Operations. Washington, DC.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000a. Maintaining Farm and Fore s t

Lands in Rapidly Growing Areas. Report to the Secretary of Agriculture of the

Policy Advisory Committee on Farmland Protection and Land Use. Wa s h i n g t o n ,

DC. (September)

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000b. Environmental Assessment for

F o restry Incentives Program 2000. Washington, DC.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000c. USDA Agricultural Baseline

P rojections to 2009. Staff Report WAOB-2000-1. Office of the Chief Economist,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Emission and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases

f rom Agriculture and Food Manufacturing. DOE/GO-10099-646, Wa s h i n g t o n ,

D C .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. U.S. Methane Emissions and Sinks:

1990-2020: Inventories, Projections and Opportunities for Reductions. EPA 430-

R-99-013, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory:

1998 Report to Congress. Office of Wa t e r, U.S. Environmental Pro t e c t i o n

Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. (August)

( h t t p : / / e c o s . f w s . g o v / t e s s / h t m l / b o x s c o re . h t m l )
D-8

Appendix D

U.S. Geological Survey. Undated. Estimated Use of Water in the U.S. in 1995,

C i rcular 1200. 

U.S. House of Representatives. 2000. Testimony at hearings in Kutztown,

Pennsylvania, et al. 

U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Testimony at Farm Commodity Pro g r a m

Hearings of the House Agriculture Committee.

( h t t p : / / a g r i c u l t u re . h o u s e . g o v / c o m d t y . h t m )

Water Quality Technical Committee. 1990. Agricultural Salinity Assessment and

Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Wa rn e r, R. E., and S. J. Brady. 1994. Wildlife habitat management on farm l a n d .

Pp. 648-662 in Bookhout, T. A. (ed.). Research and Management Techniques for

Wildlife and Habitats. Fifth Edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.

Wilcove, D., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 2000. Leading

t h reats to biodiversity: what’s imperiling U.S. Species. Pp. 239-254 in Stein,

B.A., L.S. Kutner, and J.S. Adams (eds.). Precious Heritage: The Status of

Biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 

Wildlife Management Institute. 2001. How Much is Enough for 2002?: A

Regional Wildlife Habitat Needs Assessment for the 2002 Farm Bill. Wa s h i n g t o n ,

DC. (January)

Williams, J. R. 1995. The Epic model. In Computer Models of Wa t e r s h e d

H y d rology (V. P. Singh, ed.) Water Resources Publications. 

Wu, J.J., H.P. Mapp, and D.J. Bern a rdo. 1996. Integrating economic and physical

models for analyzing water quality impacts of agricultural policies in the high

plains. Review of Agricultural Economics 18(1996): 353-372.