United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate 

AGRICULTURAL 

CONSERVATION 

USDA Should Improve Its 

Management of Key 

Conservation Programs to 

Ensure Payments Promote 

Environmental Goals 

Statement of Lisa Shames, Acting Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST 

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 

 

GAO-07-370T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2007

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION

USDA Should Improve Its Management of 

Key Conservation Programs to Ensure 

Payments Promote Environmental Goals 

Highlights of GAO-07-370T, testimony 

before the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate 

The Environmental Quality

Incentives Program (EQIP) and the 

Conservation Security Program 

(CSP), administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), are 

designed to promote conservation

goals. In recently issued reports on

these programs, GAO assessed (1)

NRCS’s process for allocating EQIP 

funds to the states to optimize 

environmental benefits, (2) NRCS’s 

measures to monitor EQIP’s 

performance, and (3) the legislative

and regulatory measures available 

to prevent duplication between 

CSP and other conservation

programs, such as EQIP. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommended that NRCS (1)

ensure that the factors and weights

used in EQIP’s general financial 

assistance formula are documented 

and linked to program priorities, 

and data sources are accurate and 

current, (2) continue to analyze and

use information from its 

performance measures to revise

the financial assistance formula,

and (3) develop a comprehensive 

process to preclude and identify

duplicate payments between CSP 

and other conservation programs.

USDA agreed that the EQIP

financial assistance formula 

needed review and said it has 

improved oversight to cross-check

payments to determine if duplicate

payments have been made. USDA 

did not agree that the EQIP funding

process lacked a clear link to the

program’s purpose. 

Because farmers and ranchers own and manage about 940 million acres, or 

about half of the continental United States’ land area, they are among the 

most important stewards of our soil, water, and wildlife habitat. EQIP 

provides assistance to farmers and ranchers to take new actions aimed at 

addressing identified conservation problems, whereas CSP rewards farmers

and ranchers who already meet very high standards of conservation and 

environmental management on their operations. In fiscal year 2006, EQIP 

and CSP provided about $1 billion and $260 million, respectively, in financial 

and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. Efficient and effective

management of these programs by NRCS is especially important in light of 

the nation’s current deficit and growing long-term fiscal challenges. GAO 

found the following weaknesses in the management of EQIP and CSP: 

• NRCS’s process for providing EQIP funds to states is not clearly linked 

to the program’s purpose of optimizing environmental benefits; as such, 

NRCS may not be directing funds to states with the most significant 

environmental concerns arising from agricultural production. To allocate 

most EQIP funds, NRCS uses a general financial assistance formula that 

consists of 31 factors and weights. However, NRCS does not have a

documented rationale for how each factor contributes to accomplishing

the program’s purpose. In addition, some data that NRCS uses in 

applying the formula are questionable or outdated. 

• NRCS has begun to develop long-term, outcome-oriented performance

measures for EQIP. Such measures can provide information to better 

gauge program performance and also help NRCS refine its process for 

allocating funds to the states by directing funds to areas of the country 

that need the most improvement. However, NRCS did not have plans to 

link these measures to the EQIP funding allocation process. 

• Despite legislative and regulatory provisions, it is still possible for 

producers to receive duplicate payments through CSP and other USDA 

conservation programs because of similarities in the conservation

actions financed through these programs. However, NRCS did not have a 

comprehensive process to preclude or identify such duplicate payments. 

In reviewing NRCS’s payments data, GAO found a number of examples 

of duplicate payments. 

Ensuring the integrity and equity of existing farm programs is a key area 

needing enhanced congressional oversight. Such oversight can help ensure

that conservation programs, such as EQIP and CSP, benefit the agricultural 

sector as intended and protect rural areas from land degradation, diminished 

water and air quality, and loss of wildlife habitat. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-370T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Lisa Shames, 

(202) 512-3841, ShamesL@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) management of two of its agricultural conservation 

programs—the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the 

Conservation Security Program (CSP). Because farmers and ranchers own 

and manage about 940 million acres, or about half of the continental 

United States’ land area, they are among the most important stewards of 

our soil, water, and wildlife habitat. EQIP and CSP, administered by 

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), are designed to 

encourage and reward activities that promote conservation goals. EQIP 

provides assistance to farmers and ranchers to take new actions aimed at 

addressing identified conservation problems, whereas CSP rewards 

farmers and ranchers who already meet very high standards of 

conservation and environmental management in their operations. 

We at GAO are anxious to assist the 110th Congress in meeting its 

oversight agenda. To that end, we have recommended that ensuring the 

integrity and equity of existing farm programs is a key area needing 

congressional oversight.1

 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

20022

 (2002 farm bill) authorized funding for several agricultural 

conservation programs, among them EQIP and CSP, estimated by the 

Congressional Budget Office to be $20.8 billion for fiscal years 2002 

through 2007. In fiscal year 2006 alone, EQIP and CSP provided about $1 

billion and $260 million, respectively, in financial and technical assistance 

to farmers and ranchers. Given the size and significance of these programs 

in protecting rural areas from land degradation, diminished water and air 

quality, and loss of wildlife habitat, it is essential that they be managed 

effectively and efficiently. Appendix I provides information on authorized 

funding for these and other key USDA conservation programs. 

My testimony today is based on our recent reports evaluating NRCS’s 

implementation of EQIP3

 and CSP.4 I will focus on three primary issues 

 1

GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress, GAO-07-235R (Washington,

D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006).

2

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

3

GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process for Allocating Funds 

to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, GAO-06-969 (Washington,

D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006). 

Page 1 GAO-07-370T 
discussed in these two reports: (1) NRCS’s process for allocating EQIP 

funds to the states to optimize environmental benefits, (2) NRCS’s 

measures to monitor EQIP performance, and (3) the legislative and 

regulatory measures available to prevent duplication between CSP and 

other USDA conservation programs and the duplication that has occurred. 

To perform this work, we reviewed relevant statutory provisions, NRCS 

regulations, program documentation, and guidelines for implementing 

EQIP and CSP and spoke with NRCS officials. Our work was conducted in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, we reported that NRCS’s process for allocating EQIP funds to 

the states does not clearly link to the program’s purpose of optimizing 

environmental benefits; as such, NRCS may not be directing EQIP funds to 

states with the most significant environmental concerns arising from 

agricultural production. We also reported that NRCS has developed longterm, outcome-oriented measures to assess changes to the environment 

resulting from EQIP practices as part of its 2005 strategic planning effort.

These measures could help the agency refine its process for allocating 

funds to the states through its financial assistance formula by directing 

funds toward areas of the country that need the most improvement. 

However, at the time of our report, NRCS had not yet done so. Finally, 

with respect to CSP, we reported that despite provisions in the 2002 farm 

bill and NRCS regulations and procedures designed to reduce the potential 

for duplication between CSP and other conservation programs, duplicate 

payments for the same conservation practice or activity on the same land 

have occurred. On the basis of these findings, we made recommendations 

to improve USDA’s process for allocating EQIP funds to the states and to

develop a process to preclude and identify duplicate payments between 

CSP and other conservation programs. 

 4

GAO, Conservation Security Program: Despite Cost Controls, Improved USDA 

Management Is Needed to Ensure Proper Payments and Reduce Duplication with Other 

Programs, GAO-06-312 (Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2006). 

Page 2 GAO-07-370T 
NRCS’s process for providing EQIP funds to the states is not clearly linked 

to the program’s purpose of optimizing environmental benefits. In 

particular, NRCS’s general financial assistance formula, which accounts 

for approximately two-thirds of funding provided to the states, does not 

have a documented rationale for each of the formula’s factors and weights, 

which are used to determine the allocation of funds to the states to 

address environmental issues. Thus, it is not always clear whether the 

formula factors and weights direct funds to the states as effectively as 

possible. In addition, the financial assistance formula relies on some 

questionable and outdated data. As a result, NRCS may not be directing 

EQIP funds to states with the most significant environmental concerns 

arising from agricultural production.

NRCS’s Process for 

Allocating EQIP 

Funds to the States 

Does Not Link to the 

Program’s Purpose of 

Optimizing 

Environmental 

Benefits

NRCS Does Not Have A 

Documented Rationale for 

Formula Factors and 

Weights

In fiscal year 2006, approximately 65 percent of EQIP funds were 

considered general financial assistance—funds for installing conservation 

practices—and were allocated using a general financial assistance 

formula. This formula contains 31 factors related to the availability of 

natural resources and the presence of environmental concerns or 

problems. For example, factors in the formula measure acres of wetlands 

and at-risk species habitat, pesticide and nitrogen runoff, and the ratio of 

commercial fertilizers to cropland. NRCS assigns each of the formula’s 

factors a weight that determines the funds to be allocated to states based 

on that factor. For example, factors with the highest weights include acres 

of highly erodible cropland, acres of fair and poor rangeland, the quantity

of livestock, and the quantity of animal waste generated. A state’s total 

allocation is composed of the funds it receives for each of the 31 factors. 

NRCS has periodically modified factors and weights to emphasize 

different national priorities, most recently in fiscal year 2004, following the

passage of the 2002 farm bill. However, NRCS has not documented the 

basis for its decisions regarding the formula factors and weights nor 

explained how they achieve the program’s purpose of optimizing 

environmental benefits. Thus, it is not always clear whether the formula 

factors and weights help direct funds to the states as effectively as 

possible. 

For example, NRCS has not demonstrated that it has the most appropriate 

water quality factors in its formula. Specifically, the formula includes a 

factor addressing impaired rivers and streams but no factor for impaired 

lakes and other bodies of water. Moreover, it is not certain whether the 

impaired rivers and streams factor results in funds being awarded on the 

basis of general water quality concerns or water pollution specifically

Page 3 GAO-07-370T 
caused by agricultural production. As a result, it was not certain whether 

the formula allocates funds as effectively as possible to states with water 

quality concerns arising from agricultural production. 

While the factors in the EQIP general financial assistance formula 

determine what resource and environmental characteristics are 

considered when allocating funds, the weights associated with the factors 

directly affect how much total funding is provided for each factor and, 

thus, the amount of money each state receives. Small differences in the 

factor weights can shift the amount of financial assistance directed at a 

particular resource concern. For example, in 2006, if the weight of any of 

the 31 factors had increased by 1 percent, $6.5 million would have been 

allocated on the basis of that factor at the expense of one or more other 

factors. Such a shift could affect the amount of financial assistance 

received by each state. The potential for the weights to significantly affect

the amount of funding a state receives underscores the importance of 

having a well-founded rationale for assigning them. 

Some stakeholders we spoke with questioned NRCS’s assignment of 

weights to certain factors in the financial assistance formula because they

did not believe NRCS’s formula adequately reflected the states’ 

environmental priorities. For example, the formula allocates 6.3 percent of

EQIP funds to the states on the basis of factors specifically associated 

with animal feeding operations. However, states have spent more than 6.3 

percent of their EQIP funding on conservation practices related to animal 

feeding operations. For example, in fiscal year 2005, states spent a total of 

11 percent of EQIP financial assistance, or $91.1 million, on just one such 

practice—the construction of animal waste storage facilities. This 

discrepancy suggests that the weights in the formula may not reflect 

states’ priorities. 

Financial Assistance 

Formula Relies on Some 

Questionable and 

Outdated Data 

Weaknesses in the financial assistance formula are compounded by 

NRCS’s use of questionable and outdated data as they apply to the 

formula. Accurate data are key to ensuring that funds are distributed to 

states as intended. However, we identified several methodological 

weaknesses in the data sources: (1) data that were used more than once in

the formula, (2) data sources whose accuracy could not be verified, and 

(3) data that were not as current as possible. 

First, 5 of the 29 data sources in the financial assistance formula were 

used more than once for separate factors, potentially causing NRCS to 

overemphasize some environmental concerns at the expense of others. 

Page 4 GAO-07-370T 
For example, NRCS uses the same data—data estimating the potential for 

pesticide and nitrogen runoff from agricultural land—for two factors in 

the formula intended to represent unique environmental concerns. Using 

the same data for multiple factors may result in more emphasis being 

placed on certain environmental concerns than intended. Furthermore, 

using data created for one factor for a second factor also makes the 

formula less transparent and potentially less reliable for allocating state 

funding. 

Second, NRCS could not confirm the source of data used in 10 factors in

the formula; as such, we could not determine the accuracy of the data,

verify how NRCS generated the data, or fully understand the basis on 

which the agency allocates funding. For example, we could not verify how 

NRCS generated data for factors measuring the quantities of livestock and

animal waste. NRCS said it had not retained documentation on how the 

data for these factors were calculated. As a result, it was uncertain 

whether NRCS had chosen the most appropriate data as its basis for 

allocating funds to states with pollution problems from livestock or 

whether the data were accurately calculated. 

Third, NRCS does not use the most current data for six factors in the 

formula. For example, according to NRCS, the source of data on the ratio 

of commercial fertilizers to cropland was a 1995 report by the Association 

of American Plant Food Control Officials. We found a 2005 version of the 

same report with more current data. The absence of the most recent data

for these six factors raises questions about whether the formula allocates

funds to areas of the country that currently have the greatest

environmental needs, because recent changes in a state’s agricultural or 

environmental status may not be reflected. 

Because of our concerns about the general financial assistance formula,

we recommended that NRCS ensure its rationale for the factors and 

weights was documented and addressed program priorities, and the data

sources used in the formula were accurate and current. In responding to

our report, USDA agreed that the EQIP formula needed review but did not 

agree with our assessment that NRCS’s funding process lacked a clear link 

to the program’s purpose of optimizing environmental benefits. We 

continue to believe, however, that the weaknesses we identified in the 

general financial assistance formula lessen its ability to optimize 

environmental benefits. Additional information describing its reasons for 

including or excluding factors in the formula would help ensure that 

EQIP’s purpose of optimizing environmental benefits is more evident. 

Page 5 GAO-07-370T 
NRCS has begun to develop more long-term, outcome-oriented 

performance measures to assess changes to the environment resulting 

from EQIP practices. In addition to providing information to better gauge

program performance, these measures could also help NRCS refine its 

funding allocation process to the states by directing funds to areas of the 

country that need the most improvement. However, at the time of our 

report, NRCS did not yet have any plans to link these performance 

measures to the EQIP funding allocation process. 

In 2000, we reported that performance measures tied to outcomes would 

better communicate the results NRCS intended its conservation programs 

to achieve and would be more useful in judging NRCS’s performance in 

carrying out its mission.5

 In 2002, NRCS established annual performance 

measures for EQIP. However, they were primarily program outputs—the 

number and type of conservation practices installed—and as such 

provided limited information for decision makers. 

NRCS Has Begun to 

Develop More 

Outcome-Oriented 

Performance 

Measures for EQIP, 

but Has Not Yet 

Linked Them to the 

Funding Allocation 

Process

Subsequently, as part of its 2005 strategic planning effort, NRCS developed 

long-term, outcome-oriented performance measures to assess changes to

the environment resulting from the installation of EQIP conservation 

practices. These measures include such things as reducing sediment runoff 

from farms, improving soil condition on working cropland, and increasing 

water conservation. They also include proposed targets for each measure 

to be achieved by 2010, such as reducing sediment runoff by 18.5 million 

tons annually. According to NRCS, it has developed baselines for these 

performance measures, and plans to assess and report on them once 

computer models and other data collection methods that estimate 

environmental change are completed.

According to the Director of NRCS’s Strategic Planning and Performance 

Division, NRCS expects to assess and report on the status of all measures 

by 2010 but will be able to assess the results of some measures sooner, 

such as improved soil condition on working cropland. In the meantime, 

the agency will continue to use its existing annual measures to assess 

performance. The director acknowledged that the outcome-oriented 

measures were not as comprehensive as needed but represented measures 

 5

GAO, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen 

Program and Financial Accountability, GAO/RCED-00-83 (Washington, D.C.: April 7,

2000). 

Page 6 GAO-07-370T 
NRCS could reasonably assess using modeling and data collection 

methods that would soon become available. NRCS plans to continue to 

improve its performance measures. 

Although we did not assess the comprehensiveness of the EQIP 

performance measures, the additional information they provide about the 

results of EQIP outcomes should allow NRCS to better gauge program 

performance. As a next step, such information could also help the agency

refine its process for allocating funds to the states through its general 

financial assistance formula by directing funds toward practices that 

address unrealized performance targets and areas of the country that need 

the most improvement. The Chief of NRCS’s Environmental Improvement 

Programs Branch agreed that information about program performance 

might eventually be linked to the EQIP funding allocation process. 

However, at the time of our report, the agency did not have plans to make 

this linkage.

We recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct NRCS to 

continue to analyze current and newly developed outcome-oriented 

performance measures for EQIP and use this information to make any 

further revisions to the financial assistance formula to ensure funds are 

directed to areas of highest priority. In its response, NRCS stated that the 

current measures have been revised to reflect the most recent results of its 

effort to track and report program performance. 

A number of legislative and regulatory actions have been taken that reduce 

the potential for duplication between CSP and other USDA conservation 

programs, such as EQIP. For example, the 2002 farm bill provides that CSP 

may reward producers for maintaining conservation practices that they 

have already undertaken, whereas other programs generally provide 

assistance to encourage producers to take new actions to address 

conservation problems on working lands or to idle or retire 

environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production. In addition, 

the 2002 farm bill explicitly prohibits duplicate payments under CSP and 

other conservation programs for the same practice on the same land. It 

also prohibits CSP payments for certain activities that can be funded 

under other conservation programs, such as the construction or 

maintenance of animal waste storage or treatment facilities.

In addition, CSP regulations, promulgated by USDA, were designed to 

prevent duplication between CSP and other conservation programs. For 

example, the regulations establish higher minimum eligibility standards for 

Legislative and 

Regulatory Measures 

Reduce the Potential 

for Duplication 

between CSP and 

Other Programs, but 

the Potential Remains 

for Duplicate 

Payments, and Such 

Payments Have 

Occurred 

Page 7 GAO-07-370T 
CSP than for other programs, which help to differentiate the applicant 

pool for CSP from the potential applicants for these other programs. The 

regulations also encourage CSP participants to implement conservation 

actions, known as enhancements, to achieve a level of treatment that 

generally exceeds the level required by other USDA conservation 

programs. 

Despite these actions, the potential for duplicate payments still exists 

because of similarities in conservation actions financed through CSP and 

other programs, and our analysis has revealed that duplicate payments 

have occurred. Our analysis of 2004 payments data showed that 172 (or 8

percent) of the 2,180 producers who received a CSP payment in 2004 also 

received an EQIP payment that year. Among the 172 producers, we 

identified 72 who received a total of 121 payments that appeared to be for 

similar or related conservation actions. We then selected 11 of these 

producers, who received a total of 12 payments under each program, for 

more detailed analysis and found that in 8 cases duplicate payments had 

occurred. For example, four of these duplicate payments were made to 

producers who received a CSP enhancement payment and an EQIP 

payment for conservation actions that appeared to be similar. In one of 

these cases, a producer received a CSP pest management enhancement 

payment of $9,160 for conservation crop rotation and, on the same parcel 

of land, an EQIP payment of $795 for the same conservation action—

conservation crop rotation. 

NRCS state officials agreed that the payments made in these four cases 

were duplicates. They stated that they were unaware that such duplication 

was occurring and that they would inform their district offices of it. NRCS 

headquarters officials stated that the agency lacks a comprehensive 

process to either preclude duplicate payments or identify them after a 

contract has been awarded. Instead, these officials said, as a guard against 

potential duplication, NRCS relies on the institutional knowledge of its 

field staff and the records they keep.

NRCS has the authority to recover duplicate payments. CSP contracts, by

way of reference, include a clause stating that CSP participants cannot 

receive duplicate payments. Under a CSP contract, as required in the 2002 

farm bill, a producer agrees that on violation of any term or condition of 

the contract to refund payments and forfeit all rights to receive payments 

or to refund or accept adjustments to payments, depending on whether the 

Secretary of Agriculture determines that termination of the contract is or 

is not warranted, respectively. 

Page 8 GAO-07-370T 
Duplicate payments reduce program effectiveness and, because of limited 

funding, may result in some producers not receiving program benefits for 

which they are otherwise eligible. For these reasons, we recommended 

that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS to (1) develop a

comprehensive process, such as an automated system, to review CSP 

contract applications to ensure that CSP payments, if awarded, would not 

duplicate payments made by other USDA conservation programs; and (2) 

develop a process to efficiently review existing CSP contracts to identify 

cases where CSP payments duplicate payments made under other 

programs and take action to recover appropriate amounts and to ensure 

that these duplicate payments are not repeated in fiscal year 2006 and 

beyond. 

Regarding the first recommendation, in July 2006, NRCS said it had 

created an automated system within its contracting software to conduct a 

comparison between existing contracts for EQIP and other conservation 

programs and new CSP applications to reveal potential areas of 

overlapping practices. In addition, NRCS indicated that for the fiscal year

2006 CSP sign-up, it would require applicants to complete a form that asks 

an applicant to certify whether or not they are receiving payments from 

another conservation program on any of the land being offered for 

enrollment in CSP. These actions appear to be steps in the right direction, 

but we have not assessed their effectiveness. Regarding the second 

recommendation, NRCS indicated that all identified duplicate payments 

would be dealt with according to the NRCS contracting manual. We do not 

know the extent to which NRCS has identified and recovered duplicate 

payments. 

In conclusion, EQIP and CSP are key agricultural conservation programs 

that can play an invaluable role in encouraging farmers and ranchers to act 

as stewards of the nation’s natural resources. However, the weaknesses 

we identified in the management of EQIP and CSP funds may lessen these 

programs’ effectiveness. Refining the EQIP allocation formula to ensure 

funds are provided to states in a manner that optimizes environmental 

benefits, continuing to develop outcome-oriented performance measures 

to help refine its funding allocation process, and developing processes 

designed to eliminate duplicate payments between CSP and other 

programs would enhance the programs’ ability to effectively promote 

conservation among U.S. agricultural producers. Furthermore, oversight of 

these programs, such as today’s hearing, helps ensure funds are spent as 

economically, efficiently and effectively as possible and benefit the 

Page 9 GAO-07-370T 
agricultural sector as intended. Such oversight is especially critical in light

of the nation’s current deficit and growing long-term fiscal challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee 

may have. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further 

information about this testimony, please contact Lisa Shames, Acting 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment, (202) 512-3841 or 

ShamesL@gao.gov. Key contributors to this statement were James R. 

Jones, Jr., Assistant Director; Gary Brown; Thomas Cook; Paige Gilbreath;

and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. 

Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 10 GAO-07-370T 
Page 11 GAO-07-370T 

Appendix I: Description of Key USDA 

Conservation Programs 

Dollars in millions

Program Description

Total authorization, fiscal 

years 2002 through 2007

Conservation

Reserve 

Program 

Provides annual rental payments and cost-share and technical assistance to 

establish permanent vegetative land cover in exchange for taking environmentally 

sensitive cropland out of production for 10 to 15 years. Most program lands are 

enrolled through the use of contracts and competitive bidding during designated

sign-ups. Some economic uses of enrolled land are allowed with a reduction of 

annual rental payments, such as the installation of wind turbines and managed 

haying and grazing. Up to 39.2 million acres may be enrolled at any one time. 

$11,118

Conservation

Security 

Program 

Offers various payments and technical assistance to support ongoing stewardship 

of agricultural land through 5- to 10-year contracts to promote conservation and 

the improvement of soil, water, air, energy, and plant and animal life on private and 

tribal agricultural lands. Unlike other USDA conservation programs that provide 

assistance to take new actions aimed at addressing identified conservation

problems, CSP rewards farmers and ranchers who already meet very high

standards of conservation and environmental management in their operations. 

a 

Environmental

Quality 

Incentives 

Program 

Offers incentive and cost-share payments and technical assistance through 1- to 

10-year contracts to implement structural and land management practices or to 

develop a comprehensive nutrient management plan. At least 60 percent of annual 

funds made available for cost-share and incentive payments are required to be 

targeted at practices relating to livestock production. 

5,800

Farmland 

Protection 

Program 

Purchases easements or other interests in eligible land (up to 50 percent of fair 

market value) for the purpose of protecting topsoil by limiting nonagricultural uses 

of the land. Eligible land means land on a farm or ranch that is subject to a 

pending offer for purchase from an eligible entity and that has prime, unique, or 

other productive soil or that contains historical or archeological resources. Eligible 

land includes cropland, rangeland, grassland, pastureland, and forestland that is 

an incidental part of the agricultural operation. 

597

Grassland 

Reserve 

Program 

Offers permanent and 30-year easements and 10- to 30-year rental agreements to 

grassland owners to assist owners in restoring and conserving eligible land.b

 Up to 

2 million acres may be enrolled. 

254

Wetlands 

Reserve 

Program 

Targets restoration of prior-converted and farmed wetlands to a wetland condition. 

Acreage can be enrolled in the program through the use of permanent easements, 

30-year easements, and restoration cost-share agreements. Program lands may 

be used for compatible economic uses such as hunting, fishing, or limited timber 

harvests. Up to 2.275 million acres may be enrolled. 

1,506

Wildlife Habitat

Incentives 

Program 

Offers cost-share payments through 5- to 10-year agreements to develop and 

protect and restore wildlife habitat. Allows up to 15 percent of funds each year to 

be used for increased cost-share assistance to producers who enter into 15-year 

agreements. 

360

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

a

Congress authorized the Conservation Security Program without placing limits on either its funding or 

the number of acres enrolled, although at times Congress has capped its funding in other legislation.

b

In states that impose a maximum duration for easements, the Secretary of Agriculture can use an 

easement for the maximum duration allowed under state law. 

(360790) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER