Do You Know Why? 

Big Picture Overview

♦ U.S. agriculture is expected to contribute $21.5 billion to the U.S. balance of trade in fiscal 2017.

♦ Exports are forecast to reach $136 billion, while imports are forecast to reach $114.5 billion. (USDA ERS/FAS

Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade, February 23, 2017).

♦ Forestry and fishery products, and critical farm inputs such as fertilizer, feed, and fuel move on the waterway

system as well.

♦ Exports are responsible for 20 percent of U.S. farm income, also driving rural economic activity and supporting

more than one million American jobs on and off the farm.

♦ In calendar year 2015, 72 percent of U.S. agricultural exports (142 million metric tons valued at $128 billion) and

71 percent of imports (44 million metric tons valued at $63 billion) were waterborne. (U.S. Census Bureau Trade

Data and PIERS).

♦ Exporters, importers, and domestic shippers depend on authorized port and waterway depths and widths, and

locks and dam infrastructure.

♦ The Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) is a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax on the value of imports and certain

domestic waterborne cargo deposited in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF).

♦ Estimated fiscal 2017 HMT receipts and investment interest are $1.8 billion, and requested appropriations from

the HMTF are $1.3 billion, yielding an estimated year-end balance of $9.9 billion. (Budget of the United States

Government, Fiscal Year 2017).

♦ Commercial vessels engaged in waterborne transportation on the inland waterways system generate revenues

and investment interest from a 29 cents per gallon tax on diesel fuel, which is deposited in the Inland Waterways

Trust Fund (IWTF) to finance one half the Federal costs of authorized locks and dams projects.

♦ Estimated fiscal 2017 IWTF receipts, including a proposed annual per vessel fee, are $109 million, and requested

appropriations from the IWTF are $34 million, yielding an estimated year-end balance of $127 million. (Budget of

the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017). 

1

A Reliable Waterway System Is 

Important to Agriculture

Agricultural 

Marketing

Service

Feb 2017
Grain Exports

♦ The United States exports approximately one quarter of the grain it produces. On average, this includes nearly 

45 percent of the wheat, 35 percent of the soybeans, and 20 percent of the corn. (Grain Transportation Report).

♦ Mississippi River, Texas, and East Gulf ports accounted for 59 percent of grains inspected and/or weighed for 

export in calendar year 2016, over 84 million metric tons (USDA GIPSA). 

♦ Pacific Northwest (PNW) ports accounted for 27 percent of grains inspected and/or weighed for export in 2016, 

over 29 million metric tons. 

♦ The February 9, 2017, USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates for 2016/17 U.S. exports includes:

▪ Corn—2.2 billion bushels (56.5 million metric tons)

▪ Soybeans—2.1 billion bushels (55.8 million metric tons)

▪ Wheat—1 billion bushels (27.9 million metric tons)

▪ Soybean meal—11.6 million short tons (10.5 million metric tons) 

▪ Rice—110 million hundredweight (5 million metric tons)

▪ Sorghum—225 million bushels (5.7 million metric tons)

▪ Soybean oil—2.2 billion pounds (975,000 metric tons)

2

Source: USDA FGIS and USDA Market News, Grain Inspected and/or Weighed for Export 

by Region and Port Area, January 10, 2017

*142.1 million metric tons

Great Lakes

1.9%

Atlantic

2.0%

Mississippi 

River Gulf

48.9%

Texas Gulf

9.9%

East Gulf

0.6%

Interior

9.8%

Pacific 

Northwest

27.0%

California

0.0%

Grains Inspected and/or Weighed for Export by 

Region and Port Area, 2016, % of Total Metric 

Tons*
Ethanol, DDG, Corn Production, Fertilizer, and Barge Traffic

♦ U.S. ethanol production capacity at 198 operating refineries is over 15.4 billion gallons per year. (Renewable 

Fuels Association, Ethanol Biorefinery Locations, December 1, 2016).

♦ Over 1 billion gallons of ethanol were exported in calendar year 2016. (U.S.Census Bureau Trade Data). 

♦ Major multimodal ethanol terminals include Albany, NY, Baltimore, MD, Chicago, IL, Houston, TX, Linden, 

Newark, and Sewaren, NJ, Mount Vernon, IN, New Orleans, LA, Sauget, IL, Providence, RI, and Tampa, FL.

♦ Barges move an estimated 5 percent of ethanol.

♦ Barges also move some of the fertilizer needed to grow corn for the production of ethanol, as well as some of the 

distillers’ dried grains (DDG), an ethanol by-product used for animal feed.

♦ For every gallon of corn ethanol, about 6.34 pounds of DDG are produced. Nearly 11.5 million metric tons of DDG 

were exported in calendar year 2016. (U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data).

♦ USDA estimates a corn harvested area of 86.7 million acres in 2016/17, yielding 174.6 bushels per acre, with 

5.4 billion bushels, or 31.6 percent of the total corn supply, to be converted to ethanol and by-products including 

DDG. (February 9, 2017, USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates). 

♦ Corn uses about 240 pounds of fertilizer per planted acre, as it has high nitrogen requirements. 

♦ The United States imported 36.9 million metric tons of fertilizer in calendar year 2016. This included 16.2 million 

metric tons of nitrogen. (U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data).

3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Thousand Gallons

U.S. Monthly Ethanol Exports

2013 2014 2015 2016
Barge and Rail Competition

♦ In calendar year 2016, barges carried nearly 50.3 million short tons of food and farm products downbound 

through Mississippi Locks 27, Ohio Locks and Dam 52, and Arkansas Lock and Dam 11 (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Locks Performance Monitoring System). 

♦ This included 27,709 barges with nearly 43.2 million short tons of grain. 

♦ A total of 40,154 grain barges were unloaded in the New Orleans region, showing that an additional 12,445 grain 

barges entered the river below these 3 locks (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USDA FGIS).

♦ Railroads originate approximately 24 percent of U.S. grain shipments and sent 452,577 carloads approximately 

45.6 million short tons, to ports in 2016 (Grain Transportation Report).

♦ Railroads take into account barge rates and the spread between U.S. Gulf and Pacific Northwest ocean vessel 

freight rates, and price their services accordingly.

♦ USDA’s Transportation of U.S. Grains, A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2013 Update, shows that barges moved 45 

percent and railroads moved 35 percent of all grain exports in 2013.

♦ Barges moved 61 percent of corn, 42 percent of soybeans, 40 percent of wheat, and 26 percent of sorghum to 

export grain elevators.

♦ Railroads moved 27 percent of corn, 29 percent of soybeans, 49 percent of wheat, and 12 percent of sorghum to 

export grain elevators.

♦ Studies have shown that without barge competition, agricultural shippers pay higher rail transportation costs, the 

farther they are from an inland waterway.

1 Mississippi River Locks 27, also known as Chain of Rocks Locks, Granite City, IL, is the last lock for downbound barges on the Mississippi 

River. For purposes of measuring downbound tonnages on the Ohio River, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers collects data at Locks and Dam 52, 

Brookport, IL, because it is strategically located on the Ohio River near the junction of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Locks and Dam 53, 

Grand Chain, IL, is technically the last lock on the Ohio River. Arkansas River Lock and Dam 1, also known as Norrell Lock, Tichnor, AR, is the last lock 

on the Arkansas River, but traffic must use the White River to connect with the Mississippi River. On the White River, Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, 

near Tichnor, AR, is used only during low water conditions.

4
Top U.S. Ports for Agricultural Exports

♦ In calendar year 2015, U.S. waterborne agricultural exports totaled 142 million metric tons and

23 percent were moved in containers (PIERS).

♦ During the same period, containers were used to transport 8 percent of total waterborne grain exports and 12 

percent of U.S. grain exports to Asia.

♦ The top five U.S. ports for bulk and containerized agricultural exports were the New Orleans Port Region, Kalama, 

Houston, Los Angeles, and Tacoma. In terms of containerized exports, the top five ports were Los Angeles, Long 

Beach, Oakland, Tacoma, and Savannah.

Top U.S. Ports for Agricultural Imports

♦ In calendar year 2015, U.S. bulk and containerized waterborne agricultural imports totaled 44 million metric tons, 

72 percent were moved in containers (PIERS).

♦ The top five U.S. ports for bulk and containerized agricultural imports were New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, 

Long Beach, and Houston. In terms of containerized imports, the top five ports were New York, Los Angeles, 

Long Beach, Oakland, and Philadelphia.

5

Source: PIERS

New Orleans Port 

Region

46%

Kalama

6% Houston

5%

Los Angeles

4%

Tacoma

4%

Seattle

4%

Long Beach

4%

Norfolk

3%

Longview

3%

Oakland

2%

Other

19%

Top U.S. Ports for Waterborne Agricultural Exports, 2015
Harbor Channel and Inland Waterway Draft Issues

♦ Inadequate channel depths and widths due to drought and sedimentation can lead to higher transportation costs, 

as barges and vessels may be loaded to less than capacity because of low water.

♦ The number of barges in a tow may be reduced to the to the available channel width, and one-way, or day time 

only traffic restrictions may be imposed.

♦ In these cases more barges and vessels, and additional time may be required to ship a given amount of 

commodities.

♦ There have been extended periods where low river levels and reduced channel widths impeded grain barge 

movements and access to shallow draft ports.

♦ At a 9-foot draft, a barge has 1,500 short tons of capacity; for each foot of reduced draft, the barge loses about 

200 short tons of capacity. 

♦ When harbor channels are at less than authorized depths, S-Class container vessels lose 3,840 tons of cargo 

capacity per foot, Panamax bulk grain carriers lose 2,148 tons per foot, and Great Lakes ocean-bound vessels 

lose 1,389 tons per foot.

♦ Low water on the Great Lakes and unfunded dredging requirements increased the risk of vessel groundings, 

reduced vessel carrying capacity by at least 10 percent, and increased shipping costs by $40 million a year in 

2012-13. (2012-13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Basin Common Operating Picture)

6

Source: PIERS

New York

20%

Philadelphia

7%

Los Angeles

6%

Long Beach

6%

Houston

5%

Wilmington DE

5%

Oakland

5%

Savannah

4%

Baltimore

4%

Norfolk

3%

Other

35%

Top U.S. Ports for Waterborne Agricultural Imports, 2015
Effects of Temporary Closures on Costs, Receipts, and the Federal Budget

♦ U.S. exporters compete on the basis of world prices.

♦ Temporary closures and restrictions on traffic in harbors and channels due to flooding, drought, sedimentation, 

groundings, natural disasters, man-made disasters, slowdowns, strikes, and lockouts can lead to congestion, 

delays, spoilage, diversion to other modes and ports, higher transportation costs, and lost sales.

♦ Higher transportation costs can result in lower cash bids in interior markets. 

♦ U.S. exporters may be unable to pass on higher transportation costs, as customers can purchase similar products 

from other countries.

♦ In contrast, U.S. importers may be able to pass on higher transportation costs to their customers.

♦ Users of railroads and highways face congestion, constrained capacity, and driver and equipment shortages. 

♦ Authorized channel depths and widths, and locks and dams maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

moderate the effects of congestion, provide resiliency, and enhance recovery after transportation disruptions. 

♦ The Corps works to maintain operable navigation channels through accelerated dredging, rock removal, river 

training structures to remove sediment, strategic management of water releases from reservoirs, routinely 

scheduled surveys, and close collaboration with channel users and the U.S. Coast Guard on river conditions. 

♦ Important partners in a reliable waterway system include: 

▪ U.S. Coast Guard, which provides security, aids to navigation, and implements vessel traffic safety 

restrictions.

▪ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which provides nautical charts and maps, marine 

weather and river level information, surveys after disruptions, and marine debris removal.

▪ Maritime Administration which promotes the development and maintenance of an adequate, wellbalanced, United States merchant marine and marine highways.

▪ Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation which promotes use of the Seaway and maintains and 

operates the two U.S. Seaway locks and vessel traffic control in areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake 

Ontario, in collaboration with its Canadian partner, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.

▪ Federal Maritime Commission which regulates oceanborne transportation in U.S. foreign commerce for 

the benefit of exporters, importers, and the American consumer.

Want to Know More? Try These Publications:

Studies, statements, legislation, and reports on modal share, competition, and multimodal infrastructure investment

U.S. Department of Transportation. Beyond Traffic: 2045 Final Report. System Implications. Marine. pp. 172-176. January 2017. Web. 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/BeyondTraffic_tagged_508_final.pdf

7
American Association of Port Authorities and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. The State of Freight 

II—Implementing the FAST Act and Beyond. Executive Summary. p. 3. November 2016. Web. http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/

SOF-2.pdf

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. NASDA Policy Statements. p. 93. 10.1. Agricultural Transportation. September 

2016. Released October 3, 2016. Web. http://www.nasda.org/Policy/5332/4902/5013.aspx

Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness. Recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce Regarding U.S. Supply Chain, 

Seaport and Stakeholder Information Sharing. Draft. September 7, 2016. Web. http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/

Meetings/2016September/September2016/2016-8-24 FREIGHT SUBCOM FINAL ACSCC Recommendation Cargo Data Elements for 

Information-Sharing.pdf

“Farm to Market, A Soybean’s Journey from Field to Consumer.” August 2016. [Update] Informa Economics (prepared for United 

Soybean Board, U.S. Soybean Export Council, and Soy Transportation Coalition). Web. https://unitedsoybean.org/wp-content/uploads/

FarmtoMarketUpdateFinal2016.10.03.pdf

Salin, Delmy. Soybean Transportation Guide: Brazil. June 2016. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Web. http://

dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS048.06-2016

U.S. Department of Transportation. Office of the Secretary. Establishment of Interim National Multimodal Freight Network. Docket 

No. DOT–OST–2016–0053. Federal Register. 81 FR 36381. June 6, 2016. Web. https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOTOST-2016-0053

American Society of Civil Engineers. Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America’s Economic Future. [Update 

to Failure to Act: The Impact of Infrastructure Investment on America’s Economic Future that was released January 15, 2013] Table 

1. Losses to the National Economy Due to Infrastructure Gaps (All values are in billions of constant 2015 dollars). p. 5. May 23, 2016. 

Prepared by the Economic Research Development Group. Web. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/

ASCE-Failure-to-Act-Report-for-Web-5.23.16.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Investment Program Action Team. Inland and Intracoastal Waterways Twenty-Year Capital Investment 

Strategy. March 2016. Web. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/IWUB/WRRDA_2014_Capital_Investment_Strategy_

Final_31Mar16.pdf

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. TITLE VIII—MULTIMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION. P.L. 114-94. 129 STAT. 

1607. December 4, 2015. Web. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/pdf/PLAW-114publ94.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation. National Freight Strategic Plan. Draft for Public Comment. October 2015. Web. https://www.

transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/DRAFT_NFSP_for_Public_Comment_508_10 15 15 v1.pdf

Transportation Research Board. Special Report 315. Funding and Managing the U.S. Inland Waterways System: What Policymakers 

Need to Know. 2015. Web. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr315.pdf

U.S. Container Port Congestion and Related International Supply Chain Issues: Causes, Consequences and Challenges. Federal 

Maritime Commission. July 2015. Web. http://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/PortForumReport_FINALwebAll.pdf

Sparger, Adam, and Nick Marathon. Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2013 Update. June 2015. U.S. Dept.

of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Web. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/ModalJune2015.pdf

Salin, Delmy, United States–South America Ocean Grain Freight Spreads (Summary), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, May 2015.Web. http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS213.05-2015

Inland Navigation in the United States: An Evaluation of Economic Impacts and the Potential Effects of Infrastructure Investment,” 

University of Tennessee and University of Kentucky, November 2014. Web. http://nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org/documents/

INLANDNAVIGATIONINTHEUSDECEMBER2014.pdf

“Proposed Public-Private Partnership Projects for U.S. Inland Waterways Infrastructure Financing, Operations, and Governance.” 

December 2013. The Horinko Group. (Prepared for the U.S. Soybean Export Council) Web. http://www.soytransportation.org/

newsroom/PrivatePartnershipsforInlandWaterways.pdf

Panama Canal Expansion Study Phase 1 Report: Developments in Trade and National and Global Economies. November 2013. U.S. 

Department of Transportation. Maritime Administration. Web. http://www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Panama_Canal_

Phase_I_Report_-_20Nov2013.pdf

Taylor, April, Profiles of the Top U.S. Agricultural Ports. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, September 2013. 

Web. http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS092.09-2013

8
9

“Potential and Implementation of Alternative Funding and Finance of the USACE Civil Works Mission” 2013-R-06. June, 2013. Louis 

Berger Group (prepared for Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Web. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/

Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/2013-R-06.pdf

“New Approaches for U.S. Lock and Dam Maintenance and Funding.” January 2013. Center for Ports and Waterways, 

Texas Transportation Institute (prepared for United Soybean Board). Web. http://www.soytransportation.org/newsroom/

TimeForANewApproach010713.pdf

“Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Airport, Inland Waterways, and Marine Ports Infrastructure.” 

September 2012. Economic Development Research Group. (prepared for American Society of Civil Engineers). Web. http://www.asce.

org/uploadedFiles/Issues_and_Advocacy/Our_Initiatives/Infrastructure/Content_Pieces/failure-to-act-ports-aviation-report.pdf

“Cost of Project Delays: An Estimate of Foregone Benefits and Other Costs Related to Schedule Delays of Inland Waterways Projects.” 

June 2012. HDR Decision Economics. (prepared for National Waterways Foundation). Web. http://nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org/

study/HDRstudy.pdf

“U.S. Port and Inland Waterways Modernization: Preparing for Post-Panamax Vessels.” June 20, 2012. Institute for Water Resources, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Web. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/portswaterways/rpt/June_20_U.S._Port_and_

Inland_Waterways_Preparing_for_Post_Panamax_Vessels.pdf

“A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public, 2001-2009.” February 2012. Center for Ports 

and Waterway, Texas Transportation Institute. (prepared for National Waterways Foundation.) Web. http://nationalwaterwaysfoundation.

org/study/FinalReportTTI.pdf

“America’s Locks & Dams: A Ticking Time Bomb For Agriculture?” December 2011. Center for Ports and Waterways, Texas 

Transportation Institute. (prepared for United Soybean Board) Web. http://unitedsoybean.org/wp-content/uploads/Americas_Locks_

And_Dams.pdf

“Panama Canal Expansion: Impact on U.S. Agriculture.” September 2011. Informa Economics (prepared for United Soybean 

Board, U.S. Soybean Export Council, and Soy Transportation Coalition). Web. http://www.soytransportation.org/newsroom/

PanamaCanalExpansionImpactOnUSAg.pdf

“Study of Rural Transportation Issues.” April 2010. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Web. http://www.ams.

usda.gov/services/transportation-analysis/rti

Temporary closures

Washington Council on International Trade. The Economic Costs of the 2014-2015 West Coast Port Slowdown on Washington State.

February 22, 2016. Web. http://wcit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/WCIT-Port-Delays-Economic-Impacts-Report-FINAL1.pdf

Did the West Coast Port Dispute Contribute to the First-Quarter GDP Slowdown? Amiti, Mary, Tyler Bodine-Smith, Michele Cavallo,

and Logan Lewis. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Liberty Street Economics. IFDP Notes. July 2, 2015. Web. https://

www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/ifdp-notes/2015/did-the-west-coast-port-dispute-contribute-to-the-first-quarter-gdpslowdown-20150702.html

Meyer, Seth, Luis Fellin, and Peter Stone, September 2007. “Impact of a Lock Failure on Commodity Transportation on the Mississippi 

or Illinois Rivers.” Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Web. http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/

FAPRI-MU-Report-30-07.pdf

“Effects on Agriculture of a Closure of West Coast Port Facilities,” United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 

San Francisco Headquarters, United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Maritime Association, and International Longshore and 

Warehouse Union, Defendants, Declaration of Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, October 7, 2002. Web. http://www.leagle.

com/decision/20021237229FSupp2d1008_11145/U.S. v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASS’N

Higher transportation costs, lower cash bids

Denicoff, Marina. “Carry and Basis: Grain Market Signals and Transportation Implications.” U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. Grain Transportation Report. December 23, 2010. pp. 2-3.Web. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/

media/12-23-10.pdf
Nibarger, Daniel, Pierre Bahizi. “Commodity Basis, Price Spreads, and Transportation Cost.” U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. Grain Transportation Report. September 2, 2010. pp. 2-3.Web.https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/

media/09-02-10.pdf

Photo credits, reading left to right

1) Maersk Line

2) Wikemedia Commons, Kelly Martin

3) Wikimedia Commons

Preferred Citation

McGregor, Brian. A Reliable Waterway System Is Important to Agriculture. February 2017. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Marketing Service. Web. <http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS050.02-2017>

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for 

employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where 

applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program 

or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment 

activities.) 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of 

the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be 

found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of 

discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.

gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a 

letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail 

at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 

20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program 

complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail 

directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

For any other information not pertaining to civil rights, please refer to the listing of the USDA Agencies and Offices for 

specific agency information. 

10