United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice Of
The Administrator
(A101F)
EPA171-R-92-015
PB-92-182401
July 1992
&EPA
The Effectiveness Of The
1985 Food Security Act's
Highjy Erodibie Land
Provisions To Reduce
Agricultural Fugitive Dust
Emissions
Printed on Recycled P joer
-------
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1985 FOOD SECURITY ACT
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND PROVISIONS TO
REDUCE AGRICULTURAL FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS
by
Deborah Harkrader
NNEMS Fellow
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
O'ffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park/"'North Carolina
November, 1991
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the student identified on the cover page, under a National
Network for Environmental Management Studies fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
ABSTRACT
DEBORAH A. HARKRADER. The Effectiveness of the 1985 Food Security
Act - Highly Erodible Land Provisions to Reduce Agricultural
Fugitive Dust Emissions. (Under the direction of Dr. DEBORAH
AMARAL)
Particulate emissions from agricultural activities pose
health risks and contribute to violation of air quality standards
in many areas. The potential effectiveness of the 1985 Food
Security Act conservation provisions to reduce soil erosion and
lower fugitive dust emissions on highly erodible cropland (HEL)
was investigated. The provisions link eligibility for USDA
benefits with soil conservation requirements. Nine states were
surveyed on aspects of provision implementation. Criteria for
evaluation, survey results, and sources of information are
presented. The degree of the provisions' effectiveness varies.
Conservation plans will protect large areas of HEL, yet emission
reductions will be less than possible due to delays in adoption
of measures and leniency in targeted reductions and measuring
compliance. The compliance and sodbuster provisions will continue
into the future, and environmental benefits should increase over
time. States where CRP enrollment is high will reap considerable
air quality benefits, but the future of CRP is uncertain. Policy
efforts should promote the benefits of improved air quality, and
exploration of other initiatives which might decrease wind
erosion and agricultural fugitive dust.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from agricultural
activities pose human health risks and contribute to the NAAQS
nonattainment status of many areas, especially in Western states.
This project investigated the implementation of the 1985
Food Security Act highly erodible conservation provisions.
Information was gathered on methods used and the potential
effectiveness of the provisions to reduce wind erosion and lower
fugitive dust emissions on highly erodible cropland.
The provisions link eligibility for many farm program
benefits with soil conservation, providing a financial incentive
to decrease erosion. Annual farm program outlays were estimated
by USDA at over $23 billion in 1987.
The conservation compliance and sodbuster provisions require
farmers who cultivate an annual crop on highly erodible land to
do so under an approved conservation plan using measures designed
to achieve a substantial reduction in erosion rates.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides an annual
rental payment to producers for retirement of highly erodible
land (HEL) under 10 year contracts. Permanent vegetation must be
established on CRP land.
The USDA administers the highly erodible provisions through
the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, with
technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service.
Nine state SCS offices were surveyed on aspects of provision
implementation. The states were selected on the basis of
nonattainment .designation, amount of cropland, and wind erosion
potential.
Criteria for evaluation and sources of information are
presented. The degree of the provisions' effectiveness varies
depending on levels of farm program participation, location and
amount of acreage covered by plans, targeted erosion rates and
compliance 1eve1s.
Participation rates in farm benefits programs range from 52%
to 95% of the states' producers. In Kansas the absolute number is
over 100,000 producers. The percentage of HEL cropland under
conservation plans varies from 12% to 100%, with Texas having the
greatest amount, at 12.7 million acres. Potential soil savings
estimates range between 5.2 and 16 tons per acre annually.
All states use a combination of conservation measures in
plans to reduce erosion. Conservation tillage was cited most
frequently as being the best technical and cost-effective method.
Crop rotations, cover crops, and stripcropping are commonly used.
-------
Monitoring rates were between the 5% minimum required by
USDA headquarters and 13% in 1991. Few violations on little
acreage were noted in most states. Most practices are planned to
be implemented in 1993 and 1994, delaying reductions and
potential compliance problems.
Producers were judged to be quite positive about CRP, fairly
negative about the compliance and sodbuster provisions, and to
have a range of attitudes toward conservation measures generally.
Lack of field staff, inadequate training, large workloads
and frequent policy and procedural changes were cited as
difficulties by the SCS in the implementation process.
In addition, lack of a automated, standardized, data-
gathering system limits tracking and evaluation capabilities.
Overall, conservation plans will help protect large areas
of HEL, yet wind erosion and emission reductions will be less
than possible due to delays in adoption of measures and leniency
in planning goals and compliance levels.
The compliance and sodbuster provisions can be expected to
continue into the future, and environmental benefits should
increase as producers become accustomed to the techniques
involved, and USDA policies and procedures stabilize.
Western states will reap considerable air quality benefits
where CRP enrollment is high, but the future of this program is
uncertain, and likely to target water quality if extended.
Policy efforts should promote air quality benefits, and
explore the.development of state and local initiatives which
could decrease wind erosion and agricultural fugitive dust.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
List of Acronyms
List of Figures
List of Tables
Section I. Overview
Introduction
Air Quality and Particulate Matter
Particulate Matter and Agriculture
Section II. Wind Erosion
The Process of Wind Erosion
The Wind Erosion Equation
Designation of Highly Erodible Land
Conservation Measures to Reduce Erosion
Page
i
ii
iii
iii
1
2
6
7
9
11
13
Section III. Agricultural Legislation
1985 Food Security Act Conservation Provisions 16
Section IV.
Section V.
Section VI.
References
The Study
Methodology
Criteria for Evaluation
Sources of Information
Discussion of Results
Interpretation by Topic
Interpretation by State
Economics and Future Agricultural Policy
Role of Economics
Benefits of Improved Air Quality
The Future of Farm Policy and
the Conservation Provisions
Conclusion
Summary
Recommendat ions
List of Interviews
25
26
27
33
34
49
57
57
58
61
62
63
66
Appendix 1.—Form AD-1026
Appendix 2. National Resource Inventory Wind Erosion Estimates
Appendix 3. Annual Wind Erosion Report Excerpts
Appendix 4. ASCS HEL Violation Report
Appendix 5. Survey
Appendix 6. Survey Results
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Robin Dunkins for her personal interest
and guidance during my study. I am grateful to all the staff of the
PM-10, SO2/ and Lead Branch of the Air Quality Management Division
of EPA-OAQPS who were friendly and helpful to me throughout my
stay.
I appreciate the many people at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who were
generous with their time and information. To the survey respondents
and those interviewed personally, I extend extra thanks.
This research was supported through a grant by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency National Network of Environmental
Management Scholars program and was conducted at the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards in Durham, North Carolina.
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACS Alternative Conservation System
ARS Agricultural Research Service
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
BACM Best Available Control Measures
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CES Cooperative Extension Service
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
El Erodibility Index
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FACTA Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
FmHA Farmers Home Administration
FSA Food Security Act
CIS Geographic Information System
GPCP Great Plains Conservation Program
HEL Highly Erodible Land
MLRA Major Land Resource Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NRI National Resources Inventory
PM-10 Particulate Matter of 10 microns or less aerodynamic diameter
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
SWCS Soil and Water Conservation Society
T Soil Loss Tolerance
TSP Total—Suspended Particulates
WEQ Wind Erosion Equation
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of PM-10 Nonattainment Areas 4
Figure 2. Map of Cropland Susceptible to Wind Erosion 8
Figure 3. The Process of Wind Erosion 8
Figure 4. North Carolina Wind Erosion Manual Excerpt 10
Figure 5. Map of Highly Erodible Cropland 35
Figure 6. Land under Conservation Plans, HEL, and Total 37
Cropland Acreage by (Surveyed) State
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Definitions of Soil Conservation Terms 12
Table 2. Sample Conservation Plan 18
Table 3. Sample Field office Technical Guide Sheets 20
Table 4. CRP Sign-up Data 23
Table 5. SCS - Food Security Act Progress Report 31
Table 6. Attitudes of Producers 43
Table 7. SCS Difficulties in Implementation 47
iii
-------
Section I. Overview
INTRODUCTION
The problem of soil erosion by wind was blasted into the
public awareness during the Dust Bowl days of the Depression.
During that time, a prolonged drought encompassed the Great
Plains, so that the vegetation all died, and the wind carried
away vast amounts of topsoil in clouds that obliterated the sky.
The dust storms were relentless, raising dunes of windblown soil,
ruining machinery, blinding and sickening people who saw their
hopes and farms gusting off before them.
In Washington, Congress was preparing to act. After funding
a study of erosion causes and controls, the need for action was
clear. On April 25, 1935, Hugh Hammond Bennett of the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) testified before the
Senate Public Lands Committee. As he spoke, a huge cloud of black
dust rolled in from the West, dramatically illustrating the need
for a massive erosion control program. Two days later, Congress
established the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) with a
directive to undertake just such a program. Since that time, SCS
has worked with the nation's farm producers, providing technical
assistance on a voluntary basis to help reduce erosion and
conserve soil and other natural resources.
The nature of the relationship between farmers and the SCS
changed drastically with the passage of the 1985 farm bill, or
Food Security Act (FSA). Aside from the other lengthy sections
dealing with commodity programs, crop insurance and related
agricultural matters, the Food Security Act contains a
conservation Title (XII) with provisions that link eligibility
for farm program benefits with requirements for resource
conservation on fragile lands. These include wetlands, highly
erodible land, and other, specially-designated sensitive lands.
Although the original purpose of the provisions is to
conserve soil through application of erosion control measures,
the effects will go beyond the mere saving of topsoil. Many
environmental benefits will result, including positive impacts on
air and water resources. Particulate matter from agricultural
wind erosion causes a range of negative human health effects. It
is fitting that the dust which spurred the creation of the Soil
Conservation Service should be alleviated through conservation
measures planned and established by that agency.
The focus of this project was to investigate the extent of
air quality improvements and the means by which they are realized
through implementation of the FSA Highly Erodible Land (HEL)
provisions. The report first explains particulate matter
pollution and its relationship to agriculture. Then the process
of wiiid erosion and methods to decrease it are treated. The
conservation provisions are described and the criteria, along
with sources of information, for examining their effectiveness
are advanced. Research results, including a survey of 9 states,
are discussed by topic and state. The role of economics and the
-------
future of farm policy and the HEL provisions are noted followed
by presentation of the conclusions and recommendations.
AIR QUALITY AND PARTICULATE MATTER
This project is concerned with air pollution caused by
particulate matter. Particulate matter consists of a diverse
range of substances that form as liquid or solid particles
ranging in size from 0.005 um to around 100 um. Particulate
matter is generally broken into two classes; fine (<2.5 um) and
coarse.
There are many sources of particulate matter, both natural
and manmade. Some examples of natural, or nonanthropogenic
sources, are desert dust, ocean spray, and volcanic activity.
Manmade sources include industry, construction, mining, and
agricultural activities, and reentrained dust from roadways.
(Koch, 87) . Overall, the manmade emissions are almost all fine
particles, while the nonanthropogenic fugitive emissions consist
of coarse particles.
The fundamental concern about particulate matter is that, in
high concentrations, it poses human health risks. It can also
have negative effects on visibility, climate, vegetation,
material objects, and personal comfort,^ The health risks from
particulate matter involve the smaller size fractions which may
penetrate and be deposited in the lower respiratory tract (thorax
and alveoli) when inhaled. Specifically, health effects of
particulate matter include "premature mortality, aggravation of
existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage to lung
tissue, impaired breathing and respiratory symptoms, and
alterations to the body's physical and immune system defenses
against inhaled particulate11 (USEPA, 1991a.)
The Clean Air Act of 1970 sets standards for six criteria
pollutants called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Particulate matter is one of the criteria pollutants. The
previous standard set in 1971 for total suspended particulate
matter (TSP) was replaced in 1987 with the present PM-10
standard, for the purpose of better protecting public health.
"PM-IO" refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
of 10 micrometers (um) or less.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the old
NAAQS for particulate matter (TSP) to the current PM-10 standard
after reviewing studies of particulate matter deposition in the
respiratory tract, toxicity studies, human and animal laboratory
studies, epidemiological studies, data on air quality,
visibility, and climate, and effects on materials, as well as
personal comfort and well-being. The EPA found that the
probability of adverse health effects, including deposition in
the thoracic region, and time for clearing foreign matter,
increased for particles less than 10 um. in diameter (USEPA,
-------
1988) .
Primary standards are set to protect public health and
secondary standards are welfare related. For PM-10, these
standards are identical. The standard defines a 24-hour maximum
concentration of 150 ug/m3, and an average annual arithmetic mean
standard set at 50 ug/m3. Exceedance of either standard more than
once within a year constitutes a violation, and triggers the
nonattainment designation process (USEPA, 1988). In the United
States, more than 27 million people presently live in
nonattainment areas, where either the daily or the annual PM-10
standard is violated (EPA-OAQPS, 1991). Figure 1 shows a map of
current (Nov. 1991) PM-10 Nonattainment Areas.
Any areas with a monitored PM-10 violation are designated
"moderate" nonattainment areas by EPA. The moderate nonattainment
classification also applies to areas which were designated, due
to previous violations, by operation of law under the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act. Such areas are required to
submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA which contain
control strategies for attaining compliance with the NAAQS within
the applicable deadline. The schedule varies according to the
circumstances of designation.
Moderate nonattainment area SIPs must employ Reasonably
Available Control Measures and Technology (RACM/RACT) to reach
attainment. In the event that a moderate area fails to reach
attainment, or if EPA determines that the area cannot practicably
attain the standard by the specified date, the area may be
reclassified from "moderate" to "serious." This designation means
that the area must utilize the Best Available Control Measures
and Technology (BACM/BACT) in a control strategy set forth in a
newly submitted SIP.
EPA has issued guidance documents containing available
control measures for some non-traditional area sources of
particulate matter, including fugitive dust. To reduce fugitive
dust emissions from agricultural tillage operations, EPA
currently relies on the highly erodible land conservation
provisions of the 1985 Pood Security Act (USEPA, 1991b).
The purpose of this study is to provide a better
understanding of the implementation process and.types of
conservation measures being employed. This information should be
useful to EPA in formulating guidance to states with
nonattainment areas on appropriate measures to be included in SIP
development.
-------
AREAS DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT
FOR PM10 PARTICULARS, BY EMISSION TYPE
KEY TO PRINCFLE EMISSION TYPE
AREAS NONATTAJNMENT OLE TO STATIONARY SOURCE EMBSONS
AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUE IN PART TO WOOD SMOKE EMBSONS
AREAS NONATTAINMENT OLE IN PART TO FUGITIVE OUST EMISSIONS
AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUE TO MULTFLE TWES OF EMISSIONS
CROE DIAMETER ©
INDICATES RELATIVE SIZE
OF AFFECTED POPULATION
Figure 1.
Source: US EPA - OAQPS, Air Quality Management Division
-------
The EPA establishes procedures for and supervises a
nationwide air monitoring network which consists of National Air
Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS). Factors that affect the configuration of the
monitor network include population distribution, meteorology,
source locations, topography.
The original regulations for uniform monitor siting were
promulgated in 1979. They emphasized point sources, commercial
sources, and high population density as criteria for monitor
location. The present PM-10 network uses existing TSP data to
characterize problem areas, along with currently operating PM-10
monitors (Hunt, 1989).
This is probably not an accurate representation of the PM-10
problem, according to the EPA PM-10 monitoring task force report.
In particular, the EPA feels that additional PM-10 monitoring may
be needed for some activities not traditionally emphasized in the
monitoring program such as residential wood combustion and
agricultural tilling and burning operations (Hunt, 1989).
In regard to fugitive dust from agriculture, there are more
problem areas recorded in the West than in the East. The
explanation may be that particulate matter is a higher priority
for EPA regional offices there, and scarce resources dictate
choosing between problems to focus on; or there may be a physical
basis as well.
The Task Force on PM-10 monitoring reported that there may
be a lack of "will" to identify new problems in some regions
which could bias the location of problem areas.The report also
suggests that future PM-10 monitoring should specifically address
non-traditional sources, such as residential wood combustion,
agricultural activity, and others. Most regions are not currently
looking at PM-10 impacts in unmonitored areas (Hunt, 1989).
Also related is the question of how far fugitive dust may be
transported by wind. Monitors are generally assumed to measure
emissions generated nearby, whereas it is known that suspended
particulates may travel hundreds of miles from their source in
some instances. Receptor (or "filter") analysis, can be used to
determine the composition of particles, and compared with soil
maps to estimate the likely origin of the material (Wilson, pers.
comm., 1991).
Both of these issues should eventually be addressed by EPA
to ensure that problem areas are accurately characterized. In the
meantime, the promotion of cooperative efforts with USDA is
probably the best approach toward minimizing PM-10 emissions from
agricultural wind erosion.
-------
PARTICULATE MATTER AND AGRICULTURE
The relationship of PM-10 emissions and agricultural
fugitive dust is not well documented by scientific research.
Little has been done in the field. One source, Jutze and Axetell
identified agriculture as being a significant source of fugitive
dust (PM-10) with regional impacts in 3 areas (Jutze and Axetell,
1974). In two of these, the San Joaquin Valley of California, and
the Phoenix-Tucson area in Arizona, agriculture was the single
greatest contributor.
However, the methodology used by the researchers employed
the Wind Erosion Equation (WEQ), which is currently undergoing
revision due to criticisms about its level of accuracy. In fact,
the WEQ may yield results that are either way too high or very
low, according to one of the main researchers involved in its use
and development (Fryrear, pers. comm., 1991)
Interestingly, both Arizona and California asserted that the
designation of HEL in those states was not accurate, because of
problems in WEQ factors.
Another EPA study of PM-10 and Fugitive dust in the
Southwest found agriculture to be the second greatest contributor
of fugitive dust among the sources inventoried (USEPA, 1985) . The
study also used the wind erosion equation to estimate emissions.
A scientist with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, Dr. Dale Gillette, researches particle flux. He
maintains that there is a good correlation between agricultural
wind erosion and PM-10 levels, though it is not a constant ratio
(Gillette, pers. comm., 1991). Further, if the larger, sand-sized
particles are stopped from blowing, then the finer dust (PM-10)
will not become suspended. This idea was reaffirmed by Dr.
Fryrear of the USDA Agricultural Research Service (Fryrear, pers.
comm., 1991). Thus, conservation measures which prevent movement
of larger soil particles will also impede the initiation of
particle suspension, resulting in lower PM-10 emissions from
agricultural dust. More information on the link between the two
is desirable.
The next section deals with the physical process of wind
erosion and its measurement, designation of highly erodible land,
and conservation methods to reduce wind erosion on susceptible
cropland.
-------
Section II. Wind Erosion
THE PROCESS OF WIND EROSION
Wind erosion is a problem where soils are dry and loose, and
there is little vegetation to hold the soil in place. It is often
a seasonal phenomenon, occurring in erratic bursts sometimes
marked by severe dust storms known as "brown outs." Wind erosion
may cause crop damage, soil productivity declines, property
damage, automobile accidents from loss of visibility, and a range
of health effects.
In the United States, soil erosion by wind occurs
predominantly west of the Mississippi, in the Great Plains and
parts of other Western states. Portions of the Atlantic coastal
plain are also susceptible for short periods during Springtime
(see Figure 2). The following material is taken from USDA
Agricultural Information Bulletin Number 555, "Soil Erosion by
Wind."
Most soil movement occurs within a foot of the ground,
although suspended dust is the most obvious form of wind erosion.
Soil movement is initiated at a wind velocity of 13 miles per
hour one foot off the soil surface. The extent of erosion depends
on wind velocity and duration, soil type and texture, along with
moisture conditions
There are three ways in which movement happens, according to
wind speed and particle size. They are saltation, suspension, and
creep (Figure 3). The majority of soil is transported by
saltation. This refers to the bouncing of fine to medium-sized
particles along the ground in an arcing fashion. Though the
particles do not obtain much height, their bouncing motion causes
them to disturb other particles which may then be moved by the
wind. Saltation has an extensive impact by breaking down clods
into smaller, more erodible aggregates, and by disrupting surface
crusts so that they are destabilized.
In the process of saltation, fine particles are thrown into
the air, where they remain suspended and may be transported over
great distances. This is how fugitive dust is created. Although
these fine particles are a small amount of the total soil erosion
off an agricultural field, they contain the most fertile part of
the soil, and represent a human health risk when inhaled at
sufficiently high concentrations.
Saltation also causes larger particles to start moving in a
creeping motion across the ground. Because they are too heavy to
be lifted by most winds, these particles roll along until the
wind speed "drops or they are trapped by an obstacle and
redeposited, often in roadside ditches.
-------
Figure 2. Cropland Susceptible to Wind Erosion
Figure 3. Soil movement occurs through three
processes: Saltation, Suspension, and Creep.
. X I/Y • X;>r -Suspension
ircet US Department of Agricultural -
Conservation Service. Agricultural Bulletin #555 "Soil
Erosion by Wind."
8
-------
THE WIND EROSION EQUATION
This equation estimates the potential erosion for a given
soil type in a specific location in tons of soil per acre per
year (t/ac/yr) as a function of five interrelated factors. It was
developed by the USDA - Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
through field research in Garden City, Kansas, and has been in
use since 1965. The equation is considered most accurate for the
immediate vicinity where it was developed, and is currently under
revision.
Criticisms of the Wind Erosion Equation (WEQ) center on the
climatic (C) and inherent erodibility (I) factors. Human
intervention through management is another significant element
not adequately accounted for. The equation is said to
overestimate wind erosion at some sites, and underestimate it at
others. Present research efforts to refine the WEQ include
extensive instrumented sampling at different sites throughout ±he
United States. Also, a predictive model of wind erosion called
Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) is expected to be released
in 1993 (pers. comm., Fryrear, 1991).
The present form of the wind erosion equation is:
E = f(IKCLV) where
E is the potential soil erosion by wind in tons per acre per year
I is the inherent erodibility of the soil, expressed as t/ac/yr.
The I factor is generally assigned on the basis of soil
texture classification, but the reference method of sieving
the soil aggregates >0.84 mm in diameter may be used. I
factors range from 2-310 t/ac/yr.
K is a measure of the ridge roughness of the field. Values range
from .5 -1, and are expressed a coefficient. It is based
on a ratio of ridge height to row spacing. When a field
has been tilled so that ridges and furrows are formed,
they act to deflect wind energy and slow the movement
of soil particles. Yet, very high ridges may cause
turbulence that increases soil movement.
C is the climatic factor that takes into account average wind
velocity and soil moisture as a function of potential
evapotranspiration rates in a given locale. C values
&re unitless and range from 4 - 500. Garden City is the
reference site with a value of 100.
-------
L is the unsheltered distance in feet along the prevailing wind
direction within a field. This factor is. employed in
calculating the protection provided by windbreaks.
Generally, the protected distance is considered to be 10
times the height of the windbreak, depending on the angle of
the wind and the denseness of the windbreak.
V is the factor that accounts for the effect of vegetation in the
form of residues on the field surface. It includes
amount, type and orientation of residue distribution.
This factor is stated in terms of pounds of flat small grain
equivalents, and ranges from 0 to 1000.
(Brock, 1984)
Using the above equation, potential soil erosion rates can
be calculated for specific fields under cultivation. Two of the
five factors are unchanging for any given location. These are the
climatic (C) and inherent erodibility (I) factors, based on soil
type and weather conditions. The other factors, K, L, and V, may
be manipulated through human intervention with resultant changes
in the erosion rate.
State SCS offices develop manuals to assist in wind erosion
calculations. These contain lists of the assigned I values by
soil type and C factor by county (and sometimes by month as
well) . The I and C factor values are first determined, followed
by the K factor. Charts which form a matrix of the L and V
factors are then used, so that the erosion potential (E) can be
determined for a combination of circumstances. Thus farmers and
field personnel can find out what the existing erosion rate on a
plot of land is, and how it will change if one of the three
susceptible factors (K,L,V) is manipulated. Figure 4 contains a
sample table from the North Carolina wind erosion manual.
Figure 4
10
-------
Figure 4 Sample Page from N.C. Wind Erosion Manual
«l« SOIL LOSS FKN MIND EKOSlON IN IONS PEH AC*E PE* KM
SMFACE - R • 0.«
Ill' >
UNSHELTERED
DISTANCE
IN FEET
IOOOO
•000
6000
4000
1000
2000
1000
•00
400
400
100
200
190
100
•0
6O
90
40
10
20
10
0
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.1
!!.•
11.4
IO.C
• .9
7.2
9.9
4.6
1.9
2ll
l.T
0.9
29
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
II.
II.
10.
• .
T.
«.
4.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
0.
IVI*
9 900
• .9
1.9
•.9
• .9
fl. 9
tls
4.0
4.8
ill
l.T
1.1
1.0
C.T
79
9.
9.
9
9
9
9
4
4
1
2
2
1
PLAT .
o lot
2 2
2 2
2
« 2
... 2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
WALL en
10 1290
• e
9 0.
9 0.
9 0.
9 0.
9 . 0.
4
1
2
4
2
•
4
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0 •
0.4
0.4
JANUMV*19II
C • I
I • 110
ISOO 1150 1000 1290 2900 2T90 1000
ICI* SOIL LOSS FKD MIND f MS ION III (CMS P(« ACRE PtK YEM JANUMV.I9M
••.-•• • c • •
.4U*f ACC V « • -0.5 i • • ' I • 110
IN RESIDUE III POUNDS PC* ACM <
1900 ITSO 2000 2290 MM :»T90 1000
Ill
UNSHELTERED
DISTANCE 0
IN PEET
IOOOO
•000
4000
4000
MOO
2*00
1 4WM
Iwwl
•00
400
AAA
^UU
100
200
190
100
•0
6O
90
40
10
70
10
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
U*
*•
11 .C
10.2
T.9
9.1
4.2
1.1
2.6
l.«
1.9
1.2
0.9
0.9
ISO
10.1
10.1
1C.I
1C.1
10.1
10.1
4 A
^•^
•.9
•.2
(.0
4.0
1.1
2.6
2.0
1.4
1.2
0.9
0.9
C.I
IVI*« - PLAT SHALL G«J
900 T90 1000 1290
4.<
4.9
4.<
4.«
6.9
6.9
6.1
9.4
I.t
2.6
2.1
1.6
1.2
O.T
e.»
0.9
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
1.4
1.1
2.2
1.4
I.I
O.I
0.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0 •
2.0
2.0
l.T
1.9
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
*
* J
.9
.3
0.9
0.9
0.4 .
• MTEt SCIl'ICSS ft* VALUES MUM •»• H LESS THAN 0.1 0« CMATEH THAN
440.0 ME NOT SMUMI OIHEP VALUfS MOT SHOHN Mf INVALID
•
*• NOTE! VALUES
ARE HAT UlAll C«A|N EQUIVALENT . NOT •«•
Source: Brock, 1984
-------
DESIGNATION OF HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND
Highly erodible land is land which is especially sensitive
to the forces of wind and water. There is no strict technical
definition; rather, USDA has formulated arbitrary criteria of
what constitutes HEL for program implementation purposes. These
criteria are different for the compliance and sodbuster
provisions than they are for the Conservation Reserve Program.
The various provisions of the Conservation Title will be detailed
in a later section.
The method used is based on the erodibility index (El) of
soils, which applies both to land in production and land which is
not currently in crops. The El on land vulnerable to wind erosion
is calculated by dividing the C and I factors for a site by the
soil loss tolerance (T) value. (El = CI/T ). The resulting
erodibility index is stated in tons/acre/year. These factors are
used because they are all fixed for the specific site.
Theoretically, the erodibility index arrived at by this
computation is the baseline condition for soil erosion at the
site. (See Table 1 for definitions of terms.)
T values are meant to indicate the amount of soil which
could be lost without jeopardizing the soils' productivity on an
economical and indefinite basis. The major consideration in
assigning T values is the rate of soil formation in the upper, or
A, horizon. In the United States, T values range from 2-5
t/ac/yr., with about 2/3 of all cropland having a T value of 5
t/ac/yr (AFT, 1984).
The Environmental Assessment prepared by USDA for the HEL
provisions explored 4 alternative criteria, and recommended that
soils having an El >8 be identified as highly erodible for the
conservation compliance and sodbuster provisions. This
alternative will cover about 118 million acres of land, and about
60% of all cropland erosion (wind and water combined) (USDA,
1986). The document further suggests that the criteria for
judging a field to be predominantly HEL, and thus subject to the
conservation provisions, should be that the field contains one-
third or more HEL. These criteria were accepted for
implementation purposes.
Determinations of highly erodible land are done by SCS field
offices, usually during actual site visits. Background
information is obtained through the National Resources Inventory
(NRI) which has mapped the Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA)
throughout the country. Based on the MLRA and soil survey
information, the SCS determines which areas are susceptible to
high levels of wind and/or water erosion.
The erodibility index described above is employed to make
initial HEL determinations, which are subject to appeal by the
producer. The wind or water erosion equations are used to
calculate erosion rates on individual plots of land, depending on
which/type of erosion is applicable. This study is only concerned
with wind erosion. Site-specific estimates are useful in refining
11
-------
TABLE 1. Definitions of Soil Conservation Terms
Measures of Erosion
Four Kinds of 'Highly Erodible"
Land May Be Enrolled in the CRP
T Marks the level of soil loss toler-
ance. That is, the maximum level
of soil erosion that will permit a high
level of crop productivity to be
sustained economically and
indefinitely.
*EI* Indicates the index of erodibilty.
That is, the index measuring the
erosion potential of a soil,
independent of management or
conservation practices. The erodi-
bility index is a function of rain-
fall, soil credibility, field slope
and length, and T.
Under the regulations, highly erodible cropland is
defined as:
1. Any land in LCC VI. VII, VIII
2. Land in LCC II, III, IV, V with erosion greater
than 3T
3. Land in LCC II, III, IV, V with erosion greater
than 2T but with gully erosion
4. Land with El equal to or greater than 8 and
erosion greater than 1T
Note: The Secretary of Agriculture may also include land that
poses a potential threat to the environment
Land Capability Classes (LCC's) as Established by USDA
Class I.
use.
Soils have few limitations that restrict
Class II. Soils have some limitations that reduce
the choice of crops or that require moderate
conservation practices.
Class III. Soils have severe limitations that reduce
the choice of crops or require special conservation
practices, or both.
Class IV. Soils can be used for crops, but the
choice is very limited and appropriate rotations and
conservation practices must be used.
Classes V, VI, VII. Soils are not suited to
cultivation but are suited to pasture, range, forage,
trees, certain special crops, or wildlife habitat.
Class VIII. Soils are limited to recreation, wildlife
habitat, or water supply uses.
Estimated Average Annual Wind Erosion in Relation to T Value
on Non-Federal Rural Land, by Land Cover/Use
Land Cover/Use
iT
>Ti2T
>2Ts5T
>5T
Total
1982 Cropland
1987 Cropland
349.528.7
346,444.8
34.159.5
37.003.0
26.70*4.6
27.910.5
11.010.1
11.483.1
421,402.9
422,841.4
-------
conservation plans and to provide evidence about the accuracy of
the assigned factor values.
To be eligible for the Conservation Reserve Program, land
must meet a different set of criteria, which has changed from one
sign-up period to another, based on the type of environmental
benefits targeted. The criteria are based on a combination of
Land Capability Class and T values. A field must be predominantly
(at least two-thirds) HEL to qualify for enrollment. As an
example, for the tenth sign-up held in early 1991, land had to
meet any of the following criteria:
HEL in LCC
- VI,VII or VIII
- II,III,IV or V with an erosion rate of 3T or greater
- II,III,IV or V with an erosion rate of 2 T or greater, if
trees are planted or a serious gully problem exists on the
designated CRP acres
Also, the 1990 Farm Bill, known as FACTA, amended and
significantly expanded the Conservation Reserve, as well as
directing the program toward HEL enrollment which will produce
more water quality, rather than air quality, benefits. Contract
bid offers undergo a cost/benefit ..assessment based on potential
land productivity, and environmental benefits. Land located
within a public wellhead, as defined by EPA, or land requiring a
useful life easement is automatically accepted if the bid is
reasonable and the benefit/cost ratio is positive. Practices
requiring useful life easements include some which help reduce
wind erosion, like windbreaks, filter strips, and shelterbelts,
and other practices aimed more toward controlling the water
quality impacts of erosion.
CONSERVATION MEASURES TO REDUCE WIND EROSION
Many measures are designed to protect against soil erosion
by wind and water. Some are especially effective at reducing wind
erosion. These include crop residue management, conservation
tillage, (permanent) vegetation establishment, crop rotations,
windbreaks, stripcropping and buffer strips, ridge roughness, row
orientation, emergency tillage, and the use of cover crops.
Usually, some combination of measures is used to provide the most
suitable and thorough means of conserving soil. Many of these
measures, such as the use of windbreaks or stripcropping and
planting perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction, have
long been used and are well accepted by producers. Other methods,
including conservation tillage and crop residue management, are
newer and necessitate more adaptation on the part of producers.
13
-------
The basic principle for reducing soil erosion by wind is to cover
the ground to slow wind velocity, trap moving particles, and
lessen exposure of bare soil (Brock, 1984).
Crop Residue Management - employs the maintenance of
residues from the previous crop to hold the soil in place during
the fallow period. Different crops produces different amounts of
residue depending on decomposition rates, harvest method, number
of tillage operations, and type of crop. The greater the amount
of residue left, the more protection afforded to the soil. Crop
residues are measured either by percentage of ground covered, or
in pounds of residue remaining. Several sampling methods are used
by SCS in the field to determine residue levels. Residue
management is probably the single method most relied upon at
present to meet conservation compliance requirements on land
subject to wind erosion (SWCS, 1990b).
Conservation tillage - refers to any system of tillage
operations which minimizes soil disturbance and maintains high
residue levels near the surface. There are many types of
conservation tillage. The National FSA manual criteria for
conservation tillage is that the system must leave at least 30%,
or 1000 pounds per acre of flat, small grain equivalent residue
on the surface at the time of planting. Conservation tillage may
include the utilization of special equipment to plant and
cultivate without disrupting the surface, and/or a decrease in
tillage operations to avoid mixing in residues. Timing of tillage
operations is an important variable in their effect on erosion
rates.
Vegetation establishment - on a long-term or permanent basis
is the best way of halting erosion to susceptible lands.
Conversion to grassland or trees is appropriate on lands not
suitable for continuous cropping. This is the method used to
protect land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.
Productivity losses resulting from land retirement must be
weighed against soil erosion savings and related environmental
benefits.
Crop rotations - may be used both to lessen soil erosion and
to build soil nutrients. The planting of legumes or grasses in
rotation with row crops is an example. Also, the soil loss
savings accrued in a year when a crop with low erosion potential
is planted can make up for losses occurring in years when crops
with higher erosion potential are cultivated.
Windbreaks - provide a simple, yet effective means of
slowing down wind and protecting soil. These may be in the form
of a line(sT of trees at the edge of a field to rows of perennial
grasses or annual crops planted perpendicular to the prevailing
wind direction. Protection is provided for a distance
approximately 10 times the height of the windbreak.
14
-------
Striperopping - follows the same principle as windbreaks. By
planting wind-resistant crops in relatively narrow strips
alternating with strips of row crops or fallow, the ground can be
easily buffered from the force of the wind. Buffer strips are
similar to stripcrops, but planted in narrower strips.
Row orientation - is essential to gain maximum protection.
Planting of crops and windbreaks across the prevailing wind
direction is a traditional, well-used conservation method.
Ridge roughness - is another element in determining
erodibility. The height and spacing of ridges between rows
influences soil movement. If the surface is too smooth, the wind
will not be obstructed. However, a very rough surface with high
ridges may cause turbulence that increases particle movement. -
Emergency tillage - is employed when the soil is in
condition to blow or as soon as wind erosion conditions start.
The soil is tilled to a certain depth, usually at intervals
across a field, to bring up dirt clods which are more resistant
to wind forces than the existing surface had been. Timing is
critical for minimizing wind damage.
Cover crops - can be planted on fragile land after one crop
is harvested and before the next begins to grow to provide
protective vegetation. Alfalfa, winter wheat are common cover
crops.
15
-------
Section III. Agricultural Legislation
THE CONSERVATION PROVISIONS OF THE FOOD SECURITY ACT
The 1985 Food Security Act (FSA) represents a major change
in agricultural policy. For the first time, soil conservation on
highly erodible land has been linked to eligibility for farm
program benefits. The value of farm program benefits is enormous.
The USDA estimated net cash outlays for its commodity price and
income support programs in 1987 alone to be over $23 billion
(Steiner, 1990). Benefits that may be denied under the terms of
the provisions include commodity price supports or deficiency
payments, farm storage facility loans, crop insurance, disaster
payments, FmHA loans, CRP payments and ACP cost-share funds,
among others (USDA, 1991) . So the Food Security Act HEL
provisions have a great potential economic impact on
participating producers.
The Conservation Title of the FSA contains 3 provisions
aimed at decreasing erosion on the nation's most erodible
cropland. These provisions are the compliance provision,
"sodbuster", and the Conservation Reserve program. This project
focuses on the effectiveness of the highly erodible land
provisions in reducing fugitive dust from agricultural wind
erosion.
Two other provisions contained in the Title are worthy of
note for their potential impact on highly erodible land. These
are "swampbuster" and the conservation easements program. They
are described after the discussion of the 3 HEL provisions.
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND PROVISIONS
* Conservation Compliance
* Conservation Reserve
* Sodbuster
A. Conservation Compliance
This provision requires farmers who produce an annually
cultivated crop on HEL to develop conservation plans by Jan. 1,
1990, ;'and to fully implement those plans by Dec. 31, 1995, in
order to remain eligible for farm program benefits. The
compliance provision is administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) , with technical
16
-------
support provided by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and
education and information services provided by the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES).
SCS field staff work with farmers on an individual basis to
develop appropriate conservation plans, give advice about
implementation, and make plan revisions as necessary. Each state
SCS office utilizes the national FSA manual, plus locally-
developed Field Office Technical Guides (FOTG) to formulate plans
suitable for local conditions. The FOTGs contain lists of Basic
and Alternative Conservation Systems that farmers may select from
to meet their needs and circumstances, (see Tables 2 and 3 for
sample plan and FOTG sheets) Conservation plans are approved by
the locally-elected board of the Soil and Water Conservation
District.
SCS is also responsible for conducting annual "status
reviews" of 5% of the conservation plans to ensure compliance.
Each field office reviews 5% of the plans within the district,
and the state SCS office then inspects 5% of the plans reviewed
by the state office. Most offices actually review a slightly
higher percentage, including farms belonging to employees and
ASCS state committees.
Violations are reported to the County-level ASCS office,
which investigates and makes decisions about benefit payments.
Cases may go through an appeals process, and may eventually reach
the headquarters office for settlement. Special exemptions to
total benefit loss based on "good -faith" or technical violations,
and graduated sanctions are possible under some circumstances.
Producers must submit annual certification (see Appendix 1,
Form AD-1026) to the ASCS that the conservation plan is being
actively applying as scheduled.
B. Conservation Reserve Program
The Conservation Reserve is a land-retirement program which
aims to take highly erodible land out of production. The
legislation authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to_establish
a reserve of up to 40-45 million acres by 1995. Producers enter
into contracts with the ASCS for 10 years through a competitive
bidding process during published sign-up periods, with minimum
bids established for local areas. Annual rental payments are made
to the producer for the life of the contract. Land enrolled in
CRP is taken out of production and permanent vegetative cover is
established. This cover may include trees, native or tame
grasses, and other acceptable ground cover. Up to 50% of the
costs of vegetative establishment may be provided by the ASCS
through cost-share funds.
The program is administered by the ASCS, and the SCS
provides technical assistance for determining land eligibility
and conservation practices in vegetative establishment. The SCS
also certifies that vegetation has been permanently established
for payment purposes, and may conduct spot-checks subsequently.
17
-------
TABLE 2. Sample Conservation Plan
U.S" Department of Agriculture
Soi I Conservation Service
Page 1 of 8
May 6, 1991
George Book
RECORD OF DECISIONS AND APPLICATION
Assisted By Rapid Reader
Field
No.
Tract Nun
Conse
1 HEL*
3 HEL*
4 HEL*
5 HEL*
7 HEL*
2 HEL*
1 HEL*
2 HEL*
3 HEL*
4 HEL*
5 HEL*
7 HEL*
PI ann<
Amount
nber 10059
-vat i on Sy S'
5 Ac.
5 Ac.
3.7 Ac.
10.1 Ac.
7.9 Ac.
16.5 Ac.
5 Ac
16.5 Ac
5 Ac
3.7 Ac
10.1 Ac
7.9 Ac
id
Date
bem ID: 1
May 91
May 92
May 92
May 91
May 92
May 91
May 91
May 92
May 92
May 92
May 91
May 91
App
Amount
•
•
'
ied
Date
Narrative Record
Crop 1 and
328 - Conservation Cropping
Sequence
Begin a two year cropping
system of first year
conventionally planted row
crops f o 1 lowed second year by
sma II gra i n .
Row crops will be tobacco and
or cotton.
328 - Conservation Cropping
Sequence
Begin a two year cropping
system of first year
conventionally planted row
crops f o 1 lowed second year by
sma 1 1 gra i n .
Plant corn or soybeans in
remaining 1/2 of field first
year, rotating the other 1/2
into row crops the second year.
330A - Cross Slope Farming
Run rows and perform al 1
ti 1 (age operations across the
dom i nant s 1 ope .
.
The appl ication and maintenance of this conservation practice is required
for compliance with the Food Security Act of 1985.
18
-------
U.S^. Department of Agriculture
Soi I Conservation Service
Page 2 of 8
May 6, 1991
George Book
RECORD OF DECISIONS AND APPLICATION
Assisted By Rapid Reader
•Field
No.
1 HEL*
2 HEL*
3 HEL*
4 HEL*
5 HEL*
7 HEL*
1 HEL*
2 HEL*
3 HEL*
4 HEL*
5 HEL*
7 HEL*
1 HEL*
2 HEL*
5 HEL*
7 HEL*
•
PI anm
Amount
5 Ac.
16.5 Ac.
5 Ac.
3.7 Ac.
10.1 Ac.
7.9 Ac.
_
300 Ft.
1200 Ft.
350 Ft.
275 Ft.
675 Ft.
500 Ft.
'
.5 Ac.
.9 Ac.
1.0 Ac.
.5 Ac.
-
,.',
3d
Date
Jun 93
Jun 93
Jun 94
Jun 94
Jun 93
Jun 94
Oct 91
Oct 91
Oct 91
Oct 91
Oct 91
Oct 91
"
•
Oct 91
Oct 91
Oct 91
Oct 91
App
Amount
_
ied
Date
'
"
Narrative Record
344 — Crop Residue Use
Maintain at least a 50% cover
of plant residue from high
residue producing crops such as
corn, sma 1 1 grain, or soybeans
on the surface from harvest
unti 1 March 1. See the enclosed
Information Sheet, CROP RESIDUE
MANAGEMENT, NC-190-128 for
management and maintenance
deta its.
386 - Field Border
Establ ish field borders in turn
row areas at the approximate
locations shown on the
conservation plan map. See the
enclosed Information Sheet,
FIELD BORDER, NC-190-116 for
installation and maintenance
deta i 1 s .
Incorporate 50 1 bs 1 imestone
and 12 1 bs 10-10-10 fertilizer
per 1000 sqft. Seed 1 Ib of
KY31 per 1000 sqft.
412 - Grassed Waterway
Establish grassed waterway at
the approximate location shown
on the conservation plan map.
Construct according to SCS
standards and specifications.
See Information Sheet, GRASSED
WATERWAY, NC-190-112, for
seeding and maintenance
deta i 1 s .
Establ ish fescue sod.
The appI ication and maintenance of this conservation practice
for compliance with the Food Security Act of 1985.
19
s requ i red
-------
TABLE 3. Sample Field Office Technical Guide Sheets
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Technical Guide
Soil Conservation Service Section III
North Carolina October 1987
COMPLIANCE WITH HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND (HEL) PROVISIONS
OF THE FOOD SECURITY ACT (FSA) OF 1985
Background
Traditionally, the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) has contained
information for planning and applying resource management systems to
conserve, protect, and enhance the resource base. However, FSA refers to
conservation systems. Conservation systems are the erosion control
component of resource management systems and, as such, become the minimum
acceptable level for FSA unless there are approved alternative conservation
systems in the field office Technical Guide.
Policy
The goal of SCS is to assist land users plan and apply resource management
systems. It will continue to be the basis for formulating conservation
alternatives to be presented to land users. However, if for Food Security
Act purposes, a land user indicates a desire to meet only the minimum
requirements of the law, the following program policy is applicable for the
conservation compliance provisions:
a. Basic Conservation Systems - Each FOTG contains a set of basic
conservation systems for erosion control on cropland. These are
systems that adequately control erosion on cropland and represent the
cropland erosion control component of a resource management system.
b. Alternative Conservation Systems (ACS) - In North Carolina, alternative
conservation systems, as shown in the Guide Sheets, are acceptable for
compliance with the highly credible land provisions of FSA.
Alternative Conservation Systems are based on the typical conservation
systems that are socially acceptable and-'are being practiced by the
producers who are recognized by their peers as having made a
significant reduction in erosion. Water disposal systems must be a
part of any ACS where concentrated flow erosion is a problem. Listed
on pages 12 and 13 are the counties by Major Land Resource Areas.
The following Cropland Guide Sheets are included for all MLRA's.
1. Resource Management Systems
2. Basic Conservation Systems
3. Alternative Conservation Systems
20
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Technical Guide
Soil Conservation Service Section I I I -A-2
North Carolina MLRA 133A
September 1987
Alternative Conservation Systems (ACS)
Guide Sheet
MLRA 133A - Southern Coastal Plains
Predominant Crops - Flue-Cured Tobacco, Corn, Soybeans, Peanuts, and Cotton
See Section II-A for Highly Erodible Mapping Units
The following are typical alternative conservation systems (ACS) that are acceptable for
compliance with the highly credible land (HEL) provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985.
Capability Subclass He .
ACS No. 1
Crop Residue Use or Cover Crop
Contour Farming
Terraces ./
Grassed Waterway_
ACS No. 2
Conservation Cropping Sequence (1 - row crop, 2 - small grain-no till soybeans)
Conservation Tillage
Crop Residue Use.,
Grassed Waterway_
ACS No. 3
Any combination of practices in Section IV of the technical guide that reduces annual
erosion rates to a comparable level of protection as provided by any of the above ACS
for this capability subclass.
Capability Subclass 1 1 le & Subclass Ills
ACS No. 1
Conservation Cropping Sequences (tobacco, peanuts, corn or corn, peanuts, cotton or tobacco,
soybeans, corn) Sweet potatoes may be substituted for tobacco.
Crop Residue Use or Cover Crop
Terraces
Contour Farming ,/
Grassed Waterway_
ACS No. 2 (For eroded phases on 2 - 8 percent slopes only)
Conservation Cropping Sequence (1 - row crop, 2 - small grain-no till soybeans)
Conservation Tillage
Crop Residue Use., /
Grassed Waterway_
ACS No. 3
Conservation Cropping Sequence (1 - no till corn, 2 - snail grain-no till soybeans)
Conservation Tillage .
Crop Residue Use. ,
Grassed Waterway_
ACS No. 4
Conservation^ Cropping Sequence (1 - row crop, 2 - small grain-sod)
Stripcropping
Crop Residue Use. ,
Grassed Waterway
,/ ~
ACS No. 5
Any combination of practices in Section IV of the technical guide that reduces annual
erosion rates to a comparable level of protection as provided by any of the above ACS
for this capability subclass.
21
-------
The total amount of land eligible for enrollment in the CRP
is limited to 25% of each county, except where the Secretary
makes special exceptions. The purpose of this restriction is to
limit disruption of local economies that depend heavily on
farming activity. Where the economy is not adversely affected,
and producers have difficulty complying with conservation plans,
the 25% cap may be waived. Land is enrolled through a bidding
process during published sign-up periods. Ten sign-ups have been
held through October 1991, with a total of more than 34 million
acres enrolled (see Table 4 for CRP sign-up data) .
III. "Sodbuster"
This provision requires farmers who break out HEL that was
not planted to an annually cultivated crop between 1980 and 1985
to develop and implement an approved conservation plan to remain
eligible for farm program benefits. Sodbuster is targeted at
reducing the incidence of fragile lands being plowed in
especially sensitive areas, such as the Great Plains. It also
decreases the chance of highly erodible land being placed under
cultivation to replace land placed in the CRP (USDA, 1986) .
Prior to passage of FSA, government subsidy programs
promoted conversion of pasture, rangeland, or forest land to
crops by providing greater income than land in permanent
vegetation. However, after a few years, productivity gains are
often replaced by high erosion rates and loss of soil,
accompanied by the negative impacts on air and water resources.
As with the compliance provision, the SCS provides technical
assistance in plan development and review. Violations are
investigated and reported to the appropriate agency.
IV. "Swampbuster"
"Swampbuster11 is another provision of the Conservation Title
designed to protect wetlands through the same mechanism as the
HEL provisions; i.e. loss of eligibility for farm program
benefits when wetlands are converted to make it possible to plant
an annually cultivated crop. It is important to mention in
conjunction with the HEL provisions because producers who violate
the "swampbuster11 provision may also lose benefits on land that
is highly erodible, so that the incentive to comply with those
provisions is removed (USDA, 1991) .
Also, "swampbuster" impacts some HEL rangeland that would
otherwise not be under conservation planning, because of its
application to wetlands that are converted to water developments
for livestock (Fontenot, pers. comm., 1991).
22
-------
Table 4. CRP sign.up Data
CRP FIRST THROUGH NINTH SIGNUP - EROSION ON CRP ACRES BY STATE - TONS/ACRE/YEAR
NUMBER
OF
CONTRACTS
TOTAL
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERTO RICO
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS ";/
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA'
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
333,395
9,043
42
0
2,937
493
6,083
.1
29
2,228
13,794
1
3,437
14,910
9,122
30,666
29,827
7,397
1,571
911
550
5
4,930
25,400
11,830
.19,557
7,503
13,323
10
0
28
1,511
1,500
5,891
18,172
5,870
8,332
1,943
2,417
7
0
6,354
12,116
9,809
— 18,268
982
9
2,914
3,996
34
16,849
793
ACRES
CONTRACTED
33,922,565
519,529
25,375
0
225,353
183,054
1,953,042
10
985
123,013
663,156
85
791,061
633,580
364,729
1,970,159
2,861,785
416,799
132,907
37,222
16,058
32
196,304
1,830,672
726,897
1,504,412
2,720,134
1,348,929
3,124
0
661
480,765
54,605
137,040
3,137,199
254,129
1,155,449
517,150
92,464
440
0
265,514
2,084,557
429,352
3,921,377
232,320
187
73,938
975,320
610
604,060
257,022
SOIL LOSS
BEFORE
CONTRACT
20.9
19.0
5.8
0.0
15.5
15.0
27.6
15.0
9.2
16.3
13.7
5.0
17.5
21.2
17.5
19.7
18.1
36.1
13.3
8.0
11.0
8.0
13.5
18.1
22.8
20.1
14.5
24.1
17.1
0.0
18.0
44.5
14.1
18.1
15.7
13.2
24.5
12.7
18.2
36.4
0.0
14.0
11.7
24.1
37.3
18.9
14.2
19.2
14.9
11.5
15.2
14.5
SOIL LOSS
AFTER
CONTRACT
1.6
1.2
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.4
2.9
3.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.4
0.0
1.8
3.0
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.3
2.7
0.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
2.1
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.0
1.4
NET
EROSION
REDUCTION
655,632,981
9,262,162
118,128
0
3,214,291
2,496,189
48,373,834
120
7,805
1,879,683
8,336,660
340
12,555,336
12,762,181 -
5,922,233
36,258,631
46,499,899
14,323,459
1,597,500
262,049
158,029
222
2,400,211
30,901,480
15,574,917
28,402,419
35,553,840
30,234,603
49,130
0
10,673
19,927,486
703,283
2,283,534
45,241,802
3,085,198
26,495,577
5,746,346
1,559,277
14,816
0
3,438,000
21,682,770
9,854,256
138,072,958
3,810,420
2,371
1,307,799
13,331,200
6,000
8,556,204
3,357,660
Source: USDA - ASCS
"Logo- Package"
23
1-22-90
-------
V. Conservation Easements
Under the conservation easements program established in
the FSA Conservation Title, farmers may cancel portions of
financial debt owed to the Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) in
exchange for permanent conservation easements on their land. Such
an easement puts conditions on the property deed about how a
certain portion of land may be used and conveys management of
that land to an entity such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Thus far conservation easements have mainly been used to
mitigate damage to, or to protect wetlands and endangered
species. An official of FmHA was not aware of any highly erodible
land under an easement, although it is theoretically possible
under the program. Use of easements might be one approach to
preserving farmland near nonattainment areas, and simultaneously
protecting air quality.
The conservation easements program has been utilized very
little to date. This is attributed by some as being due to the"
strong streak of independence characteristic of most farmers, who
are reluctant to accept government interference in their
operations. (Wieferich, pers. comm., 1991).
The potential for conservation easements to protect HEL was
advanced in a recent survey by the SWCS of people with land
enrolled in CRP as to their future plans for the acreage. Among
the many options probed in the work were the conditions under
which land- owner/operators would be willing to sell an easement
restricting their property uses. Amount and timing of payments,
base acreage protection, and haying/grazing rights were some of
the variables explored.
The acceptability of the alternatives offered varied, with
slightly over one quarter to almost three quarters of the
respondents expressing a willingness to sell an easement under
some conditions. This level of response indicates a good
opportunity to use the conservation easements concept to protect
HEL and air quality at the same time (SWCS, 1991) .
24
-------
Section IV. The Study
METHODOLOGY
Research for the project was divided into three parts. In
the first phase a literature review was conducted to gain a basic
understanding of soil conservation, wind erosion, and
agricultural policy. More written information was acquired as it
became known to me and available.
Next, government officials involved with Food Security Act
implementation and air quality problems were contacted and
interviewed in person or by telephone. Field visits were made to
interview USDA officials in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina,-
and Washington, B.C. Other people involved in the formulation of
agricultural policy were interviewed in Washington, as well.
These contacts served to familiarize me with program operations
and the actual circumstances of policy implementation at
different levels.
The other part involved the formulation and application of a
survey questionnaire directed to 9 state Soil Conservation
Service offices. The survey is described in detail in the
subsection prior to the discussion of results.
Preparation of this report entailed interpretation of the
survey results in combination with organization of other
available information. Criteria for evaluation, and sources of
useful information are presented in the following subsections.
Pertinent material is included in the text discussing survey
results to facilitate comparison and to provide a broader base
for evaluating the provisions' effectiveness at reducing
agricultural fugitive dust emissions. A discussion of results
state by state is first presented, followed by a comparison of
responses among the nine states by question topic.
25
-------
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The following categories list the major criteria used in
this evaluation of the FSA - Highly Erodible Land provisions,
and some of the limitations involved with using the available
information.
Level of Participation in Farm Programs -
The FSA provisions only apply to farmers who receive some
form of farm program benefits. They are not mandatory for all
farmers. The more producers in benefit programs, the broader the
potential impact. Participation fluctuates annually.
Location of Acreage under Provisions -
The impact of the provisions on land in areas deemed
critical for PM-10 air quality, i.e. near a nonattainment area,
large population center, or areas which are emission sources for
such places, would yield the greatest emissions reductions. Not
all critical areas are presently identified.
Amount of acreage under provision -
The more acreage potentially affected the better, although
erosion rates vary tremendously in many states. Also, the linkage
between loss of benefits for wetlands and HEL violations could
remove the incentive for a farmer to implement conservation
measures on the type of land not found in violation.
Types of conservation measures used -
Some methods are more effective at reducing soil erosion by
wind than others, but these and their acceptability to producers
may differ by region. Cost plays a big role in deciding which to
employ. Better soil savings generally result from using Basic
Conservation Systems than Alternative Conservation Systems.
Annual soil loss savings -
This figure varies both from field to field, and year to
year. Estimates may be based on inaccurate information, or
inappropriate factors used for calculations. One needs to get the
best information available, and to find out how many fields that
can potentially reach the soil loss tolerance (T) value are doing
so. The ideal of bringing erosion down to the T value reflects
the soil's productivity condition, and may not be directly
26
-------
relevant to the level of PM-10 emissions.
Level of Monitoring and Enforcement -
The more monitoring, the more likely violations will be
detected and corrected, or avoided by farmers in the first place.
The greater the enforcement, the more farmers will perceive that
USDA is serious in demanding compliance with conservation plans,
so that a higher level of compliance should result. It is
impossible to tell from the data how lenient inspectors are.
There is a need to have some balance between stringency and
laxness in order not to anger farmers so that they withdraw from
USDA programs, have the provisions repealed, or drive them out of
business.
Level of compliance -
The greater the level of compliance, the less erosion will
occur, all other things equal. The less erosion, the less PM-10
will be emitted, assuming the association between PM-10 and
agricultural wind erosion is accepted. The level of compliance
with the FSA-HEL provisions is not a precise measure of PM-10
reductions.
Also, by following the example of role models, a community
will gradually come to accept conservation practices, and reap
the other benefits (soil productivity, profits,etc.) along with
reduced erosion and improved air quality. Compliance figures can
be expected to vary annually, and the trends could change
direction once the first phase of implementation is complete.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Even before examining available evidence, it can be
predicted that the conservation provisions will generally be
effective at reducing soil erosion by wind nationwide, and this
will be helpful at lowering agricultural fugitive dust emissions.
This is because implementation of the Food Security Act will
result in improved soil conservation.
However, some regions of the country, some states, and some
parts of states will exhibit substantially greater erosion
reduction than others. These patterns will shift with changes in
the commodity market, land prices, climatic conditions, and
agricultural program policies.
In order to judge the effectiveness of the FSA provisions on
air qiiality-in a particular area of concern (i.e. nonattainment
area), one must investigate at the local (county or conservation
district) level.
27
-------
The kinds of information which are useful are:
- location of highly erodible land
- percentage and acreage of land subject to provisions
- number and percentage of producers participating in programs
subject to the conservation provisions
- whether Basic or Alternative Conservation Systems are being
used
- estimated wind erosion rates and reductions, or soil loss
savings
- level and trends of monitoring
- level and trends of compliance
- level and trends of enforcement
- plans for CRP land after contracts expire
Sources for this information include the following:
Maps showing the location of HEL on a national or regional
basis are available from the USDA National Cartographic Center
and GIS Division of SCS. The GIS office has the capability of
transposing layers of relevant information onto a single map.
Other factors that are useful for delineating land susceptible to
wind erosion are temperature, precipitation, and soil type
profiles. Overlays that will indicate potential soil erosion
reductions include data on use of conservation tillage,
enrollment in CRP, or previous soil bank programs, and Great
Plains Conservation Program contracts. Individual states may also
have maps detailing these important attributes already prepared.
To find out about level of participation in farm programs
subject to the provision, the state or county ASCS office should
be contacted. These offices have data on how many producers there
are, along with how much HEL acreage and where it is located.
ASCS can also provide information about CRP enrollment, types of
vegetation established and dates of contract expiration.
The ASCS also maintains a computerized data base called the
Conservation Reporting and Evaluation System (CRES) that contains
information about all conservation practices which employ cost-
share funds. CRES identifies by state and county, each field
where practices are applied, including the date and type of
practice (Linzenbigler, pers. comm.,1991).
In addition, the SCS uses a computer program to assist in
conservation planning in most offices, and records of plans are
kept in case files, along with other pertinent information. In
the future (around 1995) all field offices will be equipped with
an automated computer system through which all FSA conservation
data will be recorded in a standardized format (Probst, pers.
comm.; 199IT.
Detailed information on the use of conservation tillage
practices can be acquired from the Conservation Technology
Information Center (CTIC), a division of the National Association
28
-------
of Conservation Districts, administered cooperatively among the
agricultural industry, government agencies, and private groups.
CTIC publishes an annual report with data on the amount of
acreage under various conservation tillage practices by crop
type. The 1991 publication contains additional data on CRP land,
HEL and HEL-treated acres by county and state. This will be
extremely useful in determining the extent of land influenced by
the FSA provisions.
Estimates of average annual wind erosion by state are found
in the National Resources Inventory, conducted every five years
as mandated under the Resources Conservation Act (see Appendix
2). On a county or district level, the SCS makes estimates for
planning purposes, including potential soil savings. These
estimates are aggregated to derive a statewide erosion estimate.
Point samples of individual fields may also be available for some
localities, but few plans contain site-specific erosion rates at
present (SWCS, 1991). Scientists from the ARS involved in wind
erosion studies can also provide detailed data on study sites -
including, in some places, figures about particle size
distribution (Fryrear, pers. comm., 1991).
The 10 Great Plains States (Colorado, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Texas, and Wyoming) each produce an annual wind erosion
conditions inventory, submitted to the Resources Inventory
Division at SCS national headquarters. The report contains
information on land and crop damage from wind erosion, land in
condition to blow, and land protected by emergency tillage.
Reports are available on a county basis, where wind erosion is a
problem, through the local SCS office. County reports are
aggregated at the state level, then sent on to Washington, where
the final regional report is compiled. The reports are especially
useful for comparisons between states and over time, as they have
been done for over 50 years (see Appendix 3).
The SCS and ASCS and other USDA agencies, such as Farmers
Home Administration and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation,
work together on monitoring and enforcement. Information on
monitoring levels and trends can be obtained from state and local
level SCS offices. The national headquarters also compiles
practice application data in progress reports (see Table 5), but
these are often incomplete or less detailed than desired (Probst,
pers. comm., 1991).
State and local offices of ASCS have information on
violations and amount of benefits withheld which is also compiled
at the national level. A summary of national data was recently
released by ASCS . (See Appendix 4.) However, until the automated
system is in operation at all local offices, it will be hard to
obtain thorough and accurate data on this important aspect of
program implementation (Lewis, pers. comm., 1991).
It can—be assumed that the level of compliance will be
directly related to the levels of both monitoring and
enforcement. If few fields are monitored, or if inspectors are
lenient in judging whether the practice application meets
29
-------
compliance, the amount of land and level of compliance is likely
to be lower. Likewise, if reported violations are reversed in the
appeals process, or minor monetary sanctions are imposed, there
will be less incentive for producers to comply.
On the positive side, USDA has prepared several evaluative
publications about the CRP, which was the first of the provisions
to be implemented and the most popular overall. These include
state-by-state statistics on amounts of acreage, types of
practices applied, number of contracts, annual rental rates, and
cost/benefit analyses.
Unfortunately, no such agency evaluations have been done for
conservation compliance or sodbuster, in part because the
provisions are in the early phase of implementation, and data is
lacking and/or inconsistent. Also, the agency apparently prefers
to direct its scarce resources to other things, rather than focus
on programs which may prove less well executed than some would
like (Berg, Lewis, pers. comms., 1991).
30
-------
FSA COMPLIANCE ft 1991 IhjiiD OUAS1ER
PLAN PROGRESS TABLE 5. FSA Progress
25-jui-9i • Report
FSA COMPLIANCE FSA COMPLIANCE FSA COMPLIANCE FSA COMPLIANCE
PLAN - NUMBER PLAN - ACRES PLAN - NUMBER PLAN - ACRES NUMBER ACRES
STATE TOTAL TOTAL INSTALLED INSTALLED PCT PCT
TOTALS:
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH \
VERMONT '"'
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
PUERTO RICO
1,277.721
23,567
53
2.027
6,204
2,731
22,806
514
. 172
3,164
24,709
52
9,764
77,653
59,987
120.872
68,362
88.080
3.565
2,606
6.518
945
13.051
34,961
21,700
57.524
16,351
57,983
427
260
2.001
9.079
20,831
44,238
20,709
35.911
30,365
28,765
36,978
42
6.330
16,289
61,539
61.854
5,117
2,221
35,874
7.501
3.583
118.787
2,976
123
135,332.279
1.691.223
51,840
910.515
493.455
983.573
9,749.749
11,099
11,128
215.244
920.878
81,309
3,041.469
4.303,356
2,603,382
10,774.831
12,240,382
3,285,225
212,129
147,578
306,180
16,285
634,388
2,083,035
1,561.376
6,160.702
13,775,933
9,619,657
146,773
5.698
78,291
1,852,475
925.454
1,375.807
5,364,606
1,732,675
4,952,813
1,538,352
1,996,884
442
369,219
3,893,353
2,438,949
12.857,781
647.624
95,649
1.006.830
3.648.732
84,214
3.424,768
1,000,697
8.272
584.583
4.916
22
1.580
3.824
1.865
9,495
190
99
2.634
16,898
44
3,964
32.304
17.096
28,844
44.435
48.864
2.100
2,100
1,813
500
7.140
18.995
11,067
24,735
5,886
24.550
312
98
736
5,077
10,450
12.010
8,299
11,492
13,141
17,547
12,401
38
3.688
10.303
21.575
37.698
2,813
941
11,303
2.621
2.757
80,710
2.589
24
60.164.698
424,591
24.386
717.000
290.030
713,978
3,169.902
2.897
4.231
156.391
667.994
31.706
1.233.946
1,789,960
741,904
2,547,842
8,050,783
1,448.207
136,919
123,032
78,342
7.397
330,565
1,040.688
797.548
2.619,728
5,036,849
4,443.412 •
119,296
1,785
23,772
783,246
460,411
352.852
2.323.476
556.325
2.030.201
979,125
715.781
400
200,225
1,728,815
895,526
7.472.203
368.251
42,642
290,641
1,236,525
61,691
2,077.226
812.271
1.784
45. 8X
20. 9X
41.5%
77. 9X
61.6%
68.3%
41.6%
37. OX
57.6X
83.2%
68.4%
84.6%
40.6%
41.6%
28.5%
23. 9X
65. OX
55. 5X
58.9X
80.6%
27.8X
52.9X
54. 7X
54.3%
51. OX
43. OX
36.0X
42. 3X
73.1X
37. 7X
36.8X
55.9X
S0.2X
27. 1X
40. U
32.0X
43. 3X
61. OX
33. 5X
90. OX
58.3X
63.3X
35. IX
60.9X
55.0X
42.4X
31. 5X
34. 9X
76.9X
67.9X
87. OX
19. SX
44.5%
25.1%
47. OX
78. 7X
58.8%
72.6X
32. 5X
26. IX
38. OX
72. 7X
72. 5X
39.0X
40.6%
41.6%
28.5X
23. 6X
65.8%
44. 1X
64.5%
83.4X
25.6%
45.4%
52. 1X
50. OX
51. 1X
42.5X
36.6X
46. 2X
81. 3X
31. 3X
30. 4X
42.3X
49. 7X
25.6X
43. 3X
32. 1X
41. OX
63.6X
35.8X
90. 5X
54. 2X
44.4X
36.7X
58. 1X
56.9X
44. 6X
28.9X
33.9X
73.3X
60.7X
81. 2X
21. 6X
31
-------
Other sources of information on levels of monitoring,
compliance and enforcement include the Soil and Water
Conservation Society reports; Implementing the Conservation Title
of the FSA. reports by the GAO, an audit by the Office of the
Inspector General of selected states, and academic research on
the provisions. The SWCS has also conducted and published results
from several surveys of both agency personnel, and producers. The
most recent report deals with how CRP acreage will be used after
the contracts expire. Although the SWCS survey results are not
considered statistically reliable on the national level, they
provide the most in-depth and comprehensive picture of how the
implementation process is proceeding at present.
The major limitation to almost all available sources of
information about soil conservation and wind erosion is that they
are gathered and recorded from the perspective of people
concerned with agriculture, rather than air quality. As such,
they stress on-site effects, such as soil productivity and crop
damage, rather than off-site impacts like the health consequences
of impaired air quality.
Besides this understandable bias, another problem is that
exact figures from different information sources are not
identical. For instance, the acreage totals noted in the EPA
survey results vary somewhat from those noted in the FSA
compliance progress report. This is to be expected for several
reasons. One is that the information is gathered for different
uses, and possibly from different sources. Also, since many
states do not have automated databases, figures may not be
consistent at different administrative levels. There may also be
technical errors in documents- and data which go undiscovered
through the review process. In addition, data may be derived from
more recent or older publications. Hence, implementation and
compliance status may have changed from one source to another.
32
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The purpose of the survey was to gather information which
will aid the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in
determining the effectiveness of the FSA in reducing fugitive
dust emissions from agricultural land. The survey format was
chosen in order to obtain information about a standard set of
questions and to have a written record of the information. This
information was supplemented by telephone interviews with SCS
personnel in each state office and field visits in Arizona and
Colorado.
The USDA-SCS offices in the following 9 states were
surveyed: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington. The survey was
limited to....9 states due to paperwork restrictions by the Office
of Management and Budget. Also, the agricultural wind erosion
problem is concentrated in the Western United States.
The states were chosen on the basis of their NAAQS
nonattainment designation and the probable contribution of
agricultural dust to PM-10 emissions, high potential wind
erosion, large amounts of cropland and geographic location. The
sample is not representative of all states and should not be
extrapolated to the rest of the country.
A questionnaire was developed following the principles
outlined in Dillman's Mail and Telephone Surveys: Total Design
Method. The survey addressed the level of participation in farm
programs and FSA provisions by acreage and number of producers,
the types of crops grown, conservation methods used, technical
and cost-effectiveness of measures, levels of implementation and
compliance with provisions, producer attitudes, and the approach
used and difficulties encountered by the SCS staff (see Appendix
5 for survey and Appendix 6 for survey results) .
Most of the questions asked for information to which the
survey respondents have ready access. However, the series of
inquiries about producers attitudes elicited opinions which may
not accurately reflect the producers perspective. Unfortunately,
the possibility of surveying a sample of producers was not within
the scope of this study.
Formulation of the survey was more complicated than
anticipated, as draft copies had to be prepared, reviewed,
reworked, and submitted for approval through the proper
administrative channels.
Ensuring that all survey responses were received, and
clarifying their meanings was an additional, time-consuming task
that involved more extensive telephone interviews. Hindsight
provides guidance about questions that could have been asked and
were not, and others that could have been more clearly worded.
The most prominent example is the series of questions that deals
with participation in farm programs and conservation planning.
There ,was frequent confusion about whether numbers and
percentages referred to producers or farms, and as to which total
33
-------
the "total number" asked for. Perhaps a pretest involving another
state SCS office in addition to the reviews would have avoided
this problem, yet it would have meant sacrificing a sample point.
INTERPRETATION BY TOPIC
HEL CROPLAND
The first set of questions elicited background information
about the relative amounts of cropland and HEL cropland in the
states surveyed. Among the 9, total cropland ranged from 1.3
million acres in Arizona to 33 million acres in Texas. The
portion of cropland designated HEL varied from a low of 12% in
Georgia to a maximum of 85% in Arizona. Most values were between
40 and 50% HEL. Land determined to be highly erodible due to
wind erosion ranged from 0 in Georgia to 99% in Arizona. Wind
erosion was the predominant factor in HEL determination in
Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas as well.
The designation of HEL was considered accurate in all
states except California and Arizona. In both states, the
inapplicability of the climatic (C) and inherent erodibility (I)
factors used in the equation to determine HEL (CI/T) was cited as
the reason for inaccuracy. The factors do not take into account
human management activities that affect erosion potential, such
as irrigation or crop residue (Hunter, Crawford, pers. comms.,
1991). According to the State Resource Conservationist, it is
necessary to use irrigation to produce a crop in Arizona, and
when the cropland is under irrigation, it does not suffer wind
erosion (Robert Crawford, pers. comm., 1991). Some of the Western
states have petitioned SCS headquarters, and were recently
granted permission to use different criteria to certify that
certain producers are satisfying the FSA erosion reduction
objectives (Bunter, Crawford, pers. comms.,1991).
The survey also inquired about the geographical location of
HEL. This item is important because many data sources for both
agricultural and air quality control information are available
and useful only on the county/local district level. It was
reported that HEL was concentrated in 7 out of the 9 states. The
areas noted in the survey responses may be compared on a map
featuring highly erodible lands to see whether wind erosion and
consequent air quality problems may be predictable prior to
monitored violations (see Figure 5) . This is in fact the case in
Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington.
Although Kansas and Oklahoma are not among the nonattainment
areas, that may be more an artifact of the existing monitoring
system (or lack of stations) than of the true wind erosion
emissions situation.
34
-------
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Occurrence of lighly Erodible Land on Cropland
on Non —Federal Lands
cres within Counties
(in 100's of acres)
1 to 27
28 to 60
61 to 105
M 106 to 160
j | 170 to 260
261 to 399
400 to 660
661 to 1200
BE 1201 to 10000
~]None
SOURCE: 1982 Noturol Reiource
Inventory. Dola were sannpled for
•totlitlcal reliability at the
v«l of Major Land Reiource Areas,
and may be unreliable al tr-« County level
Alb«n Equal Area Projection
Map generated with GRASS 4.0 / MAPGEN
NHQ CIS Project, Washington, D.C.
Figure 5.
-------
LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION
The next section covers the levels of participation by
producers in farm benefit programs and conservation planning. The
replies reveal that over half the producers in all of the states
included receive some form of farm program benefits subject to
the HEL conservation provisions. The level ranged from lows of
52% in Oklahoma and 55% in California, to 95% in Colorado. Of
course, the absolute numbers are also important. There is
considerable variation in these. Arizona has the fewest, 2096,
while Kansas boast over 100,000 participating producers, more
than twice as many as the next closest in number, Oklahoma.
A series of questions was posed to find out how many
producers in each state have developed conservation plans, or
would give up their farm benefits because they do not have a
plan. The law (1985 FSA) required producers to have an approved
conservation plan by January 1, 1990. The SCS has reported a 93%
completion rate on 133 million acres (USDA, 1985) . Yet survey
responses indicate a lower rate among the states sampled, with 6
states giving percentages in the 90's, and Kansas and Washington
estimating 60% and 70% of producers with plans, respectively.
Several responses, including the one for Kansas, indicated
that all producers who receive benefits are expected to complete
plans eventually. The planning process has been a cumbersome and
sometimes tedious process for both agency staff and producers to
go through. Especially where there are large numbers of
producers, planning can be delayed or compromised by time and
personnel shortfalls. The Soil Conservation Service is acutely
aware of this problem. It was mentioned repeatedly during
interviews, and noted in the survey responses. Also, many plans
have been and will be revised over time to be both more practical
to implement and achievable for compliance purposes.
To gauge the effect of the planning requirement on farm
program participation, respondents were asked to estimate the
number and percentage of producers who would give up benefits
because they do not have a plan. All states gave figures of less
than 10%, which reveals both that farmers are expected to comply
with plan development, and that some leeway in the completion
date is likely to be granted. The range in this response may also
be indicative of how the provisions are accepted by different
regions of the country. In places where there is a more negative
response to conservation planning, a higher non-participation
rate is to be expected. Alternatively, the attitude adopted by
the implementing agency may render the plans more of a formality
than a rigorous exercise, thus encouraging farmers to stay in the
programs.
The amount of acreage under conservation plans in each state
is anb'ther "measure of the impact of the provisions. The acreage
is significant both as an absolute amount, and as a percentage
relative to the total amount of HEL and cropland within the
state.
36
-------
CO
UJ
cc
o
<
LL
O
LAND UNDER CONSERVATION PLANS
HEL AND TOTAL CROPLAND ACREAGE BY STATE
40
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
to
c
(D
TX
WA
total cropland
HEL cropland
Land under plans
-------
Figure 6 shows the amount of land under conservation plans,
highly erodible land, and total cropland acreage of the 9 states
surveyed.
The smallest acreage covered by plans occurs in
Georgia, which is not surprising as Georgia is an Eastern state,
with the lowest percentage of HEL cropland among those surveyed
(and none due to wind erosion, according to the reply) . However,
the 501,400 acres listed as being included in conservation plans
was only 66% of the total state HEL.
Only California recorded a lower percentage of HEL under
plans. At 800,000 acres, conservation plans cover just 48% of the
HEL cropland. This figure may be explained by the similarly low
proportion of farmers who receive USDA benefits in California.
Many farms raise specialty fruit, nut and vegetable crops which
are not included in the USDA commodity program (Adler, pers.
comm., 1991).
In contrast, percentages for the remaining states were
quite high. Except for Arizona's reported 84% of acres under
plans, the other states claimed rates of 90 % and greater.
Washington judged that all its HEL would be under conservation
plans, and in Oklahoma apparently much land that is not HEL is
already include in "regular conservation plans." This last
comment reflects the fact that the 10 Great Plains States have
been targeted for special conservation assistance through the
Great Plains Conservation Program since 1957, along with other
USDA agency efforts to reduce erosion (USDA, 1987).
The combination of high percentages of producers
participating in farm programs with proportionally large amounts
of (HEL) acreage under conservation planning means that a great
potential for reductions in soil erosion, including wind-moved
soil, is being realized in many states. These survey results may
be compared to SCS projected 50% reductions of all types of
erosion.
. Another way of looking at the erosion reduction is in terms
of soil savings. In reply to the inquiry about the average annual
soil loss savings due to implementation of the FSA provision,
figures of 5.2 - 16 tons per acre per year were offered. The
numbers were arrived at by averaging county-level erosion
estimates, which often vary greatly. Conservation plans in most
places do not contain specific pre-plan erosion estimates,
although such information is calculated at certain sample points
in most counties and extrapolated for the total acreage in
similar condition (SWCS, 1990a).
These -averages can be compared with data from the 1982 and
1987 National Resources Inventory (NRI), which separates erosion
rates; for wind and water, and in relation to soil loss tolerance
values to judge improvements over time (see Appendix 2) . The 1982
38
-------
NRI summary is the more detailed report, giving information on
erosion in relation to Land Capability Class and subclass as
well.
The estimates of soil loss savings demonstrate considerable
amounts of erosion reduction. The actual savings depend on
baseline erosion. In some instances the initial rate may be as
high as 30 t/ac/yr or more. Soil loss tolerance (T) values vary
according to soil type. Most soils have a T value of around 5
t/ac/yr. Conservation plans are designed to reduce erosion to T
under basic systems, or "substantially" (generally around 2T)
under Alternative Conservation Systems (Fryrear, pers. comm.,
1991).
More accurate estimates of erosion reduction will be
available after the next National Resources Inventory is
conducted in 1992. Even those estimates may underestimate the
positive impact the FSA provisions will have, since plans do not
have to be fully implemented until January 1, 1995. In many
places practices are scheduled for application within the last-
two years before the deadline, so the 1992 NRI will only reflect
reductions achieved up to that date.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Among the states surveyed, 5 out of 9 responded that
plans called for practices to be applied "mostly in the last two
years," rather than evenly throughout the period from 1990-1994.
In many places, conservation plans were written for later
implementation largely for the convenience of farmers, who were
skeptical about enforcement of the provisions and reluctant to
adopt conservation measures. This delay means that opportunities
for farmers to make adjustments in their operations will be
limited, as will a thorough evaluation of both compliance levels
and the effectiveness of the practices in conserving soil.
Many SCS personnel encourage farmers to try out some of the
new techniques before the deadline, so that problems can be
corrected and compliance eventually achieved. A district
conservationist in Colorado explained his system of making
observations about the condition of a farmer's fields and
potential compliance problems when working in area, perhaps the
year before a scheduled spot-check, so that the farmer could be
notified of potential problems and rectify them to reach
compliance in time (Riggle, pers. comm., 1991).
This example demonstrates the skepticism with which
farmers in some regions have greeted the new requirements. In a
survey by SWCS, 23% of producers said they did not believe
benefits would be denied if they were found in violation of their
conservation plan. Another 28% of producers responded that they
did not know whether benefits would be denied in those
circumstances (SWCS, 1989). Hopefully these attitudes will change
with time and more experience on the parts of both USDA and
producers.
39
-------
CONSERVATION PRACTICES
A series of questions probed the kind and effectiveness of
practices used to reduce wind erosion. Ten choices were offered,
along with space for others to be added. They include those
listed in the section on conservation measures. Although crop
residue management was not listed as a separate choice, it. is
implicitly included in the categories of stubble mulching and
minimum tillage. Minimum tillage was crossed out and replaced
with "conservation" tillage in several of the survey responses.
Therefore, distinction between the two will not be made in this
analysis, and the .broader term "conservation tillage" will be
used.
The measure used in all states surveyed is crop rotations.
-The next most frequent are cover crops and stripcropping. These
are followed, in order, by conservation tillage and revegetation,
along with stubble mulching. Shelterbelts ranked next, before
bufferstrips. In Arizona, irrigation was noted to be the main -
method used, as well as the most technical and cost-effective
method.
In other states, the order of reporting practices deemed
most technically effective at reducing erosion was topped by
conservation tillage. This was just ahead of cover crops and
stubble mulching, then revegetation and stripcropping(4),
followed by crop rotations (3), Shelterbelts (2), and finally,
bufferstrips (1) .
Conservation tillage was additionally cited as the most
cost-effective method by 7 states. Stripcropping was listed by 3,
and stubble-mulching by 4. Individual states judged crop
rotations, bufferstrips, Shelterbelts, revegetation, and
irrigation to be the most cost-effective. Residue management was
specifically noted by Washington and New Mexico in this light.
The results described above reveal that in every state, a
combination of measures is being relied on in conservation plans.
That is, most plans utilize several methods, and the combination
depends on what is most suitable both for the producer and for
the land under production.
In most responses, several measures were noted as the most
technically effective. The variety of answers reflects
differences in regional topography and types of crops grown. It
also means that producers have some latitude in choosing which
methods to adopt, depending on their circumstances.
The inquiry about cost-effectiveness elicited both a
narrower range and more single responses. This may mean that less
is known about the relative cost-effectiveness of measures by
respondents, or that this aspect is not of as great of a concern
to SCS personnel as it is to producers. Certainly, plans are
formulated to allow producers flexibility in meeting compliance
targets. —
Decisions often reflect ran appraisal of the short term costs
and benefits of the options available rather than the long-term
consequences of investments in soil conservation. Programmatic
40
-------
features that facilitate gradual implementation, such as cost-
sharing or extended compliance schedules, may ease the
fundamental shift in perception. A fuller discussion of the role
of economics is found in a later section.
MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE
The next section of the survey deals with monitoring and
enforcement of conservation plans. Prior to 1991, the only plans
which would have been checked are those covering cropland being
broken out under "sodbuster" or those plans developed for the
purposes of establishing permanent vegetative cover under a CRP
contract. Sodbuster requires farmers to first give notice of
their intention to cultivate new highly erodible cropland, and to
fully apply an approved conservation plan before breaking the -
land out. Land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve must be
checked to ensure that permanent vegetation has been
satisfactorily established in order for annual rental and cost-
share payments to be made. Information on implementation rates is
contained in the discussion of results by state.
Monitoring of conservation plans under the compliance
provision is conducted by SCS, which reports the status to the
ASCS. Procedural changes in FSA implementation have been frequent
since the legislation was enacted, but currently each local
office conducts an annual review of 5% of the SWCD plans, and the
state then checks 5% of the plans reviewed. Fields are selected
on a random basis at the national headquarters, and the list is
sent to each state and local office. Producers are not supposed
to be notified until within 30 days of the planned inspection,
and often they are not present for the event. A producer will be
advised if a violation is detected; otherwise, this is not
necessarily the case (Brannon, pers. comm., 1991).
Information about the monitoring effort throws light not
only on the level of compliance among a state's producers, but
also on the attitudes of the USDA offices involved toward
accomplishment of the provisions' objectives. Several sources
suggest that there is a range in both attitudes and degree of
seriousness with which the monitoring and enforcement process is
carried out (SWCS, 1990, GAO, 1990).
One of the difficulties is conducting the status review at
an appropriate time of the year, when the scheduled practice is
likely to have been applied. Because of the nature of
agriculture, it is necessary to inspect many farm fields within a
fairly short period. The timing must fall usually after harvest,
at a point when the correct tilling operations have been
performed, but before too much residue has decomposed, for
instance. Shortfalls in staff may mean that reviews are done at
inappropriate times, so that a full determination cannot be made
41
-------
or additional effort is needed (SWCS). Other constraints noted
by field personnel are inadequate training and inconsistent
methods of evaluation. As noted in the SWCS report, and confirmed
by a district representative, many times field personnel simply
appraise the level of crop residue by visual inspection, which
may or may not be sufficient to judge compliance (Higgle, pers.
comm., 1991).
Only 3 states recorded status reviews of conservation plans
at the state level in 1990. All but one had done inspections at
the local level however. Texas noted a review rate of 10% at both
the state and local levels. Other states reviewed 5% locally, and
12-13% of those were checked at the state level. Very few plan
violations are reported. Three states showed no violations, while
five states had less than 10 each. Kansas noted 63 violations, in
line with the relatively larger acreage and number of producers
in Kansas. All the violations involved small acreages of land,
according to the figures given by respondents. Kansas also led in
sodbusting violations, with 53, although there were 20 noted in
Oklahoma as well. The 3 sodbusting violations recorded in
Colorado involved extensive acreage (44,000 acres) far higher
than all other states combined. This last example demonstrates
the broad scope within the provisions' influence. (For the most
recent ASCS violation data, see Appendix 4) .
The data on monitoring and enforcement indicates a rising
trend in both the number of status reviews conducted and
violations observed. This is to be expected as FSA implementation
continues into its second phase. Several survey respondents
mentioned that the number of plans in each state will fluctuate
annually as fanners make new decisions about program
participation based on market prices and other factors . In
addition, many farm tracts are reconstituted each year, with
changes in farm size and number of fields which complicate the
review process. However, the number of status reviews conducted
annually should become relatively stable over a 5-year period,
unless drastic changes occur in the sector.
As agency personnel become more comfortable with FSA
procedures on review and appeals, and as more practices are
scheduled to be applied, there is likely to be a steeper rise in
the number of violations. At this time, SCS and ASCS do not have
a coordinated and consistent computerized reporting system
installed at all field offices, so it is extremely difficult to
track implementation progress. Officials in the headquarters
offices which oversee the program and compile compliance
statistics said that such a system is being brought on line, but
that it would not be fully operable until 1995. Until then,
complete data in a standardized form will not be available for
program analysis (Probst, Lewis, Maas, pers. comms., 1991).
However, the data that are available in the form of SCS progress
reports and the ASCS violation report, is included in different
sections of this report for comparison purposes.
42
-------
ATTITUDES OF PRODUCERS
In order to get an idea of how producers perceive the
conservation provisions, respondents were asked to rate fanners'
attitudes on a scale of 1 (positive) to 5 (negative) (See Table
6). Conservation compliance and sodbuster were given fairly
negative ratings (mostly 4's) by all states except Kansas. This
was also the case with the conservation easements program. The
program was not asked about in detail in the survey, and has
hardly been utilized anywhere. The only exception was Oklahoma,
which reported that easements are seen positively there.
The most favorably received of all provisions is undoubtedly
the Conservation Reserve Program, which provides farmers a
financial incentive to retire fragile land. CRP is the "carrot"
among a bunch of "sticks." Farmers are unaccustomed to mandatory
conservation requirements. Arizona is the only state where CRP is
viewed negatively. To date, only 1 contract has been accepted
there, and most cropland is considered too valuable to keep out
of production (due to the associated water rights) or under
contract (due to land speculation) for 10 years. On the other
hand, producers in most of the other states surveyed and Texas,
in particular, have benefitted tremendously from the CRP (as has
the environment), and would probably like to see the program
continued after the initial contracts expire.
The various kinds of conservation measures encouraged
by the SCS are generally seen in a positive light, according to
respondents. This finding may reflect the optimistic thinking of
soil conservation professionals, and it may also be a true
perception. Yet the answer given by Washington state claiming
that producers harbor the whole range in attitudes is probably
more realistic. Attitudes vary both within and among states, and
will continue to do so, as the circumstances of implementation by
individuals evolve.
TABLE 6 Attitudes of P:
and Measures
CONSERVATION
COMPLIANCE
SODBUSTER
CONSERVATION RESERVE
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
CONSERVATION MEASURES
roduc
1 =
AZ
3
4
5
5
2
ers 1
Posil
CA
4
4
2
4
3
towar
Live
CO
4
2
1
3
2
d Coi
GA
4
4
2
4
3
iserv
KS
2
2
2
4
1
•atioi
NM
5
5
1
3
4
a Pro
5 = N
OK
4
5
1
1
2
visi<
egat
TX
4
4
2
5
2
ans
Lve
WA
4
4
2
5
1-
5
43
-------
When asked why producers implement conservation measures,
the most frequent reason cited first was fear of benefit loss.
Four states ranked it number 1, two rated it second, still
another third. Interestingly, in Arizona, it was judged the least
important reason. Instead, following the example of peers was
seen as number 1 by both Arizona and California. This reason was
judged to be the least important in 5 other states. The second
most important reason noted for implementation was that farmers
traditionally used such conservation methods. This was cited
first by New Mexico, and by 4 states as number 2. The breakdown
in position between third and fourth most important reasons is
not easy to distinguish. Better yields and higher profits were
the two options, and the closely linked. The differences in
rankings that do occur point out important differences in
motivation to practice soil conservation, however.
On the other hand, lower profits was deemed one of the least
important reasons for farmers' resistance to adopting
conservation measures. Happily, the other most-commonly
disregarded reason for resistance is that farmers don't care
about soil erosion. While this perception may be true in the
abstract, the SWCS found that most producers actually have little
real awareness about the seriousness of erosion problems on their
land, and do not make decisions based on the impacts on soil
conservation (SWCS, 1990).
The reason which received the highest rating is that farmers
don't want to change their traditional way of doing things. This
is confirmed in remarks made by the Washington state resource
conservationist who echoed a middle-age producer as saying that
he had worked for years to develop a farming system that would
allow him to live, and he didn't want to be forced to make more
adjustments so late in the game (Tibke, pers. comm., 1991).
Another important reason is that farmers lack the capital to
make expensive investments in soil conservation. Too much time or
equipment required for adopting the measures is also a factor,
linked to the lack of capital. The agricultural sector suffered
through a big crisis in the early 80's, and those farmers who
survived are reluctant to extend themselves economically.
The possibilities of technical assistance being lacking, or
that farmers were not concerned about soil conservation received
the lowest marks overall. One respondent added that the reasons
listed for resistance were more often perceptions on the part of
producers than valid reasons.
Obviously, it would be desirable to compare the results
obtained from the surveys to a set of responses from producers
within the states represented, and particularly in areas with
wind erosion problems. The SWCS reports contain more in-depth-
surveys of producers on some of these (and other) topics that are
useful for "reference.
44
-------
SCS METHODS
The survey asked several questions about the development of
conservation plans and what methods are used in an effort to get
producers to adopt soil conservation practices. No single
technique emerged as the number one way for SCS to contact
farmers for the purpose of writing a plan. The most commonly
noted means were either when farmers visited the local SCS
office, or conversely, a visit by the SCS staffer to a farm.
Letters are used by Georgia and Oklahoma as the primary means.
Group meetings and public notice are the least commonly used ways
to involve producers in plan development.
Conservation plans are developed on an individual basis,
both on-site and off, in almost all of the states surveyed. Group
planning apparently supplements this process in most states as
well. A big effort was made by USDA to produce and distribute
educational materials, including a videotape and special
workshop, designed to facilitate conservation planning. Some of
the material is excellent, and has certainly served to increase
awareness of FSA requirements on the part of the public and
producers. It is not clear, however, whether the information was
equitably distributed, and what regional variations existed in
reaction to the approaches taken.
Group planning may speed up the planning process where the
workload is heavy. Yet it may also compromise the quality and
appropriateness of individual plans, so that additional time is
necessary for individual explanation and readjustment. In any
case, the reliance on developing a plan on an individual basis is
evident in the responses. Even where group planning was used, it
was in conjunction with individual plan development.
In relation to conservation planning, SCS must deal with
producers who are resistant to the adoption of conservation
measures which are perhaps new and troublesome to them. Again,
there was latitude in the responses, but the most important means
appear to be visits by SCS staff to the farm, followed by
individual meetings with the farmer (at the SCS. office). The use
of group meetings, publications, and peer role models are seen as
more intermediate importance, while audio-visual presentations
and radio messages are the least used, overall.
These results demonstrate the historic tradition of soil
conservationists working personally with their
constituent/clients. Repeatedly in the literature and in
interviews with agency personnel, concern emerges about the shift
in agency role from one of being an advisor/advocate to becoming
that of a regulator, a situation disliked by most in the field.
Regarding ways of involving non-program participants in soil
conservation, no clear patterns were obvious in the replies.
Special events followed by public notice rate higher than other
methods, which all were mentioned in different orders by the
states. Due to the big workload, it is surprising that effort is
45
-------
made to involve producers who don't receive benefits in
conservation outreach, and that effort is impossible to evaluate
since the extent of it is not noted in the questionnaires.
PROBLEMS AND OUTLOOK
The last section of the survey inquired about specific
problems in program implementation that have been encountered at
the state and local level within SCS. Also, respondents were
asked how the state views the future of the FSA conservation
provisions. These questions were framed in an open-ended format.
The responses listing problems have been grouped by frequency of
occurrence (see Table 7).
The most common difficulty, mentioned in 7 replies, is that
of frequent changes in policy, procedures and regulations.
Revision of rules and policies has happened so often that agency
staff become frustrated, and sometimes lose credibility with
producers. Some are changes that have major impacts, like the
blanket acceptance of Alternative Conservation Systems without
requiring economic justification. Others are more in the realm of
details, such as methods for measuring residue or reporting
procedures. The national Food Security Act manual is in a loose-
leaf binder so that additions and deletions can be easily made,
but implementation is not so simple.
Such changes require time and training, which were also
reported to be lacking by some. Revisions usually occur
relatively early in the course of program implementation, and
diminish in frequency once the program is underway. However,
passage of new Farm Bill legislation, termination of one program
phase, or unexpected events (like a drought) might cause new
adjustments to be made any time.
The other common complaint is the shortfall in staff to
handle the huge workload. In one county alone in Colorado, the
SCS was faced with developing 6000 plans. The amount of work in
Kansas, which has over 10Q,000 producers must also be
overwhelming. The SWCS report notes that lack of personnel "could
seriously compromise the effectiveness of the provisions" and may
become "acute" over the next few years (SWCS, 1990a) .
The other problem noted by 3 states is the annual
reconstitution of farms, whereby fields are traded or annually
leased among farmers, resulting in the need for farmers to get
newly organized conservation plans or sometimes special
consultation for technical assistance. Incomplete data on farms
is a related issue mentioned in 1 case, and lack of community
support for the provisions was noted in.,another.
46
-------
TABLE 7 Question #30 - SCS Difficulties in Implementation
PROBLEM
NOT ENOUGH STAFF -
BIG WORKLOAD
FREQUENT POLICY/
PROCEDURAL CHANGES
INADEQUATE TRAINING
RECONSTITUTION OF
FARMS
LACK OF COMM. SUPPORT
INCOMPLETE DATA ON
FARMS
DOCUMENTATION
REQUIREMENTS
AZ
•
CA
•
•
•
CO
•
•
•
•
GA
•
•
•
KS
•
•
NM
•
•
•
OK
•
TX
•
•
•
WA
•
•
•
-
Another question asked whether that SCS office operates
under the assumption that the FSA conservation provisions will
continue to be implemented after December 31, 1994. It is the
deadline date for full implementation of practices in
conservation plans. This point is significant in that it reflects
the seriousness with which the office views its task, an attitude
which may be conveyed to the producer clientele.
If the office assumed that the provisions would be revoked
after 1995, agency staff would have less reason to be committed
to full implementation and compliance before that date. The
legislative language is unclear on this point. However, an ASCS
program manager clarified that the conservation provisions are
indeed a part of permanent legislation, and should continue to be
in effect after 1995 (Webb, pers. comtn., 1991).
The replies received were consistently affirmative on the
future of all provisions except the Conservation Reserve Program.
For CRP, the answers varied from simple yes or no's to "until the
contracts expire," along with expressions of hope for the
program's extension. This is because the CRP encompasses
contracts which terminate in different years, depending upon the
initiation date. Also, some states have much more acreage
enrolled in CRP and thus, a higher stake in the program's
continuation. Accordingly, different views were expressed.
47
-------
AIR QUALITY ISSUES
The final survey questions concerned agriculture's role in
air quality. In seven states, producers were judged to be aware
of the contribution on agriculture to air quality problems. This
is an optimistic result, which may belie the truth. One reply
qualified the affirmative response by saying that although
farmers may be aware of the link, "most think it is of little
consequence. "
Respondents were also asked to identify any state or local
programs that protect air quality in farming activities. Four
state-level air quality control entities were noted, although no
detail was given except in the case of Texas. Agricultural
burning is regulated by the state in Texas, and some Washington
counties put controls on agricultural burning, too.
Colorado has a state "Dust Blowing Act" that empowers county
boards of commissioners to order a farmer to perform emergency
tillage to minimize wind erosion, or to pay for the state to
perform the control activities. In addition, Weld county passed a
special ordinance to halt sodbusting, with stiff fines for
violation (Hill, pers. comm., 1991).
It is probable that regulatory agencies and regulations to
control the impact of some agricultural activities on air quality
do exist in the other states, both those states included and
others excluded from this survey. Failure to identify such
entities is probably due to unfamiliarity, and lack of
interagency coordination on control efforts. Also, certain laws
and regulations may have a significant indirect impact on air
quality through erosion reduction, for example, yet they are not
thought about in this manner.
There may be other, special, state and/or local programs
that have positive impacts on air quality and which are
incentive-based, rather than regulatory. Such programs, in
combination with the regulatory approach, might provide
substantial air quality improvements if directed properly and
backed by committed implementation. Steiner presents an overview
of these by state in his recent book, Soil Conservation Policy
and Planning.
Further research in this realm is definitely warranted, and
it would be extremely valuable for all the agencies involved to
share information on these policy tools, the use of which could
benefit the conservation of myriad natural resources.
48
-------
INTERPRETATION BY STATE
Arizona
Among the states surveyed, Arizona has the least cropland
acreage, but 85% of it is HEL prone to wind erosion. Thus, the
state cropland needs protection from excessive erosion. The state
also has the fewest producers, but the highest percentage (90%)
that receive benefits. Of these, 93% have completed conservation
plans on 84% of the HEL cropland. So, in terms of participation
level and amount of acreage covered under plans, Arizona is doing
very well.
Yet, the state does not consider the designation of HEL
accurate because of problems with the climate (C) and inherent
erodibility (I) factors used in the wind erosion equation.
According to the Arizona State Resource Conservationist,
irrigation is required to produce a crop, and when it is used,'
wind erosion doesn't occur (Crawford, pers. comm., 1991). This
rationale would not apply to fallow land, however. If Arizona
succeeds in its appeal of the HEL designation on its cropland,
the potential for reducing wind erosion, and PM-10 emissions
through the compliance mechanism will be severely hindered.
Irrigation is the main method used to control wind erosion,
along with cover crops and crop rotations. Irrigation is also
considered the most technically and cost-effective method.
In Arizona, practices are scheduled for implementation
evenly throughout the 1990 -1995 period. This means that soil
savings will be realized sooner than in states where practice
application is delayed until 1994-5.
The number of plans that have been through status review
more than doubled from 1990 to 1991, and no violations of
compliance or sodbuster were detected. The FSA compliance
progress report for the third quarter of 1991 shows that
conservation practices have been installed on almost 79% of the
acres under plans, among the highest of all states. These figures
indicate that levels of monitoring and compliance are good,
although the strictness of enforcement is hard to gauge.
Producers were judged to be neutral toward the compliance
provision, more negative about sodbuster, and most negative about
CRP and easements. Also, producers do have an awareness of the
contribution of agriculture to air quality problems.
Only one CRP contract is currently in effect in Arizona. The
cropland is apparently too valuable either for crop production or
for land speculation, to tie up for a 10-year period. So, the
higher air quality benefits gained from CRP land will not be
realized in Arizona.
49
-------
California
This state has a relatively large amount of cropland
acreage, with about 14% HEL. Less than half is HEL due to wind
erosion, although the concentration of the land in the central
valley producing counties contributes to the existence of air
quality problems with a significant agricultural PM-10 component.
Only 55% of the state's producers participate in farm
benefit programs subject to PSA conservation provisions. Of
these, 90% have conservation plans covering less than half the
HEL cropland. The numbers reveal a less than optimum level of
participation as it relates to erosion control. Many of the farms
in the San Joaquin Valley produce specialty fruit, nut and
vegetable crops not covered in commodity programs. However, these
farm operations may practice some type of soil conservation, just
not done as part of an FSA conservation plan. In fact, the survey
respondent for the state mentioned that many do use some methods
to protect against erosion (Bunter, pers. comm., 1991). For this
study, though, the provisions must be considered less effective
due to the low participation level.
The main measures used to conserve soil are crop rotations,
strip cropping, stubble mulching, and cover crops. The first
three are seen as the most technically-effective, and the first
two are deemed most cost-effective. The fact that most practices
are scheduled for implementation within the last two years before
1995 means that soil loss savings will be lower than possible,
and more compliance problems may occur.
The questions on monitoring revealed that relatively few
plans have been spot-checked, and no violations registered. The
SCS progress report shows that 68% of practices had been
installed as scheduled on 72% of the acres under plans.
Statistics for CRP indicate that California had approximately
193,000 acres enrolled though the 10th sign-up. That figure is
low relative to the state's size and amount of cropland. This is
probably because land is more valuable for production* or
speculative purposes.
Colorado
Colorado has over 10.7 million acres of cropland. Eighty-two
percent of this total amount is designated HEL, and almost all
(98%) of it is included in FSA conservation plans. The state
suffers significant wind erosion, with over 80% of the highly
erodible land designated on that basis. The susceptiblejarea lies
east of the continental divide.
The state has the highest percentage (95%) of farmers that
receive benefits among all those surveyed. About 93% of these, or
19,500 have completed plans so far. The figure varies a little
each year as producers choose to participate or not based on
market prices, according to the survey reply.
50
-------
The average annual soil loss savings is estimated to be
around 8 tons/ac/yr., the lowest noted apart from Arizona.
Although there is a wide range of soil types and T values, most
plans employ basic systems, and the Alternative Conservation
Systems generally reduce erosion to 2T, or 10 tons/ac/yr.
Overall, this is estimated to decrease the rate by 60% over that
of non-treated land. The fact that in most plans the practices
are scheduled to be applied evenly over time will enable Colorado
to realize considerable soil savings even sooner.
Crop residue management via conservation tillage, along with
crop rotations, stripcropping, and revegetation are all methods
used in conservation planning. The most effective means are forms
of conservation tillage, including minimum tillage and stubble
mulching. Along with crop rotations, stubble mulching is
considered the most cost-effective.
Most plans are developed off-site through a combination of
group and individual approaches.
The number of plans going through status review has doubred
at both the state and local level from 1990 to 1991, and
comprises 5% of the total FSA conservation plans. Of those
reviewed, only one compliance violation was noted up to June 1991
affecting 80 acres. However, the 3 sodbuster violations which
have been detected represent 44,000 acres, a figure larger than
all the other states acreage in violation combined. Obviously,
the need for a strong monitoring and enforcement program exists
in Colorado, and the potential impact of the sodbuster provision
(and compliance) is great. The FSA progress report notes that
almost 42% of plans have been fully implemented on 32% of the
acreage under plans, which is a fairly low rate.
Surprisingly, sodbuster was judged to be fairly well liked
by producers, as were SCS conservation measures in general. The
CRP is especially well-received, and compliance rated negatively,
as usual. Statistics show that Colorado has almost 2 million, or
one-fifth of its cropland acres enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program.
Georgia
In Georgia, only 12% of the six million plus cropland acres
are designated HEL, all on the basis of potential for water
erosion. This state was included in the survey, nevertheless,
because certain portions do have a tendency to produce fugitive
dust emissions that may reach the point of NAAQS nonattainment.
The level of farm program participation is high, at 80% of
the state's producers. Ninety-five percent of these have
developed conservation plans covering two-thirds of the HEL
cropland.
The average annual soil savings of 10 tons/acre/year is
projected to result in a 50% cut in the erosion rate on HEL that
had np conservation practices applied previously. This is
accomplished through the use of ACSs, designed to substantially
51
-------
reduce erosion, but not necessarily to the T value.
Practices employed to lower wind erosion include cover crops
and rotations, bufferstrips, conservation tillage, strip cropping
and revegetation. All but the first two are viewed as being most
technically-effective, and the most cost-effective are
revegetation, conservation tillage and bufferstrips.
Again, in Georgia, most practices will be applied during the
latter two years before 1995, meaning that air quality benefits
from reduced erosion will be postponed.
The review of plans will probably reach about 10% next,
doubling from the number this year, in order to re-check some
that had not achieved complete compliance goals. Some leeway has
been allowed, as set at the national level, in reaching a
specified level of erosion reduction (i.e. 75% in 1991, 90% in
1992) . This procedure not only lowers the amount of reductions,
it increases the workload, potentially compromising the adequacy
of monitoring. However, the policy may also encourage farmers to
stay in the program and eventually adopt conservation measures
and the more regulatory approach taken in the FSA, rather than
dropping out and not practicing soil conservation at all.
Georgia recorded 6 compliance plan and 5 sodbuster
violations. Although the numbers and acreage involved is small,
it shows that monitoring and enforcement efforts are indeed
occurring in Georgia. Producers are likely to learn of this, and
take their obligations more seriously.
The FSA progress report indicates that over 68% of plan
practices have been established on 72% of the acres included in
plans.
The attitudes of participating farmers toward all the
provisions except CRP were seen as between neutral and negative.
CRP is viewed more positively. Statistics show that 676,000 acres
are enrolled in Georgia, slightly more than 10% of its total
cropland acreage, and almost equal to the amount designated HEL
for planning purposes.
Kansas
About 14 million of Kansas' 29 million acres of cropland are
designated HEL. One quarter of this amount is due to wind
erosion, and one quarter is due to both wind and water erosion.
Although only 62% of producers in Kansas receive farm program
benefits, conservation plans cover almost all (99%) of the HEL.
This means that the provisions are likely to be effective in
Kansas.
Also, plans call for a fairly high average annual soil
savinjgs of 16 t/ac/yr. Many different measures are used to
protect against wind erosion. Stubble mulching and minimum
tillage were deemed the most cost-effective, while technically
effec/tive methods also mentioned were shelterbelts,
stripcropping, cover crops and revegetation.
52
-------
In Kansas, these practices are scheduled for application
late in the 1990-1995 period, so less reductions will occur than
are possible. The average annual soil savings of 16 t/ac/yr. will
be significant when it is fully realized.
A little more than 5% of the plans will be reviewed, which
is 5,228 in actual numbers. So far, 63 conservation plans and 53
sodbusting violations have been recorded on a total of
approximately 11,000 acres. The FSA progress report notes that
practices have been fully implemented on 65% of both total plans
and total acres. Although this percentage is lower than the
previously described states, it is quite decent for a state which
has such a large planning workload.
Additionally, the producers are perceived to view all the
HEL provisions more positively than elsewhere, except for
easements. Kansas has the second highest amount of acreage
enrolled in the CRP at almost 2.9 million acres. Thus, the CRP
will be particularly effective at reducing wind erosion and
consequent fugitive dust in Kansas.
New Mexico
HEL makes up 79% of the 2.4 million acres of cropland in New
Mexico. All of the land is considered HEL because of wind erosion
potential. So, appropriate conservation measures could make a big
impact on erosion and consequent PM-10 emissions.
Just over 68% of the HEL is under conservation plans. Only
70% of the state's producers receive benefits subject to the FSA
provisions. These figures indicate that coverage by the
provisions is lower than the potential for New Mexico.
The 10 tons/ac/yr. average annual soil savings is
substantial, and means that most plans get erosion down to the T
value. Yet there is a big range in erosion rates throughout the
state, and some places where low residue crops are grown have
much higher rates.
Methods employed to combat wind erosion include cover crops
and crop rotations, along with minimum tillage, stripcropping,
revegetation, terraces and crop residue management. The use of
crop residue, and minimum tillage are seen as the most
technically and cost-effective measures.
The fact that these practices are scheduled for
implementation evenly throughout the 5-year period means that
erosion reduction will occur sooner, and hence be greater in
relation to other states.
The rate of monitoring is slightly above the national level
of 5%, with 3 plans on 1000 acres found in violation so far. No
sodbuster violations have been detected* "The national FSA
progress report lists a fairly low percentage of plans where all
the practices have been installed (56% of plans and 42% of the
acreage). These numbers reveal that implementation may be slower
than, expected, but that monitoring and enforcement are probably
53
-------
adequate.
Producers in New Mexico were judged to be more negative
toward the compliance and sodbuster provisions, and the use of
conservation measures in general than farmers elsewhere. The
survey response further noted that many of the reasons for
farmers' resistance to soil conservation were due to perceived,
rather than real, attributes. This attitude implies that agency
staff will have an especially tough time convincing farmers to
adopt the required practices, and may portend more compliance
problems than in states where conservation is better accepted.
On the other hand, CRP is well-liked by New Mexico
producers. The data shows that over 480,000 acres are enrolled,
which is in the intermediate range for all states. The location
of this acreage vis-a-vis areas with air quality problems is
critical.
Oklahoma
The state has 11.6 million acres of cropland, of which 4.75
million or 41% is designated HEL. The majority (65%) is due to
wind erosion, and this land is concentrated in about 8 counties.
Although only 52% of farmers participate in farm benefit
programs, they control 93% of the cropland base acreage,
according to the survey response. This means that most of the
cropland is subject to the FSA conservation provisions.
Additionally, 98% of the producers are estimated to have
conservation plans.
In Oklahoma, not only all of the HEL, but other cropland is
included in "regular conservation plans." Hence, erosion control
through soil conservation can be expected to be particularly
effective in Oklahoma. Perhaps this is because efforts have been
concentrated in this state which historically has fead severe wind
erosion problems. The rate of 10 tons/ac/yr. is a quite
respectable average annual soil loss savings.
Many measures are used to help prevent wind erosion. Those
deemed most technically- effective are revegetation, cover crops,
minimum tillage and shelterbelts. Of these, minimum tillage and
shelterbelts, along with stripcropping are the most cost-
effective. However, since the practices will mostly be applied
within the latter two years before 1995, some soil savings
opportunities will be missed.
The workload for monitoring compliance is heavy in Oklahoma.
Almost 2500 plans are scheduled for review in 1991, with 550
completed by early October. This was 1/3 more than 1990. So far,
6 plan violations on approximately 1000 acres have been recorded,
along with 20 sodbuster violations affecting an estimated 150
acres. These numbers indicate that monitoring and enforcement are
being conducted actively, with small rates of observed
violations.
/ Figures from the FSA progress report revealing only 43%
of plans on 41% of the acreage under plans having practices fully
54
-------
installed may reflect the large acreage involved rather than a
lower relative implementation rate in Oklahoma.
Like most other states, the compliance provision is viewed
fairly negatively by farmers, and sodbuster even more so. Yet the
Easements and CRP are seen in the most positive light. CRP
enrollment is quite high, with over a million acres, or about 10%
of the total cropland acreage.
Texas
Texas has the largest amount of cropland among the states
surveyed with more than 33 million acres. More than half of the
13 million acres of HEL is prone to wind erosion. That land is
concentrated in about 90 counties in 3 Major Land Resource Areas.
The percentage of farmers receiving benefits is estimated to
be very high, and 96% of the HEL land is included in conservation
plans. So, the FSA-HEL provisions can be anticipated to strongly
influence erosion and emission rates in Texas.
The whole range of conservation measures listed in the
survey are employed, with conservation tillage, cover crops,
revegetation and crop rotations considered most technically-
effective. Stripcropping, and conservation were mentioned as the
most cost-effective means to reduce wind erosion.
In Texas, these measures are scheduled for application
evenly throughout the 5-year period, so soil savings will be
realized more immediately.
The plan review rate of 10% at both the state and local
level is higher than required and reveals a strong monitoring
effort. Only 8 plan violations have been detected, and none for
sodbuster. This indicates that compliance is generally good,
although plans may be written to be more achievable and less
stringent than in other places.
The national compliance progress report shows that practices
on 60% of plans covering 58% of the acreage under plans have been
installed.
Attitudes of producers to the provisions are similar,
however, with a much more favorable attitude toward CRP than
compliance or sodbuster. Additionally it was noted that farmers
in Texas implement conservation measure to protect against wind
erosion in particular because they fear losing program benefits.
Almost 4 mi 11on acres are enrolled in CRP, according to
sign-up statistics. This represents a large fraction of the total
CRP, and the highest single state acreage. The fact that much of
the CRP land is located in the western counties subject to severe
wind erosion means that substantial air quality improvements are
likely to result.
55
-------
Washington
About one-half of Washington's 7.8 million cropland acres
are HEL. One- quarter of these are designated HEL on account of
wind erosion potential. Most of this land is concentrated in the
Southwestern corner of the state.
According to the survey response, all of the HEL is under
conservation plans, although only 80% of the farmers participate
in farm benefit programs subject to the FSA provisions.
The average annual soil loss savings is estimated to be 10
tons/ac/yr.
Of the various measures used to control wind erosion.,
stripcropping, crop rotations and cover crops, minimum tillage
and stubble mulching are viewed as the most effective. Residue
management by stubble mulching and minimum tillage are thought to
be the most cost-effective methods. Since most are scheduled for
implementation during the latter two years, erosion reductions
will be delayed and lower than possible.
Local offices will review 5% of the conservation plans, with
the state office to re-check 2% of those. None have been found in
violation so far, although 2 sodbuster violations covering 2886
acres were noted. Though the total number of plans is quite low
in Washington, the FSA progress report records that only 35% of
the practices have been fully installed on about 34% of the acres
under plans. This is a rather low rate, which may be indicative
of producers' reluctance to comply, and/or the postponement of
practice application until late in the cycle.
Attitudes in Washington toward the provisions follow the
same pattern as elsewhere with CRP being well accepted, and
compliance and sodbuster much less so. The whole range in
attitude toward soil conservation in general exists.
The amount of land in the CRP is close to 1 million acres, a
large amount of the total cropland, and approximately equal to
the amount of land susceptible to wind erosion. Much of this land
is located in those counties, so this program will be especially
beneficial in Washington.
56
-------
Section V. Economics and Future Agricultural Policy
ROLE OF ECONOMICS
Economics has proven to be the single most important factor
in the decisions made by producers about their farming
operations. This seems to be true both for highly erodible land
under the compliance provision, and for land enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program.
The concern about the economic pressure placed on farmers by
the FSA conservation provisions led to adoption of the rule
allowing Alternative Conservation Systems (ACSs) to be used.
Under this rule, farmers may employ practices that will result in
a "substantial reduction of erosion," but may not diminish soil
loss to the calculated T value. The rule was actually adopted in
response to the plight of farmers in regions that suffer from
severe wind erosion, where baseline rates are so high that
reaching a compliance level corresponding to the T value would
incur tremendous financial hardship and might even be impossible.
Because of USDA's perceived need to treat producers
equitably, the rule applies nationwide, and ACSs are widely
employed. One study found that, in no case where a plan using an
ACS was reviewed was there any evidence showing that economic
information was used in determining the need to apply an ACS
rather than a basic conservation system (SWCS, 1990b).
In the most recent SWCS survey, the only detailed study of
the topic to date, economics emerged as the primary factor in a
producer's choice about the future of land presently in the CRP.
Variables that influence the economic sphere are the levels
of government subsidies, input costs, and market prices (SWCS,
1991).
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Up to this point, extremely little investigation has been
done to explore the costs of wind erosion and the benefits of
improved air quality. The research on erosion from agricultural
land center on soil productivity and related on-site costs. Only
a few studies have looked at off-site impacts.
In a report by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of USDA,
the economic benefits of reduced wind erosion on air quality were
estimated using a technique developed by economist Steve Piper
(Ribaudo, et al., 1991). The method was developed from a study in
New Mexico which surveyed households on the damage created by
blowing dust. Most costs were incurred for cleaning and materials
damages, which increased with the number of dusty days. Although
the results showed that 35% of respondents suffered health
problems (respiratory), the costs associated with the health
57
-------
effects of wind erosion were not quantified.
The ERS report presents estimates of benefits from improved
air quality derived on both a per-acre and regional basis. The
method extrapolates the damage function generated for New Mexico
to other parts of the country. A range and a best estimate are
given to account for variable conditions. Benefits tend to be
underestimated because some categories, including benefits from
lower health risks, are not figured into the estimate.
The surprisingly high level of benefits ($586 million for
the Western states) related to air quality improvements are
significant for promoting wind erosion control as part of
national agricultural policy. The current emphasis on water
quality protection might be better balanced by concern for air
quality if more research on costs and benefits was undertaken.
THE FUTURE OF FARM POLICY AND THE CONSERVATION PROVISIONS
In the United States, various interest groups contribute to
the formulation of agricultural policy. These include groups
representing producers of commodities (the Dairy Association,
etc.), conservation districts (National Association of
Conservation Districts), farmland preservation (American Farmland
Trust), farmland owners (American Farm Bureau), resource
conservation (SWCS) , broader environmentalists (National Wildlife
Federation, Audobon, Sierra Club) and agency perspectives (USDA,
EPA), among others.
Agricultural policy follows a five year cycle, punctuated by
the passage of an all-encompass ing "Farm Bill." In the 1985 Farm
Bill debate a coalition of environmental and agricultural groups
formed which was able to secure passage of the Food Security Act,
including the Conservation Title. The provisions contained in the
title were a major departure from previous farm policy because
they link program benefits to resource conservation. This idea
had been advanced previously in discussions, and in the
literature, but the relatively easy enactment of such sweeping
changes came as a surprise to many. Also, it demonstrated the
growing power of environmentalists in the agricultural sector,
and a trend toward more cooperation between groups which had not
traditionally worked together.
During the 1990 Farm Bill debate, the coalition between
agriculture and environmental groups broke down, yet some
important amendments were passed which expand on the
environmentally-oriented programs begun in 1985. In fact,
according to Norman Berg of the American Farmland Trust, some
strong environmental provisions had to be included in order for
Congress to pass the legislation.
JThe 1990 Food, Agriculture,Conservation and Trade Act also
contains some program changes which give producers a break on
58
-------
some aspects of provision implementation. Most of these, like the
graduated sanctions for violations, are aimed at making
implementation more manageable, and encouraging long-term
compliance by producers rather than immediate punishment for
small transgressions.
What will happen to the Conservation provisions in the next
(1995) Farm Bill is unknown at this point, but the opinions of
government officials and private individuals involved in
directing future agricultural policy are fairly similar. The
overwhelming feeling is that the compliance and sodbuster
provisions will continue to be implemented after the next Farm
Bill. If anything; people felt, regulations on agriculture to
protect environmental quality will become more strict than they
are now and more encompassing. (Webb, Zinn, pers. comm., 1991) .
However, some concessions in deadlines are likely to be made
to help farmers reach compliance (Berg, pers. comm., 1991). This
will be necessary as many practices are not scheduled for
implementation until the last year or two, and producers may mot
have time to make adjustments to their operations which will
allow them to achieve erosion reduction targets. Massive plan
revisions will provide another reason for postponement of
sanctions.
The compliance and sodbuster provisions are part of the
permanent agricultural legislation, and are here to stay unless
things change drastically in the sector (Webb, pers. comm.,
1991) . Things could conceivably return to the situation
experienced in the late 70's when the worldwide demand for US
commodities caused then Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz to
admonish farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow." Yet, with the
current public concern for environmental protection, such an
admonition would likely get squashed before the conservation
provisions enacted in the Food Security Act and FACTA would be
rescinded.
It must be noted, though, that the present policy emphasis
is toward water quality protection, and this will detract from
air quality improvement by competing for funding resources in
program prioritization. For instance, the Conservation Priority
Area program established in the 1990 Farm Bill will likely target
regions where water quality is the dominant concern. Water
quality is specifically mentioned as a factor for consideration
of areas, whereas air quality is not, although it could be
included. Other programs focusing on water quality and supply are
included in the 1990 legislation, and the reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act is helping to keep water quality issues alive in
the minds of politicians and the public. The balancing of
society's interests between allocating resources for air versus
water quality protection and improvement is worth further
consideration, but could not be addressed here.
in terms of air quality benefits, the Conservation Reserve
Program has played an important role thus far, since the vast
majority of CRP acreage is enrolled in Western states subject to
high wind erosion rates. These were the cheaper acres to enroll
59
-------
nationwide. In some counties the 25% maximum has been exceeded
under a special exception by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The future of the CRP is especially important for air
quality benefits, and difficult to foresee at this time. If the
Conservation Reserve is extended, or transformed into an ongoing
program, it is quite likely that the land targeted for enrollment
would not fall in the same regions. Eligibility criteria would be
designed to capture more acreage in the midwest and Eastern
portions of the country, where greater water quality benefits may
be realized. This means that CRP acreage that formerly provided
air quality benefits would probably be re-converted to cropland,
since the economic return is much higher than as rangeland.
As noted elsewhere, economics is the single biggest factor
in a landowner/operator's decision about what to do with CRP
acreage after the contract has expired. This is probably the case
with the government's decision on CRP as well. It would be
worthwhile for EPA and USDA to further explore the costs and
benefits of alternative plans while there is still time to act".
The policy debate about the future of CRP is already
underway within USDA and the agricultural policy circle, yet
formulation of concrete alternatives will probably be postponed
until the 1995 Farm Bill is under consideration in Congress. This
means that some contracts will already have expired by the time
new legislation is passed.
Once contracts have expired, producers have 2 years to
implement conservation plans on HEL that is returned to
cultivation. Failure to provide new initiatives to protect the
investment made in environmental benefits by the Conservation
Reserve will force some producers to return marginal land to
production, and thereby relinquish some air quality improvements.
60
-------
Section VI. Conclusion
SUMMARY
* Efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the conservation
provisions and the implementation process have been limited so
far. Lack of a consistent reporting format and automated system
are major constraints both to the program and its appraisal.
* Results of the studies done so far, including the survey
conducted for this project, show that erosion reductions will be
less than the maximum possible, yet will still be impressive.
* Assuming the general correlation between PM-10 levels and
agricultural fugitive dust, the FSA-HEL conservation provisions
will be effective in significantly reducing PM-10 emissions from
wind erosion on highly erodible cropland in many parts of the
United States.
* There will be considerable variation in the effectiveness
of the provisions depending on many factors. These variables
include initial erosion rates, amount of acreage involved,
climatic events, attitudes of participating farmers, adequacy of
technical assistance, monitoring and enforcement by responsible
agencies.
* Those counties and states which have high percentages of
land enrolled in the CRP can expect the greatest soil loss
savings, and resultant reduction in PM-10 emissions.
* The conservation compliance and sodbuster provisions can
be expected to be implemented for the foreseeable future unless
conditions change drastically in the agricultural sector.
* The future use of CRP land is in doubt after the CRP
contracts expire. Different ways to extend the benefits derived
from CRP are being explored, but will not be decided until the
next Farm Bill (1995). However, subsequent land retirement
schemes can be expected to focus on water quality benefits to the
detriment of areas that suffer predominantly from wind erosion.
The amount of land returned to cultivation will depend on
the options available to producers and market conditions at the
time. This land will be subject to the compliance provision,
however, and appropriate conservation planning should assure that
wind erosion and PM-10 levels are minimized.
..., * Injnost states and certain localities, other regulatory
or incentive programs exist that might supplement the FSA
provisions in regard to their effect on air quality. These may
range from erosion ordinances to tax relief or bonds earmarked
for ;farmland or open space preservation.
61
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
* Research on the relationship of wind erosion to
particulate air pollution should be undertaken and supported by
USDA and EPA, along with efforts to quantify the costs and
benefits of improved air quality, especially health effects.
* EPA should continue to identify and prioritize areas of
concern where agricultural dust contributes to PM-10 emissions.
This may entail revision and expansion of the monitoring network,
along with efforts to model long-range transport of agricultural
fugitive dust.
* Increased numbers of personnel, especially in field
offices, and installation of a uniform computerized data-base
would make the greatest contribution toward implementation of
conservation plans, and overall evaluation of the FSA provisions.
* USDA should perform a periodic evaluation of program
implementation and progress after formulating criteria and a
standard methodology which cover the broad scope of the
conservation provisions.
* Program attributes that facilitate adoption of
conservation measures providing soil erosion reductions which
adequately protect air quality over the long-term should be
encouraged over harsh means that might cause producers to
withdraw from farm programs or provoke a backlash political
response to the provisions.
* Air quality improvements which are realized through
implementation of the provisions, especially CRP, should be
maintained into the future where possible.
* States could be directed to explore and implement already
existing alternative regulatory or incentive-based initiatives as
part of their air quality control program, rather than rely
solely on the FSA Highly Erodible Land provisions to reduce
agricultural PM-10 emissions.
* A joint EPA - USDA initiative to promote the benefits of
improved air quality should be pursued, as protection of the air
resource is part of both agencies' missions. Better coordination
and communication of concerns between regional offices of EPA and
state offices of USDA agencies would facilitate the effort to
reduce agricultural emissions and improve awareness of operations
by bo$h institutions.
62
-------
REFERENCES
Adler, Kenneth, U.S.EPA-Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation,
personal interview, Sept. 24, 1991.
AFT, Soil Conservation in America - What Have we got to Lose?.
American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C., 1984.
Berg, Norman, SWCS-American Farmland Trust, personal interview,
Sept. 23, 1991.
Brannon, Mark, USDA-SCS, Larimer County, Colorado District
Conservationist, personal interview, October 1, 1991.
Brock, Bobby G., Principles of Wind Erosion and the Wind Erosion
Equation with Factor Values for North Carolina. USDA, Soil
Conservation Service, 1984.
Bunter, Walt, USDA-SCS, California State office, telephone
interview, October 24, 1991.
Crawford, Robert, USDA-SCS, Arizona State Resource
Conservationist, personal interview. May 14, 1991, telephone
interview, October 28, 1991.
Dillman, Don A., Mail and Telephone Surveys; the Total Design
Method. John Wiley & sons, New York, 1978.
Fontenot, Wildon, USDA-SCS, Ecological Sciences Division,
telephone interview, September 9, 1991.
Fryrear, William, USDA-ARS, Big Springs, Texas, telephone
interviews, October 5 and November 5, 1991.
Gillette, Dale, NOAA, telephone interview, October 19, 1991.
Hill, Lee, USDA-SCS, Colorado State Resource Conservationist,
telephone interview, October 27, 1991.
Hunt, W.F., et al., PM-10 Monitoring Task Force Report. EPA-
450/4-89-016, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle park, N.C.,
1989.
Jutze, G. and K. Axetell, Investigation of Fugitive Dust Vol. I-
Sources. Emissions, and Control. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C., 1974.
63
-------
Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector, Network Design for Optimum Site
Exposure Criteria for Particulate Matter EPA-450/4-87-009, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1987.
Lewis, James, USDA-SCS, Office of Strategic Planning and
Programs, telephone interview September 25, 1991.
Linzenbigler, Michael, USDA-ASCS, Statistics Division, personal
interview, Sept. 24, 1991.
Maas, LaVonne, USDA-ASCS Compliance Branch, personal interview,
Sept. 25, 1991.
Nowak, Pete, Implementation of the Conservation Title of the Food
Security Act of 1985; A Descriptive Report on the Perspective of
the Producer. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa,
1989.
Piper, Steven. US Bureau of Reclamation (former USDA-ERS analyst)
Personal interview, Sept. 30, 1991.
Probst, Steve, USDA-SCS, Land Treatment Division, personal
interview Sept. 25, 1991.
Ribaudo, Marc O., et al. Natural Resources and Users Benefit from
the Conservation Reserve. Economic Research Service, Agricultural
Economic Report No. 627, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C., 1990.
Riggle, Frank, USDA-SCS, West Greeley, Colorado District
Conservationist, personal interview, October 2, 1991.
Steiner, Frederick R., Soil Conservation in the United States;
policy and planning. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Md., 1990.
SWCS,When Conservation Reserve Program Contracts Expire...A
National Survey of Farm Owners and Operators who have enrolled
land in the Conservation Reserve. Soil and Water Conservation
Society, Ankeny, Iowa, 1991.
SWCS, Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security
Act 1989 Final Report. Soil and Water Conservation Society,
Ankeny, Iowa, 1990a.
SWCS, Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security
Act 1990 Interim Report. Soil and Water Conservation Society,
Ankeny, Iowa, 199Ob.
Tibke» Gary, USDA-SCS, Washington State Resource Conservationist,
telephone interview, Sept. 19, 1991.
64
-------
USDA, Environmental Assessment for the Regulations Implementing
the Highly Erodible Land Conservation Provisions of the Food
Security Act of 1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C., 1986.
USDA, Environmental Assessment Selected Provisions of the
Conservation Programs Improvements Act of 1990. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1991.
USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
Conservation Reserve Program "Logo-Package". CEPD, ASCS, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1990.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Great Plains Conservation
Program Evaluation Part I: Executive Summary. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1987.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Summary Report 1987 National
Resources Inventory. Iowa State University Statistical
Laboratory, Statistical Bulletin No. 790, 1989.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Erosion by Wind.
Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 555, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, (no date)
USEPA, EPA-450/March 1988 APTI course SI:451 Introduction to PM-
10 SIP Development. Air Pollution Training Institute, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
1988.
USEPA, EPA-450/4-85-008, PM-10 and Fugitive Dust in the Southwest
Ambient Impact. Sources and Remedies. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle park, N.C., 1985.
USEPA, Particulate Matter Fact Sheet; "Health Effects Of
Particulate Matter". Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle park, N.C., 1991a.
USEPA, PM-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance; Final Staff Workproduct.
(excerpts to be incorporated into the General Preamble for Title
I, 1990 Clean Air Act), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle park, N.C., April 2, 1991b.
Webb,'Jack, USDA-ASCS, Conservation Reserve Program Manager,
personal interview, September 24, 1991.
Wiefejrich, Susan, USDA-FmHA, Conservation Easements Program,
telephone interview, October 19, 1991.
65
-------
Wilson, Dean, USEPA, Technical Support Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, personal interview, September 13,
1991.
Zinn, Jeffrey, Library of Congress-Congressional Research
Service, Natural Resources Division, personal interview, October
4, 1991.
LIST OF INTERVIEWS
Adler, Kenneth, EPA-Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation,
personal interview, Sept. 24, 1991.
Berg, Norman, SWCS-American Farmland Trust, personal interview,
Sept. 23, 1991.
Brannon, Mark, USDA-SCS, Larimer County, Colorado District
Conservationist, personal interview, October 1, 1991.
Bunter, Walt, USDA-SCS, California State office, telephone
interview, October 24, 1991.
Crawford, Robert, USDA-SCS, Arizona State Resource
Conservationist, personal interview. May 14, 1991, telephone
interview, October 28, 1991.
Fontenot, Wildon, USDA-SCS, Ecological Sciences Division,
telephone interview, September 9, 1991.
Fryrear, William, USDA-ARS, Big Springs, Texas, telephone
interviews, October 5 and November 5, 1991.
Gillette, Dale, NOAA, telephone interview, October 19 •, 1991.
Hill, Lee, USDA-SCS, Colorado State Resource Conservationist,
telephone interview, October 27, 1991.
Lewis, James, USDA-SCS, Office of Strategic Planning and
Programs, telephone interview September 25, 1991.
Linzenbigler, Michael, USDA-ASCS, Statistics Division, personal
interview, Sept. 24, 1991.
Maas, LaVonne, USDA-ASCS Compliance Branch, personal interview,
Sept. 25, 1991.
Piper;- Steven. US Bureau of Reclamation (former USDA-ERS analyst)
Personal interview, Sept. 30, 1991.
Probst, Steve, USDA-SCS, Land Treatment Division, personal
interview Sept. 25, 1991.
66
-------
Higgle, Frank, USDA-SCS, West Greeley, Colorado District
Conservationist, personal interview, October 2, 1991.
Tibke, Gary, USDA-SCS, Washington State Resource Conservationist,
telephone interview, Sept. 19, 1991.
Webb, Jack, USDA-ASCS, Conservation Reserve Program Manager,
personal interview, September 24, 1991.
Wieferich, Susan, USDA-FmHA, Conservation Easements Program,
telephone interview, October 19, 1991.
Wilson, Dean, USEPA, Technical Support Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, personal interview, September 13,
1991.
Zinn, Jeffrey, Library of Congress-Congressional Research
Service, Natural Resources Division, personal interview, October
4, 1991.
67
-------
AU-lUilD
I I cu b IA I tS. UbHMH I IVIcNl (Jt- AUHlCUL I URt
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION (HELC) AND WETLAND
Appendix 1. AD-1026 CONSERVATION (WC) CERTIFICATION
1. Name of Producer
2. Identification Number
3. Crop Year
4. Do the attached AD-l026A(s) list all your fanning interests by county, and show current
SCS determinations? If "No", contact your County ASCS Office before completing this form.
5. Are you now applying for, or do you have a FmHA insured or guaranteed loan?
6. Do you have a crop insurance contract issued or reinsured by the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation?
7. Are you a landlord on any farm listed on AD-1026A that will not be in compliance with
HELC and WC provisions?
8. Has a HELC exemption been approved on any farms listed on AD-1026A because the
landlord refuses to comply?
YES
9. List here or attach a list of affiliated persons with farming interests. See reverse for an
explanation. Enter "None", if applicable.
NO
If items 7 or 8 are answered "YES", circle the applicable farm number on AD-1026A.
During either the crop year entered in item 3 above, or the term of a requested USDA loan:
If a
10
10. Will you plant or produce an agricultural commodity on land for which a highly erodible
land determination has. not been made?— - - -
11. Will you plant or produce an agricultural commodity on any land that is or was a wet area
on which planting was made possible by draining, dredging, filling, or leveling or any other
means after December 23, 1985?
12. Will you, or have you since November 28, 1990, made possible the planting of any crop,
pasture, agricultural commodity, or other such crop by: (a) converting any wet areas by
draining, dredging, filling, leveling, or any other means, or, (b) improving or modifying a
drainage system?
13. Will you convert any wet areas for fish production, trees, vineyards, shrubs, building
construction, or other non-agricultural use?
YES
:
NO
. -. "YES" for any one of these items, sign and date in item 14 below. Circle the applicable
rtSWers to Items 10, 11 ,; !_ tract nymber on AD-1026A, or list in item 12 on AD-1026A. ASCS will refer this AD-102(
I to SCS for a determination. DO NOT sign in item 16 until SCS determination is complete.
"NO" for all of these items or SCS determinations are complete, complete item 16.
14. Signature of
Producer *^^"
15. Referral To SCS
/ hereby certify that the above information, and the information on attached AD-1026A's, Is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
• '• bate .
Enter a V if a SCS determination is needed because I—I Date Re(erred
(Completed by ASCS) "Yes" is answered in item 10,11, 12, or 13.
I I
Signature of ASCS Representative
NOTE: Before signing in item 16, Read AD-1026 Appendix.
16. Signature of
Producer *^
/ hereby certify that the above Information, and the Information on attached AD-1026A's, is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. It is my responsibility to file a new AD-1026 In the event there are any changes in my farming
operation(s). In signing this form, I also certify that I have received and will comply with the compliance requirements on
AD-1026 Appendix.
*~ bate
17. Remarks:
ORIGINAL - ASCS COPY
-------
Appendix 2. NRI Estimated Average Annual Wind
Source: USDA - Soil Conservation Service
Erosion by State
Summary Report
1987 National Resources Inventory
Table 8, Page 1 of 3
Estimated Average Annual Wind Erosion on Cropland, by State and Year
State
Year/Change
Cultivated Cropland
NonculUvated Cropland
Total
Cropland
Alabama
Arkansas
1982
«
Change
1982
1987
Change
> tons/acre/year •
0.0
QQ
o!o
0.0
QQ
0.0
rtn
2-2
U.U
0.0
r\r\
2-2
U.U
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
Arizona
1982
1987
Change
c 1 -sx „( 5 ~ ',/-'„:-'?: '£'?!*%%&
11.0 "', v- ";,( \x-~-~ *„ -?„
4.4
9.7
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
California
1982
1987
Change
c
Colorado
1982
1987
Change
11.3
.
0.6
.
10.0
Connecticut
1982
1987
Change
0.0
o.o
oio
:
0.0
0.0
0.0
Delaware
Georgia
1982
1987
Change
~
Change
Hawaii
1982
1987
Change
fl ft
w»w
A A
U.U
«
f\t\
U.U
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
0.2
o.o
8:1
0.0
-
0.1
Q 1
3 3
sis
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.5
Illinois 1982
1987
Change
0.0
0.0 %
0.0 f ~,
- .: ""' ••;*"*&" 0.0
- -- * - ,- -,"" o.o - "" '" '
-:: -' 0.0 . ,:„'-- -
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
0.0
Iowa
1982
1987
Change
2.3 '',"•'&'',',,«,";/&,/ ' ', ' ,,r- z
•0.3 ff * /*'*"' '*'" '*'" ' *•.'£$'"'?
0.0
0.2
i,"'*r/'.}4, >;;,•;/
*,?lf'?"f'f;''?0;y?f''"
%£$$%**,"
2.3
1 9
-0.4
3.1
3.7
0.6
Kentucky
1982
1987
Change
0.0
0.0
0.0
,?',
0.0
0.0
0.0
',
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
Summary Report
1987 National Resources Inventory
Table 8, Page 2 of 3
Estimated Average Annual Wind Erosion on Cropland, by State and Year
State
Year/Change
Cultivated Cropland
Noncuitivated Cropland
Total
Cropland
Maine
Maryland
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
Massachusetts 1982
1987
Change
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
New Hampshire 1982
Change
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
1982
1987
Change
North Carolina. 1982
1987
"•'•' Change
North Dakota 1982
1 987
.•/ Change
Ohio
1982
1987
Change
0.0 I- ; . , ' "';'- ' 0.0 " '"'f" '
0.0-. > - , -,< ;-~ o.o -~A -:•','- ,
0.0 : - -r~f: 0.0 ' "„; ;- -
0.2 f" "'
0.2 "-
0.0 v ,
0.0 f '- - '-<
0.0 r
0.0 //;
2.4 p>^>;
0.3
4.1
4.9 r - - ' ;
JT'S A^ •" ••••'
U.O £y<*., ' i , , ..
0.0 k;-;x;:^»,
0.0 &',
0.0 !"•> ,
0.9 ^- -.-.'/-
0.9 &' ' , -
0.0 i - „ ,„/
oo ; -,, v x ' ' '
O.fc S ' ;v*> v •• ^ .,
O A % > ^ ' x <
1 5 J^'/1 "A^j"'*<
1 •** fft •?'
2.0 c
0.5 £,; ^ ^ s
33.7 ^.' - - ,
45.5 <-, - ,
11.8 -,^-- ' - "
0.0 j* v* •>;-
0.0 ,>-''-
o.o ;;,,- ; ~,
0.1 """; -
0:1 **; •• " -
o.o r
7.5 '<"'"
86
1-1
0.0 :s* , ,_;
0.0 s - ^ ;-
0.0 •'-' - ,„;,;„'
0.3
0.3 ;
o.o -, ,4 ;
4.1
4.2 ',,
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
-•-'., 0.0 ""- ;
.'-.••• S:8 :vts:., -
, - 0.0 t, ^' '
'->^ 0.0 p <£>;-, ^
•. < 0.0 ^ '^/ <> ^
« n A ^'TC; ,s " l
•> ^' U.H W fAff*/ tf ff
" ""• 0.4 ~ -»;>--
!'"', 0.0 ^ ;, o.
«?Jxc_ K i.^Jr.
>,', 0.3 ^ 'A ^^w?j ™oCv
•f'^>-. > 0.2 %A >^vV; &&• ,. -.
, •. r^s^"' o.o «^"''/%vs ^ ^
^- ''..''•• i 00 * ^'™ "'»>'>'
^ •w£ 'AVSX'?'W^' s 3C* * sf"*ljwsSv? fj$fyvf tft'ff
f %•& f 5. 0.0 ^' V1s'-' X- y v'^
'•^ ^ -s.1. s % no ' ' v-w %• '..
-• ' * ^ ^ A ' U.*J , "•'§•?* x f
"., - XV;^ % ^ 0.2 >, ^;^^«^J
' ^ ^\>v<' U.O ' ^X- ^"-%^ 1.1 f^f'f^ •WvS^'^xCfrrfCCvC^'' x'
•w. A ^ji^vx" O O * % fv*yffff^f fff "•"• ff>
-. SfV>.**f \fMf1fJ- J "fc«fc fffffff* VfffMftvffffffff ff.
- '" *"-'.; 0.0 ^>v/«-
*',?/* 'o.o i-"* f- v
^™c>^ 0.0 l',"^<^ \
\''I'5?I 0.0 ;T"/V - ' —
' Vl' -4 0.0 *"',-- ^
,J'X:,,; 0.0 1 ",3;,
. ,»A, 0.9 \ , ;
. % ':~™ " 50 , ' '"
rv~4 4.1 - , -
f ^ f" • v f\ f
- v^ s o.O %'^,-y-^
^-\-'? 0.0 ; , " v~ "-:'/-
ixi'' r' ?,J"f, 0.0 ^ % ••
0.0
- '
-------
Summary Report
1987 National Resources Inventory
Table 8, Page 3 of 3
Estimated Average Annual Wind Erosion on Cropland, by State and Year
State Year/C
hange Cultivated Cropland
Total
Noncultivated Cropland Cropland
Oklahoma 1982 3.9 * "/ \ r. ' _ ,' W °-5 ' -' *•*#,'"* 3.8
1987 4.4 r-- x — , ~i, ',;,-«;"- 1.0 '- - , -4,-V- - 43
Change 0.5 ^ -,' " ?<$$&}, >'- 0.5 , "^^5^,/v o.5
Oregon 1982 2.6 "-'•"^^ , '
1987 2.1 '**' ,- , -
Change -0.5 £;. , < " -
Pennsylvania 1982 0.0 ^^.^/--f-^i^
1987 0.0 fi"
Change 0.0 &,-, - --'^ -
Rhode island 1982 o.O
Change o!o *'-''' '"^'i
South Carolina 1982 0.0 ',,,**,- V~
1987 0.0 ;''&"" -*i
change 0.0 *;,\fl&£''*.t!Sj
South Dakota 1982 '3.1 g'^*IS$
1987 2.7 ^V^J^C
Change -0.4 w^&jajfi^
Tennessee 1982 0.0 *1^te$!i5l3&
1987 0.0 s^*"'-' ""'
Change 0.0 j,~, ^,,-,^,
T-° J* IB HH
Utah 1982 3.3
oSS H
Vermont 1982 0.0 ^^^f^f,
1987 0.0 ¥•&'?*'" Y "-
Change 0.0 *'fo /*''*&„
Virginia 1982 0.2 r^>*2««£
1987 0.1 ',-'"'£*?2.
Change -0.1 '"',> - ^r,;
Washington 1982 3.6 * '&^^*&&
1 987 37 " " '" ' "^ ' '
Change oil **/ "?A / "-'' '
West Virginia 1982 o.O '/'/*-'%- '*'"
1987 0.0 V ' , *
Change 0.0 ' ' -"'
Wisconsin 1982 1.7 ' % ,- 4,»,
1987 1.8 '.tyf-rfjC'**'
Change 0.1 ;? ,;',;
Wyoming 1982 ^.6 "« ^
Change 3.1 ' '''-, ?,/"
Caribbean 1982 0.0
1987 0.0
/ Change 0.0 /
Total f 1982 3.4
1987 3.6
Change 0.2
-. ff *-ffif¥f']t" 0.1 s** »&%>• *f ff ' \ .7
c w£**£^3 0.0 , ^ 'v *.* f sfyf/ffffiff s -0.3
A/ f*^f* f $*^ f O ft * f* * jb^fff{ ft ft
', 7'* •*£!!*& O'Q ' ' x,7f^jp»,-< r-r
X '•> X "" V.W ^ ^ ^ < dff&r '*• W.V
, " , „ '^ <^? 0.0 t'^^^Ja'^tJil'* 0.0
-'*'s ' '?*?*!" °'° ;'T ™ift?'£ o'°
^'^ -,',^'^f 0.0 ' " "-, 0.0
*> -,^%'"x^ 0.0 L , ' ; ,' ,' 0.0
^'".*^Lfjg| 0.0 ^j/j;',J*,^'' - ' 0.0
yftf f"~f &•&•£>$$&•* ft 1 '^ ' •f/fff^ffff^^ fff O A
'4^ ^A^«^*/«tfS{^'^ ft*O ^pww^^f^SP*^*^'^' -V f\A
™4rC^^^^ oil ^B^^!T>^; ^4
"';,'" ''"^ '''••'' 'M no ~ "?'^i®f;' ' ' ' no
*%'V«"^^?B^. oio 1'''-^%^^*" o!o
'^V^m^^ 0.0 'vC -y^ J'/'^4 OiO
i-l HI
^*'/'%*<'*i«fc^w 0.8 tf'?"'^^^™-5 -. \sf, 2^1
,' , '*'„ /A>, 00 \ '"'''"?,' 00
'vv*y "jf.s *ff*r f ' f f A'f f W.W
3Uvj. fffJfff> *"35pyr f\ A >*tf , S'jJy/Ay %£&' 4 f\ t\
" , Z'i^^Sf no ' f'"~J$&' ""''' on
'',', ,;'^/^ 0.0 ^v'^V""'^'"' 0.1
''/'/' ">^* • 0.0 £,^#*5fL'%I% 0.1
'/ - "•;"'/"''''', 0.0 I'>^J'"'^ 0.0
'} ' 'i' ' "$ 't', n a ' ' ' '^" ' o o
,,.-, ;x,' */ v,' U.o ','t',r ,"'••$, 3.3
," ' ^^C?"' 1.3 J> ',*X. '/„, ? 3.4
''^£'y^/' 0.5 ^ , , ' 0.1
? flf: 0.0 j'^-fc «'"" 0.0
' ^i: 8:8 */3*v-' K
'
- - -V4?? 0.0 ;,,„,- V , - 1.4
-„'„ ,"^"'";?y»,'A 01 ; ;" "£%••%•?{, i 5
• -v^i Si ;r-~£i-;'-5 • J:? •
• .:£• If ^. ;.?;.v: II
,';'?'«/ ^).5 ;^ ^f'Sf, ' ', 0.9
0.0 ,. 0.0
0.0 ,, ' 0.0
o.o " : o.o
" ' 0.4 3.1
0.7 3.3
0.3 0.2
-------
Appendix 3. Excerpts from 1991 Annual Wind Erosion Report
Source: USDA - Soil Conservation Service
FINAL WIND EROSION REPORT - GREAT PLAINS
1990-91 SEASON
PERIOD III: 3/1/91 -5/31/91
This report is a summary of wind erosion conditions in the
Great Plains on May 31, 1991. Figures for land damage and
crops or cover destroyed are cumulative from the beginning
of the reporting season (November 1, 1990). Acreage of land
protected from wind erosion by emergency tillage and acreage
of land in condition to blow are non-cumulative for the
period only. Figures are based on estimates from Soil
Conservation Service field offices in cooperation with other
USDA field representatives and local authorities. Reports
were submitted from 541 counties in the Great Plains States.
Counties reporting are those in which wind erosion is
prevalent or is expected during the current wind erosion
period. Wind erosion figures for this same period last
year, long term averages, and figures for record years are
given for comparison.
LAND DAMAGED
A total of 8,181,120 acres were reported damaged by wind
erosion this season. This is about 400,000 acres more than
last year (7,838,000 acres), and 2.1 million acres more than
the 35 year average (5,677,000 acres). Of the total
damaged, about 91% (7,483,415 acres) was cropland.
The Northern Great Plains states reported 2,828,137 acres
damaged. Although above the average of 2,128,000 acres, the
damage is about half that reported last year (5,320,000
acres). North Dakota reported 1,442,481 acres damaged,
about twice its average (794,000).
The Southern states of Colorado, Kansas and New Mexico
reported very high acreages damaged (1,043,995, 2,024,410,
and 480,520 acres, respectively) This is more than three
times the average (596,000 acres) for Kansas, and about
twice the average (263,000 acres) for New Mexico.
Continuing drought which resulted in insufficient cover
(vegetation and snow), and high winds were reported in
explanation for the damage. One windstorm on March 12 in
Kansas damaged about 1.7 million acres.
CROPS OR COVER DESTROYED
/Crops or cover were destroyed on a total of 892,890 acres.
This is about 30% more than last year's 604,950 acres
destroyed, and 70,000 acres less than average (961,827
acres). The numbers of acres of crops destroyed were well
-------
below last year's figures in North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming, but many times higher in Colorado, Kansas, and New
Mexico. More losses than last year were also reported in
Montana and Texas.
LAND PROTECTED BY EMERGENCY TILLAGE
Emergency tillage to prevent land damage was reported on
2,386,924 acres. This is about 130,000 acres more than last
year (2,253,830), and 600,000 acres less than the average
(2,981,927 acres).
LAND IN CONDITION TO BLOW
Throughout the Great Plains, 16,609,645 acres were reported
in a condition to blow. This is 54% higher than the 35 year
average (10,806,000 acres), and slightly above last year*-s
figure for this reporting date (16,198,000 acres).
The Northern states reported a total of 9,311,430 acres in
condition to blow, which is about 1.8 times the average
(5,215,000 acres), but about 13% less than last years
10,664,000 acres. North Dakota reported 5,898,330 acres,
about 2.5 times average (2,375,000 acres).
The Southern states reported a total of 7,298,215 acres in a
condition to blow. This is about 1.8 million acres more
than last year's figure and 1.7 million acres more than
average (5,591/000 acres). Kansas reported 2,154,125 acres,
which is about 3.3 times last year's figure, and 60% more
than average. Texas reported 3,332,100 vulnerable acres,
which is about 600,000 acres more than both average and last
year's figure.
-------
Emergency Tillage For Wind Erosion
Great Plains, Period
1000
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
Report Year
ID Acreage
Period III: 3/1-5/31
-------
Land in Condition to Blow
Great Plains, Period
X( 100,000)
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
Report Year
period III: 3/1-5/31
-------
Appendix 4.
Source: USDA - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION
VIOLATION REPORT *
This report does not include violations on farms in which producers were denied
tobacco and peanut marketing eligiblity and FCIC disaster benefits for which no
dollar amount denied is available. That information is provided on a separate
report.
-------
PAG£
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION (HELC)
VIOLATION REPORT
(1) (2)
YEAR STATE
86 NORTH CAROLINA
VIRGINIA
* TOTAL YEAR 86
87 COLORADO
ILLINOIS
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
* TOTAL YEAR 87
88 ALABAMA
ARKANSAS
COLORADO
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MASSACHUSETTS
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
PENNSYLVANIA
TEXAS
VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
(3)
NUMBER OF
FARMS WITH
VIOLATIONS
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
3
1
25
3
3
1
1
5
2
9
2
1
9
17
3
3
7
1
1
2
5
11
3
6
(4)
ACRES IN
VIOLATION
6.1
4.0
10.1
316.0
15.1
10.1
206.7
12.9
7.0
222.4
196.8
4.7
2.4
83.5
133.6
9.0
20.0
1,240.2
74.8
41.0
30.2
49.6
122.3
38.3
117.8
433.7
11.8
253.0
480.5
345.3
138.0
24.1
39.5
19.6
1.4
38.1
142.7
10.9
75.1
(5)
NUMBER OF
PRODUCERS
DENIED
REQUESTED
BENEFITS
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
5
3
1
27
2
4
2
1
7
2
12
2
1
9
15
3
3
5
1
2
1
3
7
3
6
(6)
AMOUNT OF
BENEFITS
DENIED
1,305.00
9,529.15
10,834.15
45,410.00
76.03
1,481.04
69,426.97
7,388.00
127.59
1,334.28
60,312.57
1,748.93
383.00
9.56
386.46
31,476.14
4,767.00
224,327.57
1,693.00
10,756.00
1,305.75
434.00
18,212.00
3,718.00
18,306.50
95,018.00
720.00
28,189.00
44,669.88
15,374.00
27,355.00
5,128.00
10,780.00
939.00
3,202.00
10,500.00
133,291.00
37,578.00
34,631.00
*TOTAL YEAR 88
95
2,487.7 91
501,800.13
-------
PAGE
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION (HELC)
VIOLATION REPORT
(1) (2)
YEAR STATE
89 GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MONTANA
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
* TOTAL YEAR 89
90
ALABAMA
COLORADO
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WISCONSIN
* TOTAL YEAR 90 ~
— — _— _— -t. __ — _ _ _
91 ALABAMA
COLORADO
(3)
NUMBER OF
FARMS WITH
VIOLATIONS
2
2
1
4
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
28
1
10
6
6
32
6
12
5
5
3
11
2
3
18
2
1
2
1
3
19
1
5
154
1
3
(4)
ACRES IN
VIOLATION
22.8
30.4
15.3
489.6
124.3
11.0
22.3
1,014.0
32.7
20.6
66.1
165.1
25.0
10.9
96.3
2,146.4
1.0
178.5
43,081.7
89.2
4,141.4
809.8
1,695.5
47.5
226.9
368.0
1,367.6
389.4
198.1
317.6
106.6
30.0
7.3
12.8
83.3
77.4
440.0
359.1
54,028.7
25.6
4,399.8
(5)
NUMBER OF
PRODUCERS
DENIED
REQUESTED
BENEFITS
2
3
2
4
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
1
32
1
11
9
6
26
10
15
7
9
3
11
2
4
19
4
1
2
1
3
16
1
5
166
1
3
(6)
AMOUNT OF
BENEFITS
DENIED
4,308.00
1,596.00
132.32
98,602.00
25,024.00
5,298.00
11,669.08
32,674.00
1,587.00
5,194.00
771.00
5,720.00
28,245.00
25.48
9,503.00
230,348.88
3,089.00
36,373.00
206,269.00
19,234.00
188,725.25
18,749.46
26,677.74
20,688.00
24,003.14
3,865.00
30,548.36
7,499.00
279,175.41
31,805.31
4,116.88
706.00
736.87
19,644.00
4,103.00
181,916.00
2,010.00
7,749.97
1,117,684.39
4,613.00
56,663.00
-------
PAGE
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND CONSERVATION (HELC)
VIOLATION REPORT
(1) (2)
YEAR STATE
(3)
NUMBER OF
FARMS WITH
VIOLATIONS
(4
ACRES
)
IN
VIOLATION
(5)
NUMBER OF
PRODUCERS
DENIED
REQUESTED
BENEFITS
(6)
AMOUNT OF
BENEFITS
DENIED
91 GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
WASHINGTON
* TOTAL YEAR 91
1
1
1
16
1
3
4
1
2
1
1
4
40
1,
1,
2,
11,
11.
238.
255.
435.
093.
70.
661.
4.
127.
10.
202.
640.
174.
6
4
2
1
0
6
2
2
5
0
4
1
7
1
1
1
22
1
2
4
1
3
1
1
5
47
663.
10,840.
239.
24,694.
69,661.
4,801.
1,310.
523.
9,813.
330.
49,351.
75,421.
308,923.
00
00
00
78
00
00
37
00
50
00
00
00
65
TOTAL
344
71,087.8 365
2,393,918.77
-------
Appendix 5.
SURVEY
Please indicate if the information requested is unavailable, not
known, or is estimated. Other comments and information are
welcome. Attach additional sheets as needed.
1. What is the total amount of cropland acreage in your State?
2. What is the amount of cropland acreage designated as highly
erodible (HEL)?
3. Do you consider the designation of HEL in your State
accurate in terms of wind erosion potential?
Is the cropland designated as HEL due to
wind erosion percentage
water erosion • percentage
both • percentage
5. Is the cropland designated as HEL due to wind erosion
concentrated geographically?
If so, which counties? • ' ' •
6. What are the main crops grown on HEL in your State?
7. What percentage of fanners in your State receive some form
of Federal farm program benefits subject to cross-compliance
provisions? Total number .
'"' '_ •
8. What percentage of the farmers who receive Federal benefits
have completed or will complete conservation plans in
'compliance with the 1985 Food Security Act?
.. Total number .
-------
What percentage of the farmers who have received benefits in
the past will give up benefits because they have not
completed conservation compliance plans?
Total number .
10. What is the total acreage of cropland included in
conservation plans (as compared to #2)?
11. What is the average annual SAVINGS in soil loss to erosion
statewide due to implementation of conservation plans ?
Please note units
12. What measures are included in conservation plans to protect
HEL against wind erosion? (check)
stubble mulching minimum tillage
cover crops stripcropping
crop rotations shelterbelts
buf f erstrips revegetation . .
landforming controlled grazing
OTHERS
13. Which of these measures are the most effective at reducing
soil erosion by wind?
14. Which are the most COST-EFFECTIVE measures?
15. Are the measures scheduled for implementation
mostly during the last 2 to 3 years
evenly throughout the 5 year period
beyond the initial 5 year period
-------
16. Is contact established between participating farmers and the
SCS for the purpose of writing a conservation plan by ...
(please number in order of importance, 1 = most, 5 = least)
20
letters to farmers
farmers' visits to office
public notice (newspaper, radio, posted)
visits to individual farms
at farmers' .group meetings
OTHERS
17. Are conservation plans developed for farm tracts . .
on an individual basis .. . . on-site off-site
from generic plans . . . on-site off-site
Other considerations
18. Are conservation plans developed
in group workshops
on an individual basis
combination or other
19. How many conservation plans have been through "status
review" at the State level this year?
Last year?
At the local level this year? last year?
Please give number and percentage of total conservation
plans.
. How many conservation plans have been found in violation?
21. How much acreage does this represent?
22. How many "sodbuster" violations have been detected in the
State?-
23. How much acreage does this represent?
-------
24. Please describe the attitude of participating farmers toward
(circle a number) Positive * Neutral * Negative
Conservation compliance 1
Sodbuster provisions 1
Conservation Reserve 1
Conservation easements 1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
25. Please describe the attitude of farmers in your State toward
soil conservation measures such as those described in #12 or
recommended by SCS.
* * PLEASE ANSWER THE NEXT FIVE QUESTIONS BY LISTING RESPONSES IN
ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OR EFFECTIVENESS. (1 = highest)
26. In your opinion, do farmers in your State implement
conservation measures mainly because they . . .
traditionally used such measures
fear losing farm program benefits
provide better crop yields
generate higher profits
follow the example of neighbors -
OTHERS
27. What factors contribute to farmers resisting adoption of
conservation measures?
don't want to alter traditional ways
requires too much time or equipment
expensive to implement, lack capital
lower profits, or not sufficiently higher
don't understand technology, or methods
lack of technical assistance
not concerned about soil conservation
.OTHERS.
-------
28. What methods are used by the SCS to overcome this
resistance?
group meetings
individual meetings
visits to farm
publications
audio-visual presentations
radio messages
use of peers as role models
OTHERS
29. What methods are used to involve farmers who do not receive
farm program benefits in implementing conservation measures?
letters group meetings
public notice farm visits
farmers' visits to office special events
OTHERS
30. What specific difficulties have the SCS and individual staff
encountered in implementing the conservation provisions of
the 1985 Food Security Act? Please describe at both the
local and State level.
State •
Local
-------
31. Does your state SCS office operate under the assumption that
the conservation provisions of the Food Security Act will
continue to be implemented after 1995? Please answer in
regard to each component; conservation Reserve, conservation
compliance, conservation easements, and sodbuster
provisions.
32. In general, are farmers aware that agricultural practices
may contribute to air quality problems ?
33. Do you know of other Federal or State programs that directly
or indirectly encourage or require air quality protection in
farming activities?
Please indicate name and title of person completing questionnaire
for contact purposes
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!
Feel free to add comments or additional information. Please
return the survey to this office by October 4, 1991 at the
address below. Thank you.
Ms. Robin Dunkins
Attn: Deborah Harkrader
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
SURVEY RESULTS
QUESTION " - ' ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO GEORGIA KANSAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA TEXAS WASHINGTON
TOTAL CROPLAND ACREAGE
HEL CROPLAND
HEL AS PERCENTAGE OF CROPLAND
ACCURACY OF HEL DESIGNATION
PERCENTAGE HEL DUE TO:
WIND EROSION
WATER EROSION
BOTH TYPES
HEL CONCENTRATED
COUNTIES
MAIN CROPS ON HEL
PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCERS
RECEIVING BENEFITS
1300000
1100000
0.85
NO
99
1
0
NO
COTTON,
SM. GRAINS
ALFALFA
VEGETABLES
90
11689000
1661600
0.14
NO
40
60
0
YES
CENTRAL
VALLEY
& OTHERS
WHEAT
BARLEY
COTTON
TRUCK CROP
55
10763582
8800000
0.82
YES
80
15
5
YES
EAST OF CON
DIVIDE
W.WHEAT.
SORGHUM
ALFALFA
%
95
6306600
754300
0.12
YES
0
100
0
NA
SOYBEANS
COTTON
CORN
WHEAT
80
29000000
12937084
0.45
YES
25
50
25
YES
WESTERN
QUARTER OF
STATE
WHEAT
SORGHUM
CORN BEANS
SUNFLOWER
62
2400000
1900000
0.79
YES
100
0
0
NO
COTTON
SORGHUM
WHEAT CORN
ALFALFA
i
70
11600000
4750000
0.41
YES
65
35
0
YES
SEVEN CTYS.
LISTED
W.WHEAT
SORGHUM
COTTON
PEANUTS
SOYBEANS
52
33624614
13199161
0.39
YES
40
30
30
YES
IN MLRAs
77,78,81
90COUNTYS
COTTON
SORGHUM
WHEAT
EST. HIGH
7758100
3902087
0.5
YES
20
70
10
YES
5 COUNTIES
SM. GRAINS
VEGETABLLE
SEED CROPS
ALFALFA
80
>
Appendix 6.
-------
QUESTION ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO GEORGIA KANSAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA TEXAS WASHINGTON
NUMBER OF PRODUCERS .: .
RECEIVING BENEFITS
PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCERS
WITH CONSERVATION PLANS
NUMBER OF PRODUCERS
WITH CONSERVATION PLANS
PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCERS
FORGOING BENEFITS/NO PLAN
NUMBER OF PRODUCERS
FORGOING BENEFITS/NO PLAN
CROPLAND ACREAGE UNDER
CONSERVATION PLANS
AVG ANNUAL SOIL SAVINGS
TONS/ACRE/YR
CONSERVATION MEASURES USED
TO REDUCE WIND EROSION
Stubble mulching
Cover crops
Crop rotations
Bufferstrips
Minimum tillage
Stripcropping
Shelterbelts
Revegetation
Irrigation
2096
93
1959
0
OTHERS WILL
0
952509
N.A.
X
X
X
3060
90
2754
1
GET PLANS
15
800000
12
X
X
X
' X
21000
93
19530
7
1470
8624000
0.98
10
X
X
X
X
X
t
30000
95
285000
5
1500
501400
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
103453
60 NOW
100 WILL
62000
5
?
12782812
16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6500
95
6200
5
300
1300000
10
X
X
X
X
f
X
X
41759
98
40923
2
835
6500000
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EST. HIGH
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
12694152
5.2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9000
70
100 WILL GET
8000
10
1000
3902087
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'
-------
QUESTION ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO GEORGIA KANSAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA TEXAS WASHINGTON
MOST TECH. EFFECTIVE MEASURES
Stubble mulching ... .: .
Cover crops
Crop rotations
Bufferstrips 1
Minimum tillage
Stripcropping
Shelterbelts
Revegetation
Irrigation
MOST COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES
Stubble mulching
Cover crops
Crop rotations
Bufferstrips
Minimum tillage
Stripcropping
Shelterbelts
Revegetation
Irrigation
»
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Mostly 1994-5
Evenly 1990-5
Beyond 1995
CONTACT FOR CONS. PLAN DEV.
Letters
Office visits
Public notice
Farm visits
Group meetings
X
X
X
3
1
4
2
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
1
4
3
5
X
X
X
X
X
4
3
1
5
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
5
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
2
5
1
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
' 2
4
5
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
4
3
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
2
3
1
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RESIDUE MG'
X
4
2
5
1
3
-------
QUESTION ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO GEORGIA KANSAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA TEXAS WASHINGTON
CONSERVATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
INDIVIDUAL
On-site
Off-site 1
GROUP
On-site
Off-site
PLANS THRU STATUS REVIEW
STATE
1990
1991
LOCAL
1990
1991
PERCENTAGE OF PLANS REVIEWED
1990
1991
NUMBER OF PLAN VIOLATIONS
ACREAGE IN VIOLATION
NUMBER OF SODBUSTER VIOLATIONS
ACREAGE OF SODBUSTER VIOLATIONS
X
X
X
X
X
82
104
283
5
13
0
0
0
0
X
X
0
0
167
250 DONE
281 TOTAL
0
5
0
0
0
0
X
X
70
164
500
1050
5
1
80
3
44000
X
X
300
850
MIN5
6
200
5
50
X
X
UNKNOWN
208
5228
5228
5
UNKNOWN
63
8000
53
3045
X
0
51
400
400
6
6
3
1000
0
0
i
X
X
X
0
140
1661
550 DONE
2458 TOTAL
0
8
6
1000
20
150
X
X
527
640
5273
6400
10
8
UNKNOWN
0
0
X
X
X
X
0
1
87 TO GO
150
200 DONE
71 2 TOTAL
5
12
0
0
2
2886
-------
QUESTION ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO GEORGIA KANSAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA TEXAS WASHINGTON
PRODUCERS ATTITUDES TOWARD:
Conservation compliance ..
Sodbuster
CRP
Conservation easements ,
Conservation measures
REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Traditionally used measures
Fear benefits loss
Better yields
Higher profits
Example of peers
REASONS FOR RESISTANCE
Don't want to change
Too much time or equipment
Expensive, lack capital
Lower profits
Don't understand methods
Lack of tech. assistance
Don't care about soil conservation
SCS METHODS TO OVERCOME RESISTAN
Group meetings
Individual meetings
Farm visits
Publications
Audio-visual presentations
Radio messages
Peer role models
3
4
5
5
2
4
5
3
2
1
2
5
1
6
3
4
7
;E
4
3
1
5
7
6
2
4
4
2
4
3
3
2
4
5
1
3
2
4
5
1
6
7
5
2
3
4
7
6
1
4
2
1
3
2
2
1
3
4
5
1
3
5
4
2
6
7
3
1
2
7
5
6
4
4
4
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
5
1
2
3
7
5
6
4
2
1
4
3
7
6
5
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
3
4
5
1
6
2
5
3
7
4
5
1
2
3
6
7
4
5
5
1
3
4
1
2
4
5
3
4
3
2
1
6
5
7
PERCEIVED
5
2
4
3
6
7
1
4
5
1
1
2
2
1
4
5
3
1
3
2
5
4
6
7
5
2
1
4
6
7
3
4
4
2
5
2
1
3
4
2
1
5
3
2
1
4
6
5
7
4
4
2
5
RANGE
4
3
2
1
5
1
6
5
4
3
2
7
3
2
1
4
5
7
6
-------
QUESTION ARIZONA CALIFORNIA COLORADO GEORGIA KANSAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA TEXAS WASHINGTON
METHODS TO INVOLVE NONf ROGRAM
PRODUCERS
Letters
Public notice j
Office visits
Group meetings
Farm visits
Special events
SCS PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Big workload, not enough staff
Frequent policy/procedural changes
Lack of community support
Reconstitution of farms
Inadquate training
Incomplete data on farms
Documentation requirements
ASSUME PROVISIONS CONTINUE
AFTER 1995
Conservation compliance
Sodbuster
Conservation easements
CRP
PRODUCERS AWARENESS OF
AIR QUALITY/ AGRICULTURE REL
OTHER STATE/LOCAL PROGRAMS
REL. TO AIR QUAL. IN AGRICULTURE
4
1
6
5
2
3
X
YES
YES
NA
NO
YES
YES
AZDEPT
ENVQUAL
5
6
2
3
1
4
X
X
X
YES
. YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
CALAQ
CONTROL
BOARDS
4
2
3
5
6
1
X
X
X
X
YES
YES
NO INTEREST
NO
YES
YES
DUST BLOWINI
ACT OF COL.
COUNTY ORDJ
5
1
4
3
6
2
X
X
X
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
i
.
3
6
2
4
5
1
X
X
YES
YES
YES
UNTIL EXPIR
NO
NO
5
4
3
6
2
1
X
X
X
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
' NO
1
4
3
5
2
6
X
YES
YES
YES
UNTIL EXPIR
YES
NO
BLANK
X
X
X
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
TEXAS A.Q.
CONTROL BD
ON BURNING
4
6
1
2
5
3
X
X
X
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
CTY. CONTRC
ON BURNING
L
------- |