Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States: An Overview, Exams of Environmental Science

Download Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States: An Overview and more Exams Environmental Science in PDF only on Docsity! I United States n /^^ Economic Research Service Report Department of CL-? ' Agriculture .D^ Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 718 Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States An Overview Richard Magleby Carmen Sandretto William Crosswhite C.Tim Osborn It's Easy To Order Another Copy! Just dial 1-800-999-6779. Toll free in the United States and Canada. Other areas, please call 1-703-834-0125. Ask for So/7 Erosion and Conservation in the United States: An Overview (AIB-718). The cost is $9.00 per copy. For non-U.S. addresses (including Canada), add 25 percent. Charge your purchase to your VISA or MasterCard. Or send a check (made payable to ERS-NASS) to: ERS-NASS 341 Victory Drive Herndon, VA 22070 We'll fill your order by first-class mall. The United States Department of Agriculture (ÜSDA) prohibits discrimination In its programs on the basis of racSj color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of pro- gram information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202)720-2791. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or calh[2021720£7327Xvoice)^^ employer. Summary Soil erosion in the United States does not pose an immediate threat to the Nation's ability to produce food and fiber, but it does reduce the productivity of some soils, and it also causes offsite damage. Soil productivity damages in the early 1980*s were about $l-$3 billion annually, while water quality and dust dam- ages likely were each several times higher. Agricultural lands are the principal source of eroded soil Cropland contributes almost half of all eroded soil, with a quarter of this land, classified as highly erodible, providing over half of total cropland erosion. This report describes the various programs that have pro- moted soil conservation, providing the background information for assessment and analysis of this important facet of conservation. Some factors hinder soil conservation. Among these are farmers' underestima- tion of their own farms' erosion problems, the uncertain cost and crop yield effects of conservation measures, and the agricultural program features which affect the type of crops grown. Farmers and ranchers often avoid adopting new practices if these are expensive, reduce profits, or show benefits only in the longer run or at off-site locations. The report details current and proposed conservation measures. Possible actions to improve conservation programs include greater targeting of traditional assistance programs to critical lands, further removal of policy and program inconsistencies between commodity and conservation programs, expanded or continued retire- ment of critical lands, and increased use of compliance provisions or regulations. Cropland erosion has declined over the past 50 years because of conservation efforts. In 1993, about one-third of total cropland in com, soybeans, cotton, and wheat was in some kind of soil-conserving rotation. Recent incentive programs for protecting highly erodible lands include payments for retiring vulnerable lands from agricultural production and placing them under permanent vegetative cover. Leaving more crop residue on the soil surface has proved effective in conserv- ing soil Other techniques have included water management, contour farming, grassed waterways, and terraces. Soil conservation programs have traditionally employed four major tools: tech- nical assistance and extension education, voluntary participation in crop acreage diversion programs, cost-sharing for conservation measures, and various public works activities. In 1985, conservation compliance was introduced as a new ma- jor pohcy tool. Comphance requires farmers to meet minimum levels of conservation on highly erodible cropland by 1995 as an eligibility requirement for certain agricultural program payments. Though meeting the conservation provisions remains voluntary, farmers who want agricultural program payments have no choice but to comply. Soil Erosion and Conservation in tlie United States /AIB-718 Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States An Overview Richard Magleby Carmen Sandretto William Crosswhite C. Tim Osborn introduction Soil erosion, the wearing away of soil by water, wind, and other forces, is a natural process that can be accel- erated by human activities. This report provides background on the sources and extent of erosion in the United States and the policies and programs undertaken to reduce the problem on agricultural lands. It also summarizes the economic and environmental effects of erosion in the United States, the performance of poHcies and programs for reducing those effects, and some options for improving performance of conserva- tion programs and delivery systems. The report uses materials prepared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in response to its request for information on soil erosion and conservation in the United States. Erosion Levéis and Conservation Activities Soil erosion on agricultural land in the United States does not pose an immediate threat to the Nation's abil- ity to produce food and fiber. However, erosion is impairing long-term soil productivity in some areas. Agricultural soil erosion is increasingly regarded as important to water quality and is the largest source of nonpoint pollutants in the Nation's waterways (USDA, SCS, RCA, 1989). Nonpoint pollutants that include sediment, nutrients, and chemicals come from diffuse sources that cannot be identified. Causes and Types of Soil Erosion The movement of water over the soil surface causes about three-fifths of the estimated erosion on U.S. land (table 1). Most often the water-caused erosion is Table 1—Estlnfiated erosion by type and source, contiguous United States, 1992 Land Annual Erosion/ Type and source area erosion^ acre/year MHIion Billion acres tons Tons Sheet and rill Cropland 382 1,20 3.1 Pasture 126 .13 1.0 Range 399 .40 1.2 Forest^ 395 .32 .8 Other rural non-Federal^ 89 .47 5.3 Developed land^'"^ 92 .25 2.7 Water areas and Federal^ 457 .44 1.0 Subtotal sheet and rill 1,940 3.21 1.7 Ephemeral NA NA NA Streambank and gully^ NA .85 NA Total water caused 1,940 4.06 2.1 Wind Cropland 382 .93 2.5 Pasture 126 .01 .1 Range 399 1.75 4.4 Forest 395 NA NA Other rural non-Federal^ 89 .16 1.8 Developed land, water, and Federal 549 NA NA Total wind caused 1,940 2.85 1.5 Total all types 1,940 6.91 3.6 NA = Not available. Preliminary. ^Erosion data not available for 1992. Assumed to be at the same per acre level as estimated in the 1987 Na- tional Resources Inventory. Includes lands in the Conservation Reserve Program. ^Erosion data not available for 1992. Assumed to be the same total tonnage as estimated in the 1982 National Resources Inventory. "^Includes roadsides and construction sites. ^Not available for 1992. Assumed to be the same total tonnage as estimated in the 1977 National Resources Inventory (stream- bank was 0.55 million tons and gully was 0.30 million tons). Source: USDA, Soil Consen/ation Sen/ice, 1982, 1984, 1994. So/7 Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 In any given location, various types of erosion may be active and account for considerable soil loss. In other cases, only one or two of these erosion processes exist. Erosion Caused by Water Splash erosion occurs when rain- drops break the bond between soil particles and move them a short distance. Sheet erosion takes place when dislodged soil particles are moved by thin sheets of water flowing over the surface. Rill erosion occurs when the sur- face flow of water establishes paths called rills, and flowing water readily detaches soil parti- cles from their sides and bottoms. Ephemeral or concentrated- flow erosion occurs when the topography of a landscape is such that rills tend to enlarge and join with others to form channels that are erased by tillage operations but often reform in the same location with each storm. Types of Soif Erosion Gully erosion takes place when concentrated-flow erosion is al- lowed to continue over time and causes a gully to form. Gully ero- sion is difficult to control because soil is rapidly removed by water gushing over the "headcut" (up- hill end) of the gully, by water scouring the gully's bottom, and by water removing soil material that has slumped from the gully's sidewalis. Streambank erosion occurs when the steam flow causes caving and sloughing of streambanks. Erosion Caused by Wind Saltation or movement of fine and medium sand-sized soil particles begins when the wind velocity reaches about 13 miles per hour (mph) at 1 foot above the ground surface. The particles are lifted only a short distance into the air and the spinning action and their forward/downward movement give them extra power to dislodge other soil particles when they hit the ground. Saltation also destroys stable surface crusts, creating a condition more vulnerable to ero- sion, and the amount of soil moved increases with the width of the field. Saltation accounts for 50 to 80 percent of the total soil move- ment from wind erosion. Suspension refers to the process by which very fine soil particles (the fertile organic matter and clay portions) are lifted from the surface by the impact of saltation, carried high into the air, and re- main suspended in air for long distances. This "dust'* can be blown hundreds of miles and is what most people associate with wind erosion. Surface creep is the movement of larger (sand-sized) soil particles along the ground surface after be- ing loosened by the impact of saltating particles, but such larger soil grains are too large to be lifted off the surface in most winds. These larger particles move in a rolling motion along die surface and can account for up to 25 per- cent of the soil moved by wind. sheet and rill, but streambank and gully erosion are also significant (see box—"Types of Soil Erosion"— for definitions). Soil erosion by wind is predomi- nantly limited to the Great Plains and certain areas in regional coastal plains. Accelerated erosion results from agricultural, mining, and commercial and residential construction activities that disturb the soil or its protective cover. When farmers clear native woodland or plow meadow to grow cultivated crops, the soil is exposed to the erosive forces of water and wind. The overgrazing of range and pasture by livestock leads to the destruction of de- sirable native plant species and reduces this protection from erosion, Logging, mining, road construction, fire, and other disturbances can increase erosion and delay the recovery of the natural vegetative cover in the dis- turbed areas. In any given location, various types of water- and wind-caused erosion may be present and account for considerable soil loss. Severity of Erosion in the United States Soil erosion in the United States in 1992 averaged over 3.6 tons per acre per year, for a total of over 6.9 biUion tons annually (table 1). The Nation's 382 mil- lion acres of cropland and 398 million acres of range, together about 40 percei^it of the land surface of the contiguous United States, accounted for about 62 per- cent of the total estimated erosion. Other non-Federal lands, mostly privately held pasture and forest, ac- counted for most of the remaining estimated erosion. However, no estimates exist for wind erosion on Fed- eral lands or for ephemeral erosion, both of which could be significant. Erosion occurs in all areas of the United States but is more concentrated in those regions where the percent- age of total area in cropland is highest and where a larger proportion of the land is highly erodible (figs. Soil Erosion and Conservation in tiie United States /AIB-718 Table 3—Estimated acreage and erosion in the contiguous United States, selected years 1938-92 Item 1938 1967 1977 1982 Acreage ■1 Cropland total 398.8^ Cropland in row crops NA Share in row crops NA Pasture NA Range NA Total erosion Cropland: Sheet and rill NA Wind NA Subtotal 3.56^ Pasture: Sheet and rill'* NA Wind^ NA Range: Sheet and rill"^ NA Wind' NA Total cropland, pasture, range NA Erosion per acre Cropland: Sheet and rill NA Wind NA Subtotal 8.9* Pasture: Sheet and rill NA Wind NA Range: Sheet and rill NA Wind NA NA = Not available. 438.2 160.4 37 NA NA 2.60^ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA Million acres 413.3 421.0 203.3 195.9 Percent 49 46 Million acres NA 131.9 NA 408.9 Billion tons/year 1.93 1.71 0.89 1.42 NA 3.13 NA 1.45 NA 0.13 NA 0.49 NA 1.92 NA 7.12 Tons/acre/year 4.7 4.1 5.3 3.3 NA 7.4 NA 1.1 NA 0.1 NA 1.2 NA 4.7 1987 406.6 158.6 39 127.6 402.8 1.50 1.30 2.80 1.28 0.13 0.48 1.77 6.46 1992 382.3 177.8 45 125.9 398.9 1.20 0.93 2.13 1.26 0.13 0.48 1.76 5.76 3.7 3.1 3.2 2.4 6.9 5.5 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.2 4.4 4.4 'This estimate by Ben- ^Based on 1939 census estimate of cropland. ^Kimberlin (1976), based on 1967 Consen/ation Needs Inventory. nett and Lowdermitk (1938) is based on extrapolation of experimental plot data and is less reliable than later statistical survey estimates. "^Preliminary. Based on multiplying published per acre erosion estimates times acreage. ^Based on dividing the sum of sheet, rill, and wind erosion by the 1939 census estimate of cropland acres. Sources: USDA, Soil Consen/ation Service, National Resources Inventories of 1977, 1982, 1987, and 1992 except as noted. (6) Compliance provisions that require the imple- mentation of specified conservation practices or the avoidance of certain land use changes if the opera- tor wishes to be eligible for USDA agricultural program payments. The technical assistance/education and cost-sharing approaches are components in most of USDA's soil conservation and water quality programs. PubHc works project activities are used for larger scale watershed protection and flood prevention activities. The fourth approach, payments to take land out of production and place it into conservation uses, has been used at various times in the past, such as the Soil Bank program of the 1950's, and is reflected in the current Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Along with conservation, the CRP has a sec- ond objective of reducing surplus production. The fifth approach of data collection and research is an essential complement to the other approaches, rather Soil Erosion and Consen/ation in the United States /AIB-718 than a viable alternative by itself. The sixth and newest approach to conservation, compliance, originated in the 1985 Food Security Act with the conservation compli- ance, sodbuster, and swampbuster provisions and represents a significant policy shift (Heimlich, 1991). While meeting the conservation provisions remains voluntary, farmers who want to receive certain agricul- tural program payments have no other choice (Crosswhite and Sandretto, 1991). Evolution of Federal Conservation Programs For most of the 60-year history of Federal conservation programs, emphasis was placed on the onfarm produc- tivity benefits of reducing erosion. However, an increasing interest in conservation and environmental policies caused a shift in the 1970's from improving soil productivity and maintaining farm income toward reducing the off-farm effects of agriculture on the en- vironment (fig. 3). Federal involvement in conservation began in the 1930's with the authorization of a study to examine the causes of erosion and to recommend methods for its control. The Soil Conservation Act of 1935 estab- lished USDA's Soil Conservation Service (SCS)— renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1994—and SCS' Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program. The act authorized SCS to aid farmers in planning and installing approved con- servation measures to protect agricultural land from soil erosion. The CTA program was followed in 1936 by the creation of the Agricultural Conseï-vation Pro- gram (ACP), which provided cost-sharing assistance to farmers for implementing conservation practices (Rasmussen, 1982). From these initial efforts, a com- prehensive set of research, education, and financial and technical assistance programs has evolved to sup- port conservation (see box—"USDA Conservation Programs Prior to 1985"). During periods of surplus production, temporary con- servation and cropland diversion programs were used to idle program crop acreage to help support farm in- come. For example, the ACP placed an average of 36 million acres of cropland in permanent cover between 1936 and 1942 to reduce production of surplus crops, and at the same time on other lands provided farmers cost-sharing and technical assistance to carry out other soil conservation measures to reduce both water and wind erosion. In the 1950's and 1960's, the Great Plains Conservation Program, Small Watershed Pro- gram, and Resource Conservation and Development Program were established to address regional concerns, flood protection, and rural development issues. The Agricultural Act of 1956 estabhshed the two-part Soil Bank. The first part, the Acreage Reserve Program, paid farmers to annually reduce acreage planted to sur- plus commodities. This program represented a notable shift from total reliance on commodity loans and non- targeted land diversion. The second part, the Conservation Reserve Program, provided for 3- to 10-year contracts for retirement of any land designated by the farmer with- out regard to specific resource conditions. In return, farmers received annual rental payments and 80 percent of the cost of establishing permanent vegetative cover. Farmers could enroll as much of their land as they wished and received a 10-percent rental bonus for whole- farm retirement (Heimlich, 1991). Long-term land retirement was intended to provide conservation and resource protection for soils, water, forests, and wild- life. The Acreage Reserve Program ended in 1958 and enrollment in the Conservation Reserve ceased in 1961, but program crop acreage placed in the long-term Con- servation Reserve remained idle into the early 1970*s. During the 1970's and 1980's, Federal conservation pohcy increasingly stressed farming methods to mitigate the off-farm effects of sediment and other pollutants generated by agriculture. Parts of the ACP cost-sharing and SCS technical assistance programs were directed toward water quality projects and similarly targeted additional funding derived from the Rural Clean Water Program begun in 1980. Within this time frame, an evolution took place from implementing individual conservation practices to implementing multiple best management practices (BMP's) and recently to imple- menting integrated resource management systems as the means of achieving desired environmental results. In 1985, conservation programs took a decided turn toward greater targeting and more restrictions on land use. The Food Security Act of 1985 estabhshed the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to deal with both continuing commodity surpluses and resource protection issues. Under the CRP, land is retired from production for at least 10 years. But, unlike the eariier Soil Bank and Conservation Reserve programs which permitted enrollment of any land the farmer designated, the new CRP targeted highly erodible and/or environmentally sensitive cropland. The act also provided for two other new provisions targeted to highly erodible lands, con- servation compliance and sodbuster, and stipulated that fanners of such lands who did not implement approved conservation plans would lose eligibility for USDA program benefits (see box—"USDA Conservation Pro- grams New Since 1985"). The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 further reshaped and sharpened the environ- Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 o m Figure 3 The evolution of conservation, resource protection, and water quality efforts 1960's 1930's 1940's 1950's 1970's 1980's 1990's Issues: The Dust Bowl The Great Depression Congress declares soil erosion a national emergency Crop surpluses and depressed farm income World War II Marshall Plan Korean War Agricultural production at high level Net farm income declines Surpluses accumulate Rural development concerns Agricultural and environmental cooperation Crop yields and agricultural chemical use increase Environmental awakening: Rachel Carson's SHent Spring 0962) Surface water pollution Urbanization effects on farmland Prime farmland protection Exports rise but stocks soar Farmland values boom and bust Net farm income plunges Groundwater degradation Alternative agriculture and "green" farming Conservation of highly erodible lands Environmental regulation Budget deficits Clean Water Act reauthorization Conservation influenced by effect of soil erosion on agricultural productivity Nonpoint source pollution abatement Wetlands preservation Increased public role in environmental protection Conservation concerns broaden to include off-site effects of agricultural production Actions: Creation of the Soil Conservation Sen^ice (1935) and Agricultural Stabilization and Consen/ation Service (1936) Agricultural Conservation Program (1936) Conservation Technical Assistance (1936) Soil Erosion Inventory (1934) Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act (PL-480, 1954) Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D, 1962) Small Watershed Program (PL-566,1954) Creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1970) 1985 Farm Act (FSA): Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Conservation Compliance Sodbuster & Swampbuster 1990 Farm Act (FACTA): Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 1947) Acreage diversion programs (annual) Water Bank Act (1970) R"^" Clean Water Program Clean Water Acts (1972. 1977, 1986.1987) USDA Water Quality Initiative and Soil Bank Program (1956) USDA Water Quality Program: Demonstration, Hydrologie Unit area, and special water quality Soil and Water Consen/ation Needs Inventories (1945,1958, & 1967) National Resources Inventories (1977,1982.1987, & 1992) projects; regional and estuary initiatives. Results: Financial (cost sharing) and technical assistance provided to encourage adoption of individual conservation practices to control soil erosion from wind and water Crop acreage reduced Conservation practices implemented: Crop rotations Contour farming Cover crops Field windbreaks Grassed watenways Terraces and diversions Export enhancement Flood prevention, watershed planning and protection Noticeable improvements in air and surface water quality in many areas Greatly expanded conservation on highly erodible lands Conservation tillage use increases Enhanced consen/ation, water quality protection, and wildlife habitat RC&D Projects promote recreation and rural development Model implementation projects RCWP Projects Many critical areas receive Acreage reserve and conservation reserve address water pollution Critical area targeting State (208) planning for water quality Individual conservation practices (tillage, vegetative, and structural) promoted Best management practices (BMP's) promoted benefits from water quality protection efforts State (319) planning for water quality Integrated management systems promoted USD A Conservation Programs New Since 1985 These new programs resulied from the Food Security Act of 1985; the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990; the USDA Initiative on Water Quality; and a USDA initia- tive on residue management. Farm Act Provisions The conservation compliance provi- sion requires farmers with highly erodible cropland to have had an ap- proved conservation plan by Jan. 1, 1990. The plan must be fully imple- mented by Jan. 1, 1995, to maintain eligibility for USDA program benefits. The Sodbuster provision provides that farmers who convert highly erodible land to agricultural commodity pro- duction must have an approved conservation system in place, to be eligible for USDA program benefits. The Swampbuster provision requires that before farmers convert a wetland to commodity production, they must obtain a USDA determination that conversion would have only a minimal effect on wetland hydrology and biol- ogy, to remain eligible for USDA program benefits. Potential penalties for violating the conservation compliance, sodbuster, and swampbuster provisions include loss of eligibility for commodity price- and income-support payments, crop insurance and disaster payments, and assistance under USDA conserva- tion programs. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides for USDA to enter into 10-15 year agreements through 1995 with owners and operators to remove highly erodible and other envi- ronmentaîly sensitive cropland from production. Lands in the CRP must have protective cover and cannot be farmed, grazed, or otherwise used for agricultural production except in cer- tain declared emergencies. Owners or operators of the lands placed into the CRP receive cost sharing to establish protective cover and annual rental payments based on a bid and accep- tance procedure. Special incentives are provided for planting hardwood trees and converting grass to tree cover. Crop acreage bases, quotas, and allotments on CRP lands are pre- served as long as the owner or opera- tor continues to keep the land in the appropriate conserving uses. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) provides for USDA to solicit iiids from landowners to place into the reserve cropped hydric soils, non- cropped wetlands (such as Water Bank lands), riparian corridors, and critical wildlife habitat. Participants must agree to long-term easements on enrolled land (30 years or more or the maximum duration allowed under applicable State laws); must implement a wetland easement conservation plan that restores and protects the wetland's functional values; and must give up any existing cropland base and allot- ment history on enrolled land. In return, participants receive payments and cost sharing up to the fair market value of the land. Economic uses of the restored wetiands, such as hunting, fishing, managed timber harvest, or periodic haying and grazing, are al- lowed to help reduce the cost of acquiring easements. Water Quality Incentives Program (WQIP) provides for USDA to enter into 3- to 5-year agreements with owners and operators of certain critical lands for developing and implement- ing plans to protect water quality. Eligible lands include wellhead pro- tection areas (land within 1,0iX) feet of a public well), areas of shallow Karst topography where sinkholes convey runoff water directly into ground water, critical cropland areas identified under Section 319 of the Water (Quality Act of 1987, and other environmentally sensitive areas. Participants must implement a USDA- approved water quality protection plan; report use of nutrients, pesticides, and animal waste; and supply produc- tion evidence and the results of well tests, soil tests, and annual tissue tests for each year of the agreement. Un- like most CRP contracts and WRP easements, these agreements do not preclude commodity production on enrolled acreage. In return, partici- pants will receive an annual incentive payment not to exceed $3,500 per participant per year. Cost sharing is also available if a farmer elects to preserve wetlands or enhance wildlife habitat. During the agreement period. producers also receive program yield and base acreage protection. Water Quality Initiative/ Program Activities begun in 1989 under the Water Quality Initiative are being continued as USDA's Water Quality Program. Education and technical assistance have been directed to 16 selected demonstration projects, 74 hydrologie unit areas, and other special water quality projects to accelerate the adoption of water quality protec- tion practices by farmers. ACP cost sharing to assist farmers in imple- menting selected practices is also being targeted to these projects. Spe- cial research and development efforts are aimed at developing and identify- ing technology and production systems that reduce the environmental effects of agricultural chemical use and are economical for farmers to adopt. New database development and evaluation activities include collection and analy- sis of survey data from farmers on pesticide and nutrient use on major crops and analysis of the economic and environmental effects of water quality practices and programs. Residue Management Initiative The residue management initiative was an interagency effort to accelerate assistance to land users to help them apply conservation plans and meet the conservation compliance provisions of the 1985 and 1990 Farm Acts. Over two-thirds of the conservation plans identified management of crop resi- due as the key component needed to achieve the January 1, 1995, compli- ance goal. The initiative's three components were: a residue manage- ment marketing program, an information delivery system, and a technical assistance and technology de- livery program. Each component was targeted toward the delivery of timely information and needed techni- cal assistance to help producers implement their conservation plans and maintain their eligibility for USDA program benefits. It was de- signed to build improved technical expertise at the State, area, and field office levels to help land users better understand the conservation compli- ance provisions. 10 Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 Table 4—USDA conservation expenditures, by activity and program, fiscal 1983-95^ Activity/program 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1992 1994 1995 1993 estimate enacted Million dollars rams— 276.9 302.0 332.0 386.7 426.5 477.9 515.2 502.6 500.5 9.1 9.1 9.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 8.9 9.3 8.9 16.3 17.8 17.8 18.4 24.2 26.0 29.9 28.4 28.8 101.6 76.9 68.1 65.9 70.3 74.3 80.4 83.5 55.9 8.9 8.9 8.7 8.7 9.2 9.5 9.5 10.9 10.5 412.8 414.7 435.7 487.9 538.5 596.8 643.9 634.7 604.6 11.0 11.2 9.3 10.1 10.6 10.8 11.2 9.7 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.0 5.9 5.9 5.5 4.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 21.9 27.9 5.7 11.4 8.9 4.7 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.0 -0.9 0.0 2,5 -0.7 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 3.5 7.7 32.8 33.1 47.6 62.4 73.8 72.6 65.3 67.6 62.8 44.3 46.1 84.0 103.3 99.2 1042 99.6 93.1 77.0 15.9 16.4 15.7 19.8 29.4 31.1 31.1 33.8 33.8 10.3 6.9 7.0 6.8 22.6 23.9 23.3 25.8 33.1 4.1 2.9 3.0 6.2 24.8 32.6 37.4 36.7 35.0 14.4 9.8 10.0 13.0 47.4 56.5 60.7 62.5 68.1 487.4 487.0 545.4 624.0 714.5 788.6 835.3 824.1 783.5 176.5 179.2 172.6 174.0 171.6 179.1 182.8 183.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.4 8.9 8,8 8.2 8,2 3.0 0.0 0.0 245.6 182.3 40.9 39.3 32.0 14.1 4.3 13,9 4.9 5.3 6.1 8.8 10.3 42.0 24.0 0.0 11.3 11.5 10.7 11.0 12.4 11.5 11.2 11.5 6.0 2.5 1.9 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.3 7.0 204.2 197.5 436.7 377.6 242.7 249.0 276.3 246.1 115.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.8 17.8 17.9 18.3 12.2 12.5 11.4 12.2 16.4 16.2 16.4 16.4 6.3 216.4 210.0 448.1 389.8 279.0 266.0 310.5 280.4 139.9 22.5 5.0 14.8 10.0 20.0 70.0 73.1 248.0 125.0 22.7 13.9 11.5 12.8 12.8 21,4 23.8 22.9 0.0 144 8.5 7.2 6.7 5.7 6.5 2.6 4.6 4.0 160.6 88.0 82.7 83.7 82.6 89.6 101.3 106.9 14.1 220.2 115.4 116.2 113.2 121.1 187.5 200.8 382.4 143.1 0.0 0.0 410.0 1,162.1 1,590.1 1,612.5 1,510.0 1,729.2 1,739.0 8.8 8.8 8.4 9.0 13.1 17.1 17.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 47.3 63.0 8.8 8.8 418.4 1,171.1 1,603.2 1,629.6 1,531.5 1,783.9 1,802.0 75.5 77.8 79.7 90.8 96.0 99.6 99.6 102,1 99.5 63.5 63.7 59.3 65.9 73.6 73.9 74.3 76.7 76.0 27.9 32.8 31.0 34.5 50.6 49.7 51J 51.2 43.2 5.0 5.4 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.8 6.3 5.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 19.7 20.3 28.2 31.1 40.7 39.0 41.8 42.0 42.2 191.6 200.0 202.2 225.3 266.7 268.3 274.0 277.3 265.2 1. Technical assistance» extension, and administration Natural Resources Conservation Sen/ice (NRCS) programs- Conservation Technical Assistance (CTAf Great Plains Conservation Prograrm (GPCP) Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Watershed Protection / Rood Prevention Small Watershed Program (planning) Subtotal NRCS Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) programs- Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)^ Colorado River Salinity Control Program Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) Water Bank Program (WBP) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)^ CFSA salaries & exp., conservation Subtotal CFSA ^ Extension Service (ES) conservation activities Forest Service (FS) programs- Forest Stewardship Program Other Cooperative Forest Conservation Subtotal FS Subtotal tech. assistance, exten. & administration 2. Cost-sharing for practice installation CFSA programs- Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)^ Colorado River Salinity Control Program Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) Wetlands Resen/e Program (WRP)^ Subtotal CFSA FS Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) NRCS Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) Subtotal cost-sharing 3. Public works project activities (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection Flood Prevention Operations Resource Consen/ation and Development (RC&D) Small Watershed Program (operations) Subtotal NRCS public works projects 4. Rental and easement payments (CFSA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Water Bank Program (WBP) Wetiands Reserve Program (WRP) Subtotal rental and easement payments 5. Conservation data and research Natural Resources Conservation Service Agricultural Research Service Cooperative State Research, Educ, & Ext. Service Economic Research Service National Agricultural Library (water quality) Forest Service (forest environment research) Subtotal conservation data and research 6. Conservation compliance and sodbuster (CFSA & NRCS) (expenditures are included in technical assistance and administration) USDAîotaS 1,124.4 1,021.2 1,730.3 2,523.4 2,984.5 3,140.0 3,152.1 3,548.1 3,133.7 Based on data from USDA, Office of Budget and Program Analysis. ^ Includes expenditures for Water Quality Incentives Projects and other activities of the Water Quality Program, ^ Shifted to NRCS in 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 11 (sediment from cropland erosion is a predominant or contributing factor in many areas) and to develop plans for managing the problems. Also the act authorizes a program for implementing the Section 319 plans with funds moving through the Environmental Protection Agency to the States, but appropriations so far have permitted only a small-scale program. Under its Water Quality Initiative, however, USDA has selected 74 areas identified in States' Section 319 assessments for special targeting of education, technical, and financial Non-USDA Federal Programs Affecting Soil Conservation EPA-Admlnlstered Programms The Clean Water Act is the Na- tion's most important water quality protection law. Originally passed in 1972 and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Act's goal is to "re- store and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The Act contains a number of provisions that affect soil conservation. The Clean Lakes Program, reauthorized by Section 314 of the Clean Water Act, authorizes EPA grants to States for lake classific- ation surveys, diagnostic/feasibility studies, and for projects to imple- ment lake restoration and protection. To remain eligible for grants, a State must submit a biannual report to the EPA on the status of lakes and establish a clean lakes demon- stration program. States typically rely on Section 319 nonpoint source management programs and USDA programs to control sediment and other agricultural pollutants enter- ing lakes. States have relied on farmers voluntarily adopting alter- native management measures in areas surrounding designated lakes to reduce agricultural runoff The Nonpoint Source Program, established by Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, requires States and U.S. territories to file assess- ment reports with EPA, identiiying navigable waters that cannot attain water quality standards without re- ducing nonpoint source pollution. Management plans must then be developed to reduce nonpoint source pollution. All States now have EPA-approved plans. The Act authorizes up to $400 million annually in grants to States for de- veloping and promoting these plans, with $50 million awarded in fiscal 1992. The ftinds, however, cannot be used to provide cost-sharing to individual landowners. To the extent that States require and enforce re- ductions in agricultural nonpoint source pollution, the program could impose significant costs on the agri- cultural sector. The National Estuary Program, established by Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, provides for the identification of nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution; for preparation of con- servation and management plans; and for Federal grants to State, inter- state, and regional water pollution control agencies to implement the plans. So far, 21 estuaries have been designated (fig. 5). USDA is jpoviding accelerated technical and financial assistance to farmers in designated areas to help States carry out their estuary management plans. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Con- trol Program, established by 1990 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act and administered joindy by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and EPA, requires tiiat coastal zone States develop programs and im- plement management measures to restore and protect coastal waters, in conformity with EPA guidance. Management measures for agricul- ture are specified for erosion and sediment, nutrients, pesticides, graz- ing, and animal waste. The State program must implement these management measures by whatever means necessary, including regula- tion. So far the program has relied upon voluntary participation. Regional programs exist in six areas of the U.S. as cooperative FederaVState efforts (fig. 5). Each program is managed by a regional autiiority consisting of EPA, other Federal agencies, and appropriate State agencies. Under USDA*s Water Quality Program, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has accelerated technical assistance to landowners in the six regions, and the Consolidated Farm Serv- ice Agency has provided cost-share financial assistance to fiirther imple- mentation of conservation and water quality measures. Other Programs The Dredge and Fill Permit Pro- gram, established by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and admin- istered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, regulates dredging, filling, and other alterations of waters and wedands, including wetiands owned by farmers. Recentiy, USDA was given authority to make wetlands determinations on agricultural land. Range Improvements, including rehabilitation and protection, are undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, with a percentage of receipts from grazing of livestock on the public lands. 12 Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 Policy Formulation The policy formulation process involves the Executive Branch and the Congress, usually with considerable interaction within and among agencies, congressional committees for agriculture and the environment, affected businesses, and public interest groups (fig. 6). Consensus or compromise policies and program guide- lines become embodied in legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Actual imple- mentation of authorized policies and programs depends on funding derived from a separate appropria- tions act which goes through a similar process of interaction to obtain consensus. The authorization and appropriations stages together often take months or years, and authorized programs sometimes wither and die from lack of appropriations. In some cases, annual appropriations legislation adds restrictive provisions, such as those for ACP that spec- ify cost-sharing assistance is not to be used for practices that primarily increase production and that achieve Uttle resource conservation or pollution abatement. Policy Implementation Once an act is authorized and funded, the administrative agencies, usually in consultation with other agencies and interest groups, develop proposed program rules and regulations that go through informal and formal public reviews before being made final. Many conservation programs to be implemented at the State and local levels require States to submit plans or project proposals and funding needs for Federal ap- proval before actual funds are transferred. For multiyear projects, annual plans of work and documentation of progress are required to receive continued funding. Federal laws regulating the use of natural resources sometimes require that the responsible Federal agency delegate regulatory responsibilities to State agencies when State programs meet Federal standards, and pro- vide the responsible State agencies with various types of technical and financial assistance. National Conservation Program Delivery A generalized model of a State/local soil conservation structure includes a State conservation organization to bring together the relevant Federal and State agencies with a soil conservation mission, a system of special- purpose local (county) conservation districts that are authorized by State law to provide technical assistance to farmers, and county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) committees to handle cost sharing (Libby, 1982). This system assures that financial sup- port and technical assistance are focused on a common set of problems. USDA has a memorandum of understanding with each conservation district to assist in carrying out a long- term conservation program. Conservation districts have proven to be practical organizations through which local farmers and the Federal Government can join forces to carry out needed soil conservation practices (Rasmussen, 1982). NRCS provides technical assistance to farmers and other land users, including local, State, and Federal agencies that manage publicly owned land, and helps them and district supervisors to draw up and implement conservation plans. Providing Federal cost-sharing assistance to farmers and ranchers for voluntary installation of approved conservation practices is the responsibility of State and county ASC committees. Through the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), funds are allocated among the States through State ASC committees on the basis of soil and water conservation needs. ACP practices eligible for cost sharing are established by a national review group representing all USDA agencies with conservation program responsibilities, the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget. The practices are designed to help prevent soil erosion and water pollution from animal wastes or other nonpoint sources, to protect the productive capacity of farmland and rangeland, to con- serve water, to preserve and develop wildlife habitat, and to conserve energy (Holmes, 1987). The Secretary of Agriculture can also designate critical resource problem areas for cost sharing and technical assistance targeting based on the severity of the prob- lem and the likelihood of achieving improvement. Erosion's Economic and Environmental Effects Considerable governmental effort goes into the collec- tion and assessment of data on economic and environ- mental effects of erosion and associated runoff from agricultural lands. Substantial attention is also devoted to other conservation and environmental research and on finding ways to reduce adverse impacts of erosion. In 1994, USDA directed an estimated $277 miUion to conservation data collection and research (table 4). Data Collection and Assessments This section summarizes the major activities of data collection and assessment that provide information for estimating the environmental and economic effects of Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 15 Figure 6 U.S. conservation policy and program development and implementation National policy and program development National level implementation of programs Interest groups: Farm organizations Environmental groups Consumer groups V *. Executive Branch X ^ - ■^ / (USDA and EPA) 1 Proposed program rules and regulations developed by USDA agencies and interagency committees ^ Program finalization and transmittal to States \/ Program legislation and appropriations Fonnal review and comment i I ' U.S. Congress and Its \ < / committees / ^ ^ ^ .^ "^ CO o I Co 5* S> CO CD "^ O" :3 13- CD Co Co > CD I 00 "State and local level implementation of programs USDA, District and Extension personnel work with farmers Program rules and regulations from national level State agency heads and interagency committees Local USDA offices Local committees Extension Service project proposals i I and funding needs National level approval project proposals of pr( and fu ejects nding and fund ng needs erosion and related conservation efforts in the United States. Soils Classification and li/lapping The systematic and scientific classification and mapping of U.S. soils began in 1899. Various guidance and instruction books were issued over the years as experi- ence was gained and methods were improved. During the 1930's, aerial photography began facilitating U.S. soil-mapping efforts. The expanding Federal conserva- tion programs provided a further practical use for the soil classifications and maps (Simonson, 1987). In 1965, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) began implementing a new, more flexible taxonomy of soils which permitted classification of soils according to changeable sets of criteria, such as susceptibility to the downward leaching or horizontal flow of pollutants. About 80-90 percent of U.S. land and 75 percent of U.S. counties have now been classified and mapped according to this new system. Most acreage with farm program crops or containing highly erodible lands according to the definitions set out in the mapping sys- tem have been mapped to support implementation of USD A commodity and conservation programs. National Resources Inventories Every 5 years since 1977, the Natural Resources Con- servation Service (old SCS) has conducted a statistically representative National Resources Inventory (NRI) of land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland, and other natural resource statistics on non-Federal, rural land. Based on actual field observations by NRCS technicians, the NRI provides a record of the Nation's conservation accomplishments and future program needs and is the key data source for deciding pohcy and developing conservation programs. Earlier inven- tories, called the Conservation Needs Inventory (CNI), were conducted in 1958 and 1967. Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act Appraisals In 1977, Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to (1) continuously appraise the soil, water, and related resources on non-Federal land; (2) develop a program for furthering conservation, protection, and enhancement of these resources; (3) make a report to Congress and the pubhc; (4) provide annual evaluation reports. The first of these mandated appraisals was published in 1981 (USDA, 1981) and the second in 1989 (USDA, SCS, 1989c). The third is scheduled for 1997. The appraisals are based on the National Resources Inventories; stud- ies performed by USDA, other Federal agencies, and contractors; and projections of future changes derived from extensive modeling efforts. USDA and State Research In addition to the inventories and appraisals outlined above, USDA has continuous research programs un- derway on soil erosion and related resource issues and problems (see box—"USDA Conservation Programs Prior to 1985"). Of the $277 million expended in 1994 for conservation-related research by six USDA agencies (table 4), about four-fifths supported research by USDA personnel, while the remainder went to State universi- ties and experiment stations for cooperative research. Adding to the latter were funds appropriated for soil- and water-related research by the States themselves, probably several times the funds coming from USDA. Model Predictions Mathematical models of physical processes are now used by USDA and university researchers to predict the physical effects of weather and human activities on soil and water. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Wind Erosion Equation have been used for many years and are the basis for erosion esti- mates in the NRFs and for field-level conservation planning. Both equations estimate gross erosion as a function of the soil's characteristics, climate factors, current crop and tillage system, and any supporting conservation practices. Both are in the process of revi- sion and improvement. The model most frequently used to predict yield and onsite effects of erosion is the Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) (Williams, Renard, and Dyke, 1983; Williams, Putman, and Dyke, 1985). EPIC is a daily plant-growth model that considers characteristics of the soil, field operations and inputs, the needs of the crop being grown, and daily rainfall and temperature. Based on these data, the model predicts crop yield, soil erosion, water and chemical infiltration, and edge-of- field runoff For recent RCA appraisals, EPIC has been run for a sufficient number of representative soils and conditions to permit extrapolations and aggregations to major land resource areas as well as to the Nation as a whole. Another field-scale model in common use is Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems (CREAMS), which estimates some water quality parameters as well as erosion (USDA, SEA, 1980). A model commonly used for estimating pro- ject-wide or watershed-wide sediment and chemical runoff is Agricultural Non-Point Source (AGNPS), which adds a routing component to CREAMS (Young, So/7 Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 17 agement, such as conservation tillage, which reduces costs, albeit by requiring some initial investment and more management. If farmers must also install terraces or change to contour farming or alter cropping patterns, they will likely weigh the associated costs against the advantages of remaining eligible for USDA program benefits. On the cost side, Barbarika and Dicks (1988) estimated that reducing erosion to the T level on all HEL cropland would annually cost the Nation's farmers $700 billion. However, to reduce the cost and increase participation, conservation comphance now allows farmers to implement alternative conservation systems that do not require reducing erosion to the T level. Canning (1994) estimates that if 85 percent of the HEL- designated lands come into comphance, the water quality, air quality, and productivity benefits will together exceed the producer and government imple- mentation costs in most regions. The potential water and air quality benefits of compliance will be substan- tial if most farmers of highly erodible lands implement and maintain practices in the conservation plans. Implications of Severe Natural Events Economic implications of severe natural events vary in the loss value and the duration of the economic effects. Short-duration natural phenomena, such as floods, land- slides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and wind storms, wreak high losses in life and economic value in very short periods of time. However, the effects may not be as prolonged as they first appear. For example, the calamitous effects of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the early 1980's are fading rapidly as the readily renewable resource of timber is regenerating its economic and scenic value while stabilizing the soil. Recovery from a prolonged drought, such as that of 1986-92 in some parts of the West, may take longer, and the associated losses in soil erosion and productivity may accumulate to many times the cost of most short-dura- tion natural disasters. The Emergency Conservation Program, begun in 1978, provides financial help to farmers for rehabilitating cropland damaged by natural disasters. USDA programs also have the flexibility to handle extreme situations. During the 1986-92 drought, USDA analysts used the EPIC model to predict crop yields under different weather scenarios as the drought progressed and to provide policymakers with a basis for altering programs. Haying and grazing restrictions on CRP lands and annual set-aside acreage were relaxed to provide farmers a source of livestock feed. In cases where the drought affected the estabhshment of protective cover on CRP lands, USDA provided a second or third year of cost sharing. USDA programs help overcome immediate damages from flood, fire, landslide, or other events that prevent a watershed from safely accommodating water flow. However, the principal focus of USDA conservation programs is on preventing or mitigating potential losses. Increased emphasis is being placed on disaster preven- tion, such as gathering more and better soil-moisture information to predict droughts and to more success- fully ameliorate their effects. USDA supports mitigation by monitoring natural resources and encourages and assists in developing land use plans that avoid risk from natural disasters. USDA also participates in an interagency Federal Subcommittee for Natural Disaster Reduction to develop strategy and implementation plans to reduce the effects of natural disasters. The potential effect of climate change has been placed on the agenda of research agencies. USDA's Agricultural Research Service has begun a major project to study the effect of increases in ultraviolet light on plant and crop systems. A new laboratory, "TERRA," is being formed by several agencies to address regional and global effects of climate change on land and terrestrial systems. Tlie Environmental Protection Agency has begun an Environ- mental Monitoring and Assessment Program to collect baseline data to help measure the effects of such change. The Forest Service conducts a major research program on the effects of tropical deforestation on chmate change. The Economic Research Service is assessing the potential economic effects of climate change. The NRCS is beginning to assess the potential for crops, cover, and soil to sequester carbon. Conservation Policy and Program Performance Responsibility for farming practices on U.S. farms rests ultimately with farm owners and operators. Since the 1930's, many farmers have voluntarily implemented conservation and water quality practices, often with technical and financial assistance provided by Federal and State programs, but many others have not. This report concludes by reviewing the performance of U.S. conservation policies and programs, the key factors affecting this performance, and some options for im- proving performance and effectiveness. Performance of Current Policies and Programs Physical measures of performance of soil conservation policies and programs include reductions in the amount of soil erosion, declines in the acreage with critical erosion problems, and increases in land treated with conservation practices. 20 Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 Reductions in Erosion U.S. conservation programs have reduced erosion on both a total and a per acre basis. As a result of conservation activities, erosion in the 1980's was less than during the 1930's despite the effects of more land in production and a larger proportion of land in row crops (table 3). Even so, by the mid-1980's, agriculture was identified as the remaining major source of sediment and other nonpoint source pollutants affecting the Nation's surface waters. This finding spurred environmental groups and the general public to call for new measures to substan- tially reduce erosion and discharges of sediment. In response, Congress included provisions in the 1985 and 1990 farm legislation for special programs for soil conservation, wetland protection, and environmental quality. These new programs are reducing erosion. Between 1987 and 1992, cropland erosion dropped 670 million tons, or by one-fourth (table 3). This was double the drop during 1982-87. By the end of 1993, the CRP had reduced erosion by 690 million tons, and conservation compliance had reduced it by an estimated 450 million tons (Magleby and Sandretto, 1994). The future of the CRP beyond 1995 is uncertain, but even if the lands go back into production, they will be subject to compliance requirements if the farmers want to maintain ehgibihty for certain USDA program benefits, and those benefits continue to exist. By 1995, CRP and Conservation CompHance together could achieve a one-third reduc- tion in soil erosion from the mid-1980 levels. In early CRP signups, most of the soil-erosion reduction came from wind erosion, primarily in the West. By contrast, as a result of subsequent program changes, 70 percent of the erosion reduction on land enrolled since 1990 has occurred in sheet and rill (water-caused) erosion that occurs primarily in the East. While both forms of erosion can reduce agricultural productivity, reduction of sheet and rill erosion often produces greater off site water quality benefits. Declines in Acreage With Criticai Probiems Lands with critical erosion problems include those eroding substantially above the tolerance or T value and those contributing large amounts of sediment and other pollutants to priority surface waters (often the same lands, but not necessarily so). Studies in the late 1970's and early 1980's criticized existing conservation programs for lack of targeting, documenting that large proportions of Federal technical assistance and cost- sharing funds were often used on sHght-to-moderate erosion problems, which sometimes left relatively few resources for long-term conservation treatment of highly erodible land (U.S. GAO, 1986; USDA/SEA, 1980; Strohbehn, 1986). During the 1980's and early 1990's, progress was made toward targeting of conservation programs to lands witíi critical erosion problems. This progress included spe- cial targeted projects in the Rural Clean Water Program, ACP water quality projects, the CRP, the compliance provision, and most recently, projects in USDA's Water Quality Initiative (now called Water Quality Program). Also some progress in targeting came from agency programs for setting priorities and training field per- sonnel. The NRI statistics confirm progress. Between 1982 and 1987, cropland acres eroding above 2T, mostly highly erodible lands, dropped by over 6 million, and between 1987 and 1992, by over 11 milhon (table 7). Table 7—Cropland erodlbility, contiguous United States, 1982-92 Item 1982^ 1987^ 1992 Change 1982-87 Change 1987-92 Cropland area Highly erodible^ 125.1 Less erodible 295.9 Total 421.0 Cropland erosion relative to tolerance (T)^ Eroding at T or below 318.9 Eroding above T to 2T 53.8 Eroding above 2T 48.3 Total 421.0 Million acres 117.3 105.5 -7.8 -11.8 289.3 276.8 -6.6 -12.5 406.6 382.3 -14.4 -24.3 315.1 309.5 -3.8 -5.6 49.4 42.0 -4.4 -7.4 42.1 30.8 -6.2 -11.3 406.6 382.3 -14.4 -24.3 ^Revised estimates published in 1994. ^Erodlbility index is 8 or greater. h"he tolerance level is the rate of erosion above which productiv- ity can diminish. Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1994. Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 21 The new conservation programs or provisions—CRP, compliance, and sodbuster—are explicitly targeted to highly erodible lands. The CRP has placed 36.4 million acres of highly erodible or environmentally sensitive cropland in a 10- to 15-year conservation reserve (Os- bom, 1994). As a result of rule changes, higher proportions of recently accepted land came from con- servation priority watersheds, such as the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and the Great Lakes region. The conservation compHance program for reducing erosion on highly erodible lands has also made pro- gress. Over 149 milhon acres are included in farm conservation plans developed by SCS as required by law. On over 80 percent of these acres, the plan was probably fully implemented by the January 1995 dead- line to avoid the loss of certain USDA program benefits. Compliance requirements will also apply to highly erodible lands coming out of the CRP after com- pletion of the 10- to 15-year reserve. The sodbuster provision has probably deterred some farmers from converting highly erodible land to culti- vated cropland (Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1991). Also, farmers who have converted such lands and implemented conservation plans to retain USDA benefits have reduced erosion to T or nearly T levels in most cases. Over 1,900 farmers had been found in violation of sodbuster and comphance requirements through 1992, and declared ineUgible for USDA pro- grams, losing over $7.3 million in benefits (Canning, 1994). Spot checks are made for sodbuster violations, and a 1991 study found 65 percent of sample farms had potential violations (Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1991). T'Level Control Questioned Reducing erosion to or below the T or tolerance level so as to maintain the long-term productivity of the soil over time has been the working goal of NRCS in its farm conservation planning since the earliest days. But, now that the offsite effects of erosion appear to sub- stantially exceed the productivity effects and public demands for water quality have risen, the goal of re- ducing erosion to T or less is being questioned. From a water quality standpoint, the T goal is often not cost- effective, since more erosion reduction can be achieved in a watershed for a given expenditure using lower cost management practices on a wider basis than by putting in the more costly structural measures often needed to achieve the T goal (Magleby, Piper, and Young, 1989). Also, farmers often see achievement of T as impracti- cal from an economic perspective unless the required measures are highly subsidized by government cost sharing. NRCS has been preparing alternative conser- vation plans for many highly erodible lands, plans that will achieve something less than erosion reduction to the T level, in order to reduce farmers' costs and in- crease willingness to implement additional conservation. Increases in the Use of Conservation Practices Rotation between row crops and close-grown crops or between crops and fallow or hay occurs on much U.S. cropland and has soil-conserving effects. In 1993, about one-third of the cropland in com, soybeans, cotton, and wheat was in some kind of soil-conserving rotation (Padgitt and Bull, 1994). In addition, a sizable acreage of cropland and all CRP lands have other soil conser- vation practices in place (table 8). The most common other practice in 1992 was conservation tillage, 87-89 million acres, and other forms of crop residue manage- ment. Also frequently applied were pasture and hayland management, terraces, irrigation water management, contour farming, and grassed waterways. Conservation practices increasing the most in use between 1982 and 1992 were pasture and hayland management and con- servation tillage on cropland, and grass cover on lands placed in the CRP. High-residue forms of conservation tillage, no-till and ridge till, are increasing in use and accounted for about 15 percent (39 million acres) of the 284 million acres planted to crops in 1994 (table 9). High-residue tillage systems leave as much as 70 percent of the soil surface covered with crop residues and offer more wind and water erosion protection than other till- "^Such management usually includes a reduction in the number and intensity of tillage operations, including the elimination of plowing (inversion of the surface layer of soil with a moldboard or disk plow) and/or a reduction in the number of passes over the field with other tillage implements (disk, field cultivator, chisel, harrow, or the like) so as to leave sufficient residue cover on the soil sur- face as protection against soil erosion. Crop residue management includes all field operations that affect residue amounts, orienta- tion, and distribution throughout the period requiring protection. Conservation tillage is defined as any tillage and planting system that maintains at least 30 percent of the soil surface covered by resi- due after planting to reduce soil erosion by water, or where soil ero- sion by wind is the primary concern, maintains at least 1,000 pounds per acre of flat, small grain residue equivalent on the sur- face during the critical soil erosion period. ^In no-till, the soil is left undisturbed from harvest to planting ex- cept for nutrient injection. Planting or driUing is accomplished in a narrow seedbed or slot created by coulters, row cleaners, disk open- ers, in-row chisels or roto-tillers. Weed control is accomplished with herbicides and/or cultivation. In ridge-till, the soil is left undis- turbed from harvest to planting except for nutrient injection. Plant- ing is completed in a seedbed prepared on ridges with sweeps, disk openers, coulters, or row cleaners. Residue is left on the surface be- tween ridges. Weed control is accomplished with herbicides and/or cultivation. Ridges are rebuilt during cultivation. 22 Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 Options for Improving the Performance of Conservation Programs Conservation policies and programs in the United States have changed, especially in recent years, to address a wider public interest in natural resources and environ- mental quality. Additional changes are being considered to further improve performance and effectiveness. This section addresses some options for improving the performance of conservation programs. Targeting and Expanding Traditionai Assistance Traditional technical, financial, and education and extension assistance programs have improved in more specific targeting of efforts to areas with onsite and off site problems. However, in many locations these programs are still available on a first-come, first- served basis. Options for further targeting of these programs include the following: Direct programs to priority areas identified in section 319 assessments and coastal zone and regional programs. The Water Quahty Initiative has moved in this direction, but many more prior- ity areas exist that could be targeted. Increase assistance for highly erodible lands. NRCS has directed considerable technical assis- tance toward developing conservation compliance plans on these lands, but greater financial, techni- cal, and extension assistance could also be targeted to furthering the implementation of the plans. Expand microtargeting. Even within identified priority areas, some lands or activities are more critical than others in achieving environmental objectives. More critical areas and activities could be treated first or be provided higher levels of technical and financial assistance as incentives for accelerating improved practice adoption by farmers. In the CRP for example, HEL and environmentally sensitive lands which promised superior benefit/cost ratios would be accepted first. Greater targeting faces some challenges. Effective tar- geting (deciding where additional assistance efforts should go) requires greater information, not only on the physical aspects of the problem, but also on the public costs and on the value of the probable environmental improvements. More concurrence and coordination must be achieved among agencies providing assistance. More management and monitoring is necessary to as- sure that the targeting is effective. Political opposition to targeting is sometimes a problem, particularly if funds and personnel are shifted from one geographical area to another. Another question for improving targeting is, "Who is responsible?" Targeting at the Federal level requires large amounts of resource-specific information and ad- ditional staff to review, compare, and select among project proposals and then to monitor the progress of selected projects. Allowing States, which are presum- ably closer to the problems, to do the targeting raises issues of how to maintain accountability and control, particularly when Federal funds are involved. Furttier Removal of Policy and Program Inconsistencies Agricultural policy reforms in the 1985 and 1990 farm legislation could be expanded to further reduce incon- sistencies between agricultural commodity programs and conservation and environmental quality programs. These inconsistencies relate mostiy to high commodity program prices that influence the location and mix of crops and the intensity of agricultural chemical use. Removing or reducing price supports would alleviate the major inconsistency with conservation and envi- ronmental programs. But, at the same time, the current leverage of comphance, sodbuster, and swampbuster programs would be reduced. Agricultural programs could more fully integrate con- servation-environmental components with agricultural production components in the relevant pohcies and programs. Complementary changes could include tar- geting nonpoint source pollution problems identified in section 319 and Federal Coastal Zone Management Plans, broadening the environmentally sensitive land in land retirement programs, and increasing funding for conservation and environmental program compo- nents of agricultural program legislation. Expanded or Continued Retirement of Critical Lands Retirement of highly erodible and other environmen- tally sensitive cropland from production and its placement under permanent cover, as in the CRP, is an effective way to reduce erosion and to provide water quality and wildlife habitat benefits on individual farms as well as in conservation priority areas such as watersheds. However, it is often more expensive per ton of erosion reduced than implementing improved practices unless there is also a need to control supply of program crops. Expansion or continuation of the CRP will require new appropriations and a political decision that a joint supply control/conservation pro- gram is desirable. If appropriations are not forthcoming, and to some extent even if they are, many CRP lands will return to crop production after contracts begin ex- piring in late 1995. Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 25 Some options for continuing the CRP, ranging from the most costly to the least costly in terms of appro- priations, are: 1. Continue to make the program available, ac- cepting both new lands and renewing contracts on existing lands in the CRP for 5-10 years. 2. Target the program only to the most critical lands, both in accepting new lands and renewing contracts on existing lands. 3. Limit the program only to renewing contracts on the most critical lands already enrolled in the CRP. This could mean that where a whole field was originally in the program, only the most criti- cal portion of the field (for example, a filter strip) might receive rental or easement payments to con- tinue under permanent cover. Increased Use of Conservation Compliance Provisions Conservation pohcy has shifted program emphasis from short-term, single-field, production-oriented practices to implementation of long-term, whole-farm, conserva- tion-oriented plans (Ervin, HeimUch, and Osbom, 1991). The effectiveness of conservation compliance measures in targeting erosion and nonpoint source pollution is so far untested on a broad scale and depends upon continu- ing long-term public and farmer support. Administering compliance provisions requires increased local technical capability, administrative resources, and strong local pohtical support. As used in current farm programs, the compliance mechanisms primarily address erosion concerns. However, compUance measures could be de- vised to address other environmental problems, such as the leaching of farm chemicals to ground water. Conservation compUance farm plans could be expanded from erosion control alone, to include comprehensive conservation-environmental planning for the abatement of whatever agricultural nonpoint source pollution threatens a particular area. However, the delivery of traditional assistance programs would have to be ex- panded to support the implementation of the practices and services required to deal with broader agricultural pollution problems and to ensure farmer compliance. Regulation Adoption of regulatory features would be a divergence from the traditional voluntary approach of U.S. con- servation programs and would increase Government involvement in farm operations (Reichelderfer, 1990). Regulations could be used to target specific environ- mental objectives for areas with critical pollution problems or threats. Such regulations could include re- quiring the use of certain best management practices (BMP's), banning certain management practices, or re- stricting chemical and other input use. Conservation Tax incentives Tax incentives can encourage farmers to invest in soil and water conservation practices. Certain soil and water conservation costs are currently tax deductible but are Umited to 25 percent of the gross income from farming during the taxable year. Further tax deductions or the use of tax credits are possible ways of increasing in- centives toward improved practices that reduce erosion or other pollutants. Expanded Technology Researcli - Public policy during the past two decades has increas- ingly stressed farming methods that mitigate the off-farm effects of pollutants generated within agriculture. The evolution from individual conservation practices to BMP's and recently to integrated management systems reflects experience with and research on conservation techniques adaptable to modem farming. Increased interest in and research on "sustainable agri- culture" approaches are occurring that incorporate soil-conserving and chemical-input-reducing practices. Major "sustainable" practices and systems include crop rotations that moderate weed, disease, and insect prob- lems, pest scouting to determine when pests reach critical levels, soil and water conservation, animal waste management, and biological pest controls. Possible top- ics for expanded research include (1) effects of wide adoption of "sustainable" systems, and (2) factors af- fecting farmers' adoption of sustainable systems. 26 So/7 Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 References Alt, Klaus, C. Tim Osbom, and Dan Colacicco. 1989. Soil Erosion: What Effect on Agricultural Productiv- ity? AIB-556. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Jan. Barbarika, A., and M. Dicks, 1988. "Estimating the Costs of Conservation Compliance," The Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, Vol. 40, No. 3, summer 1988, pp. 12-20. Batie, Sandra S. 1982. "Policies, Institutions, and In- centives for Soil Conservation," Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions and Incentives. Ed. by Harold G. Halcrow, Earl O. Heady, and Melvin L. Cotner. Ankeny, lA: Soil Conservation Society of America. Bennett, H. H., and W. C. Lowdermilk. 1938. "General Aspects of the Soil Erosion Problems," Soil and Men: Yearbook of Agriculture, 1938. U.S. Dept. Agr., pp.581-608. Canning, Patrick. 1994. "Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster," Agricultural Resources and Environ- mental Indicators. AH-690. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Dec. Crosswhite, W. M., and C. L. Sandretto. 1991. "Trends in Resource Protection Policies in Agriculture," Ag- ricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conser- vation Situation and Outlook Report. AR-23. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. Ervin, David E., Ralph E. Heimlich, and C. Tim Osbom. 1991. "Cross-Compliance and Set-Aside Programmes for Environmental Improvement: Preliminary Les- sons From the U.S. Experience." In proceedings of the Implementation of Agri-Environmental Policies in the E,C. Workshop, Brussels, Belgium. Nov. Gianessi, Leonard P., Henry M. Peskin, and Cynthia A. Puffer. 1985. A National Data Base of Non-Urban Non-Point Source Discharge and Their Effect on the Nation's Water Quality. Report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources For the Future. Heimlich, Ralph E. 1991. "Soil Erosion and Conserva- tion Policies in the United States," Farming and the Countryside: An Economic Analysis of External Costs and Benefits, Ed. by Nick Hanley. CAB International. Heimlich, Ralph E., and Arthur B. Daugherty. 1991. "America's Cropland: Where Does It Come From?" Agriculture and the Environment: Yearbook of Agri- culture 1991. U.S. Dept. Agr., pp. 3-9. Held, R. Bumell, and Marion Clawson. 1965. Soil Con- servation in Perspective. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. Hines, F., J. Sommer, and M. PetruUs. 1991. "How the CRP Affects Local Economies," Agricultural Outlook. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Sept., pp. 30-34. Holmes, Beatrice H. 1987. Legal Authorities for Federal (USDA), State and Local Soil and Water Conserva- tion Activities: Background for the Second RCA Ap- praisal. U.S. Dept. Agr. Kimberlin, L. W. 1976. "Conservation Needs and Status of Treatment of Erodible Cropland in Tillage Rotation. " UnpubUshed paper. U.S. Dept. Agr., Soil Cons. Serv. Libby, Lawrence W. 1982. "Interaction of RCA with State and Local Conservation Programs," Soil Con- servation Policies Institutions and Incentives. Ed. by Harold G. Halcrow, Earl O. Heady, and Melvin L. Cotner. Ankeny, lA: Soil Conservation Society of America. Lowdermilk, W. C. 1975. Conquest of the Land Through 7000 Years. U.S. Dept. Agr., Soil Cons. Serv. Magleby, Richard, and D. Gadsby. 1986. "Soil Conser- vation," Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conservation Situation and Outlook Report. AR-4. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. Magleby, Richard, and Michael Dicks. 1987. "Soil Conservation," Agncw/iwra/ Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conservation Situation and Outlook Re- port. AR-8. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. Magleby, Richard, C. Tim Osbom, and Carmen Sandretto. 1988. "Soil Conservation," Agrícw/íwm/ Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conservation Situation and. Outlook Report. AR-12. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. Magleby, Richard, Stephen Crutchfield, C. Tim Osborn, and Carmen Sandretto. 1989. "Conservation and Water Quality," Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conservation Situation and Outlook Re- port. AR-16. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. Magleby, Richard, Steven Piper, and C. Edwin Young. 1989. "Economic Insights on Nonpoint Pollution Control from the Rural Clean Water Program," Na- tional Nonpoint Source Conference Proceedings, Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States /AIB-718 27