This program evaluation assesses a key “working lands” conservation program in the Farm Bill, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This program impacts public health by reducing the negative consequences of agriculture that contribute to pollution of air, water and soil. By applying a proven health policy framework, the evaluation identifies if EQIP has achieved its objectives. The outcomes of the evaluation will both answer research questions and also provide recommendations for program improvements in the context of the expected revision of the Farm Bill in Fiscal Year 2018. This assessment is useful to ensure that environmental consequences are mitigated and public health risks are reduced.

1. The Farm Bill's
Environmental Quality
Improvement Program
A program evaluation with implications for Public Health and
the Environment
Kelly Hilovsky
MPH Capstone
April 2018

2. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This program evaluation assesses a key “working lands” conservation program in the Farm Bill,
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This program impacts public health by
reducing the negative consequences of agriculture that contribute to pollution of air, water and
soil. By applying a proven health policy framework, the evaluation identifies if EQIP has
achieved its objectives. The outcomes of the evaluation will both answer research questions and
also provide recommendations for program improvements in the context of the expected revision
of the Farm Bill in Fiscal Year 2018. This assessment is useful to ensure that environmental
consequences are mitigated and public health risks are reduced.

3. 3
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 4
II. BACKGROUND 5
HISTORY OF CONSERVATION IN THE FARM BILL, BEFORE 2000 5
HISTORY OF CONSERVATION IN THE FARM BILL, AFTER 2000 6
EQIP OVERVIEW 6
EQIP IN THE 2014 FARM BILL 7
III. EVALUATION GOAL & QUESTIONS 7
IV. METHODOLOGY & SOURCES 8
METHODOLOGY 8
SOURCES 9
V. RESULTS 9
REACH 9
EFFECTIVENESS 10
ADOPTION 12
IMPLEMENTATION 14
MAINTENANCE 15
VI. DISCUSSION 17
DID THE PROGRAM ACHIEVE ITS STATED OBJECTIVES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? 17
HOW DID PROGRAM UTILIZATION VARY ACROSS STATES AND REGIONS? 18
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 19
VIII. CONCLUSION 20
IX. LIMITATIONS 20
X. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 21
XI. APPENDIX 21
XII. REFERENCES 26

4. 4
I. INTRODUCTION
Soybeans. Corn. Wheat. These are what most people conceptualize when they envision
the outputs of farming in this country. However, the growing practices associated with the
cultivation of these products also impact the air, water and soil quality of local and regional
environments.1
The resulting impacts can either have restorative or destructive consequences.
Practices utilized by “industrialized agriculture”, which relies heavily on chemical inputs and
mechanization, result in severe consequences to the land and human health.2
For example,
excessive tilling practices contribute to soil instability and erosion, which allows chemical
fertilizers to leach into the water table and local waterways.3
This leads to harmful compounds,
such as nitrate, contaminating public water sources, which has ultimately been linked to various
public health impacts such as blue baby syndrome and cancers of the colon, kidney, ovaries and
bladder.3
In recognition of the poor quality of air, soil, and water in this country, the United States
government introduced programs to restore the negative consequences of agriculture.4
This was
accomplished via the allocation of funding for environmental conservation programs in the
“Farm Bill.” The “Farm Bill” is a colloquial term that refers to the comprehensive legislation
renewed approximately every five years that governs everything from the seeds sown to the
foods eaten across the country. While each iteration of the Farm Bill has a unique title, this
report consistently uses the general term –Farm Bill– in association with the particular revision
year.
There are a variety of programs designed to address the impacts of agricultural practices
on American soil and they exist in two main forms: retired lands and working lands. Retired
lands programs, such as the Conservation Reserve, Sodbuster and Sodsaver programs, take farm
land out of use to enable restoration.5
In contrast, working lands programs enable land to stay in
production, while allowing farmers to simultaneously conduct conservation efforts.5
Two such
programs include the Conservations Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP).
The primary goal of the EQIP program is to balance production and natural resource
conservation through the provision of technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers.6
EQIP assistance specifically supports the implementation of practices that improve soil, water,
air and related resources on active agricultural land and non-industrial private forest land, as well
as the protection of wildlife habitat.6
Although human health impacts are not within the scope of
EQIP goals and objectives, conservation practices ultimately lead to positive impacts on public
health.
For many years, conservation programs, such as EQIP, experienced increased funding in
each revision of the Farm Bill (Figure 1).7
However, in the 2014 Farm Bill that changed. This
revision cut conservation programs by $6 million.7,8
While EQIP funding remained constant, the
action taken against conservation programs in general is concerning. Reduced funding for
conservation programs has the potential to stall the progress made over the last 30 years to
restore and protect farm and ranch lands as well as natural habitats.
Since reductions in conservation spending could have deleterious impacts on the
environment and public health, it is critical to evaluate programs such as EQIP to understand the
potential consequences of spending reductions for these programs. The purpose of this
evaluation is twofold. First, this review will evaluate the impact of EQIP using an established
public health policy evaluation framework. Second, based on the conclusions of the evaluation,

5. 5
this review will provide EQIP-specific recommendations for the reauthorization of the Farm Bill,
expected to be introduced and enacted prior to the bill’s expiration in September 2018.
II. BACKGROUND
History of Conservation in the Farm Bill, before 2000
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 is considered the first Farm Bill and was
designed to reduce the supply of seven main commodity crops in order to increase sale prices.4
This was accomplished by paying subsidies to farmers to halt the production of specific crops in
order to drive up prices during the harsh economic period of the Great Depression. There were
no aspects of this initial Farm Bill that addressed conservation.
In 1936, the Farm Bill was amended to include several conservation provisions legislated
with the “Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act.”9
This law encouraged farmers to
reduce practices that led to soil depletion and also incentivized them to enact soil conservation
practices.9
Further, the 1936 act established the “Soil Conservation Service” known today as the
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).9
The next major historical event leading to increased conservation of American farmlands
began in the early 1970’s. At this time, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was
precarious.4,10
Thus, the Nixon Administration negotiated the 1972 “grain deal” between the two
countries in order to ease tensions and bolster the American economy.10
This agreement led Earl
Butz, the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), to call on American
farmers to plant “fencerow to fencerow” in the years that followed to take advantage of the trade
agreement.4
The planting behaviors encouraged by this agreement and proclamation, in addition
to a variety of political, economic and meteorological events, led to a farm crisis in the 1980’s.
This crisis was marked by crop surpluses and extremely low prices for American crops.
Unfortunately, the 1981 Farm Bill was drafted and enacted before the gravity of the crisis was
understood and thus, action to change the status quo was challenging and ultimately would not
be addressed until 1985.4
The 1985 Farm Bill formally incorporated conservation practices into a unique title of the
bill.4
In addition to the dedicated conservation title, this legislation demonstrated the country’s
recognition of the poor state of American soil and explicitly sought to protect natural resources
through the introduction of many new programs, such as the CRP.4
Beyond the creation of
conservation programs, a “cross compliance” mechanism was developed which required farmers
to provide evidence of their conservation practices prior to receiving benefits from other federal
programs and insurances.9
These efforts were the beginning of a trend over the next 29 years in which conservation
programs expanded both in quantity and funding. The 1990 Farm Bill established the
environmental benefits index (EBI), to help assess the environmental outcomes of conservation
programs and initiatives.4
The efforts made in the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills were quite extensive in addressing the
degradation of soil and natural resources due to agricultural production. While less remarkable,
the next period of Farm Bills followed suit by funding and broadening conservation programs.
For example, the 1996 Farm Bill took an initial step to expand conservation efforts beyond
programs that focused solely on lands retired from production by establishing programs for
agricultural lands still in production. The creation of the EQIP working lands program was a

6. 6
highlight of the 1996 bill, and its programmatic efforts replaced previous programs such as the
Agricultural Conservation Program, the Water Quality Incentives Program, the Great Plains
Conservation Program and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.9
History of Conservation in the Farm Bill, after 2000
The 2002 Farm Bill created other working lands conservation programs, including the
Conservation Security Program (CSP). The establishment of this program reflected the need to
support farmers who had begun practicing conservation through the EQIP program, but needed
more substantial funding and long-term support for working lands conservation efforts.4
In
addition, the 2002 bill called for greater accountability of conservation funding, resulting in the
establishment of the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) in 2003.11
The
conservation efforts of the 2008 Farm Bill were primarily marked by the expansion of the CSP
and its renaming as the “Conservation Stewardship Program”, which is now the largest working
lands program in the United States.12
Farm Bill funding for working lands versus retired lands has fluctuated over time (Figure
1).7
Specifically, the proportion of conservation funding allocated to working lands programs has
seen significant growth since 2002, shaped by high commodity prices, land rental rates and the
growth of conservation technologies.7
Also, the overall amount of funding dedicated to
conservation programs grew in both 2002 and 2008.7,8
In contrast with this trend, the 2014 Farm Bill established the first cut to conservation
programs.7,8
Funding cuts amounting to $6 million primarily affected easements and the CSP.
While EQIP funding remained constant, the program was expanded to include an additional
program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.8
EQIP Overview
Prior to evaluating EQIP, it is critical to understand this program’s objective and
components. EQIP was introduced in the 1996 Farm Bill as a voluntary financial and technical
assistance program and was unique as it supported conservation efforts on working lands, as
opposed to previous conservation efforts that required land retirement.4,7
The program was, and
continues to be, administered by the NRCS. The NRCS headquarters manages the
implementation and allocation of EQIP contracts via support from offices in every state as well
as 2,600 local offices.6
State and local NRCS authorities have the discretion to prioritize
conservation efforts based on the environmental concerns of their respective regions. In addition,
NRCS has the authority to make rulings that determine how EQIP is operationalized, as it
establishes ranking systems for applications, designs payment rates, and ultimately decides
which contracts receive EQIP funding.6
Further, NRCS ensures that EQIP implementation
maximizes environmental benefits per dollar distributed.
To be eligible to receive EQIP funds, an applicant must be an owner or operator of
working lands, which include cropland, rangeland, pasture, and non-industrial private forest
land.13
In the 22-year history of the program, there have been approximately 200 different
eligible practices that fall within two categories: structural and management practices. Structural
practices typically involve infrastructure investments, such as fences, animal waste lagoons or
irrigation systems. Management practices are related to how the farm or land is treated, with
examples including cover crops, nutrient management, and prescribed grazing.6,14
In addition,
various initiatives have existed that prioritized applicant eligibility based on specific topics or

7. 7
issues, including: The Organic Initiative, High Tunnel Initiative, Air Quality Initiative, On Farm
Energy Initiative, Conservation Innovation Grant, Landscape Initiatives, and the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Project.14
Once approved for an EQIP contract, a recipient can expect the NRCS to share up to 75%
of the cost of their desired conservation practice.15
Further, in more recent versions of the
program, recipients that fall within the USDA’s definition of “socially disadvantaged, limited
resources, veteran or beginning farmers” can expect up to 90% of their conservation project to
receive EQIP financial support.14-16
The length of EQIP contracts has varied since the program’s
creation, but currently EQIP contracts must not exceed ten years.15
EQIP in the 2014 Farm Bill
The most notable changes to EQIP in the 2014 Farm Bill were the incorporation of the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the shift in the authority of on-farm
conservation research activities, Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG), from CSP to EQIP.13
Funding and eligibility amendments included: the allocation of at least 5% of EQIP funds to be
targeted at wildlife related conservation practices due to the inclusion of WHIP, increasing the
percentage of advance payments for material and contract services to historically underserved
participants from 30% to 50%, and establishing permanent funding for EQIP.13
New eligibility
requirements established that an applicant’s adjusted gross income (AGI) must not exceed
$900,000 a year and that they must be in compliance with highly erodible land (HELC) and
wetland conservation (WC) requirements.13
Otherwise, there were relatively few changes to the
program components.8,13,17
As the governing agency for EQIP, NRCS creates rulings to support the statute and
provide further programming clarity.13
While there were many minor revisions and clarifications
made by NRCS to the 2014 final ruling on EQIP, two were particularly notable.13
The first was a
program enhancement that likely reflects stakeholder feedback regarding NRCS’ process of
prioritization and ranking of EQIP contracts. This change added language stating that outreach
activities would be administered “so as to not limit producer participation because of size or type
of operation, or production system, including specialty crop and organic production.”13
Further
details about this adjustment are elaborated upon in the results section.
The other significant ruling change was regarding the NRCS review of contracts
exceeding $150,000.13,18
Prior to this ruling, a NRCS Regional Conservationist reviewed any
EQIP contract that exceeded $150,000. The final ruling eliminated this critical review step, thus
any local or state contracts requesting funds of $150,000 were approved without regional
oversight.13
This change was concerning for environmentalists and conservationists as the NRCS
review had ensured that large EQIP contracts were focused on enhancing environmental benefits
rather than optimizing production.18
This concern is grounded in the fact that EQIP contract data
demonstrates that large payments typically are devoted to animal livestock operations to support
the construction of waste lagoons and methane digesters.18
III. EVALUATION GOAL & QUESTIONS
This report evaluates the impact of EQIP as authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. The goal
of this evaluation is to answer research questions using a prescribed public health policy
evaluation framework to gain an understanding of the most common critiques of the program and
offer recommendations based on evaluation findings. The evaluation framework described in

8. 8
section IV is most often applied to public health programs or policies. As already described,
EQIP is not specifically designed to directly influence public health. However, since agricultural
practices have environment and animal health consequences that are linked to public health, this
framework was determined to be appropriate for this evaluation and was adapted as needed.
Adaptations are discussed in section IV.
The evaluation research questions assess the impact of the 2014 Farm Bill’s iteration of
EQIP:
1. Did the program achieve its stated objectives regarding environmental impacts?
2. How did program utilization vary across states and regions?
IV. METHODOLOGY & SOURCES
Methodology
A study conducted by Jilcott, Ammerman, Sommers and Glasgow provides an
example of utilizing the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the public health impact of a
policy or program.19
This framework consists of five components, Reach, Effectiveness,
Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance and was found to be a useful method to
evaluate health policy. All five components were utilized to assess the environmental
outcomes of EQIP, which ultimately impact public health.
The first component of the RE-AIM framework is Reach, which is defined as the
percentage of the population whose health is intended to be impacted by the policy.19
This proportion should be calculated using a denominator of those who are intended to be
affected by a program and a numerator comprised of those who actually are.19
When
applied to conservation programs, such as EQIP, the target population and denominator is
the number of acres of American farm and ranchland in need of environmental
conservation efforts and the numerator is the number of acres actually covered by the
program. The number of acres in need of conservation funding was not accessible as it is
difficult to quantify and most likely unknown. Therefore, Reach was adapted to review
the total acres and funds covered by EQIP, or just the numerator, as a proxy of Reach. In
addition, EQIP’s Reach included a discussion of the number of contracts left unfunded in
FY2016 and the proportion of practices introduced that would not have been introduced
without EQIP funding. This component is referred to in government research studies as
additionality.20
Effectiveness is the next component of this framework and was a critical aspect of
this evaluation. According to Jilcott et. al’s report, an analysis of program effectiveness
typically includes a review of cost effectiveness as well as anecdotal evidence from
impacted groups.19
This component is particularly compatible with the evaluation of
EQIP and was a primary focus of this report.
Adoption is unique from Reach in that it focuses on the proportion of governing
bodies that enact a policy, rather than the individual targets of the policy.19
The NRCS is
the governing body within the USDA that enacts and enforces EQIP.6,13
The headquarter
office of NRCS develops rulings that operationalize EQIP and ranking procedures for
state and local NRCS offices.6
Thus, Adoption variability may exist in the level of

9. 9
funding allocated within each state as well as the types of contracts prioritized by each
NRCS branch.
The fourth aspect of the RE-AIM framework is Implementation. Per the RE-AIM
framework, Implementation is supported by an understanding of the program’s
enforcement, if any, as well as its compliance.19
For the purpose of this evaluation,
Implementation was interpreted as how well the NRCS ensures alignment between
EQIP’s environmental improvement goals in the contracts it approved, which ultimately
informed which practices were implemented. This was identified as a key area of focus in
evaluating EQIP, as it relates to how well the operationalized program aligned with its
original intentions. In addition, the number of applications left unfunded is also
discussed.
The final component of RE-AIM is Maintenance. The Re-AIM tool explains that
this element reviews how a program becomes “part of the routine organizational
practices and policies.”19
Maintenance demonstrates how policy makers redesign the
program over time, often in response to other framework elements such as
Effectiveness.19
Contextual factors, such as politics and economic conditions, also
influence Maintenance and were reviewed when appropriate.
A priori, the elements of Effectiveness and Adoption were determined to be
critical factors in answering research question one. Reach, Adoption and Implementation
were considered in advance to be fundamental in answering research question two.
Sources
Both quantitative and qualitative sources were used for this evaluation. Key
informant interviews were conducted to gather stakeholder perspectives on EQIP, which
provided qualitative support to elements of the RE-AIM framework. These stakeholders
included the National Young Farmer’s Coalition and the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) and a summary of their EQIP recommendations can be found in the Appendix. In
addition, many government reports provided qualitative insight regarding EQIP.
Quantitative information was primarily accessed via data repositories on the websites of
the EWG and NRCS.21-23
V. RESULTS
Reach
This section will review how EQIP’s Reach varied across the country at the national and
state levels. Individual farm level data would have been preferred for this review, but this was
not obtainable. Specifically, it will observe the acreage impacted by EQIP funds, the number of
contracts left unfunded, as well as the concept of additionality.
Table 1 summarizes national Reach figures, including the total financial obligations, the
corresponding number of contracts, and the number of acres covered in the last three fiscal
years.21
In addition to acreage, total funding amounts also depict EQIP’s Reach. The total funds
devoted to EQIP contracts in 2014 was $1,313,933.50, followed by $1,248,419.00 in 2015 and
$1,454,100.80 in 2016.21
The number of active and completed contracts followed a similar
pattern of a dip in 2015, with 37,207 contracts in 2014, 32,958 in 2015 and 36,395 in 2016. 21

10. 10
Finally, the total number of acres impacted by EQIP active and completed programs
demonstrates the program’s Reach, with 11,216,439 acres covered in 2014, 9,964,309 in 2015
and 10,578,294 in 2016. 21
A review of the top ten states with the highest acreage of active and completed EQIP
contracts in a fiscal year was conducted using NRCS data. 21
Figures 2 through 4 summarize the
findings below and demonstrate that land in six states was consistently Reach-ed by EQIP, while
acres in the other four were included in the top ten for two of the last three years.21
Thus, Reach,
as judged by acreage, has remained consistent at the state level over this time period.
It is also important to acknowledge the number of unfunded EQIP contracts as a proxy
for the actual Reach, but inverted. According to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report
on data from FY2016, 61,809 applications went unfunded, which was estimated to amount to
$1.7 billion.24
This report indicated that the highest number of unfunded applications were
submitted in Mississippi, (5,841), Arkansas (4,713), and Texas (3,734).24
Both Texas and
Mississippi were also the top one and two states receiving the highest total number of contracts
in FY2016, and Texas and Arkansas received the second and third highest amounts of obligated
funding, respectively, in that same year.24
The final aspect of Reach is additionality. A conservation practice can be considered
additional if it would not have been implemented without the incentive provided by a
conservation program, such as EQIP.20
This concept helps assess EQIP’s Reach, as it illustrates
the how the program contributed to changes in farmer participation in conservation activities. An
Economic Research Report published in July 2014 provides insight regarding the additionality of
EQIP.20
While the data set evaluated was from 2009-2011, the findings are likely representative
of continued patterns of additionality as statutory changes in 2014 did not alter the underlying
goals and objectives of EQIP. The report found that additionality was high, at approximately
80%, for structural and vegetative practices, such as riparian buffers, field borders, and grassed
waterways. 20
In contrast, conservation management practices, such as nutrient management
conservation tillage and rotational grazing, provided mixed additionality results.20
For example,
conservation tillage received just 50% additionality, while nutrient management plans showed
88% additionality.20
Reach was assessed at a national and state level based on total EQIP obligations and
acres impacted. However, data to support EQIP allocation to particular groups and initiatives
was not accessible. In addition, the CRS report indicates that the program’s Reach is limited,
based on the significant proportion of applications that went unfunded in 2016, with the current
budget only funding approximately 38% of EQIP applications. This figure demonstrates that
current EQIP funding is inadequate to fully realize program goals.Further, a look at the
additionality of EQIP demonstrated that the program’s existence does incentivize increased
participation, thus improved Reach. Overall, available data provides an incomplete picture of
EQIP’s Reach.
Effectiveness
This section reviewed how EQIP funding has impacted environmental outcomes, as well
as the cost-effectiveness of EQIP practices.
Environmental Concerns
According to NRCS rulings for EQIP, there are six national priorities for the
environment: (1) reducing point and nonpoint source pollution from agricultural operations, (2)

11. 11
“conserving ground and surface waters,” (3) “reducing on-farm emissions that contribute to
violations of air quality standards,” (4) “reducing soil erosion and sedimentation,” (5)
“conserving energy,” and (6) “promoting at risk species habitat conservation.”6
These goals
describe the environmental priorities of EQIP, per the 2014 Farm Bill, that are assessed below in
relation to Effectiveness.
Two agency mechanisms exist to demonstrate conservation program Effectiveness. The
first is the Conservation Practice Physical Effects (CPPE) matrix, which was created by NRCS
and is available on the USDA website.25
This national database provides effectiveness rankings
for various conservation practices on an eleven-point scale from the substantial worsening (-5) to
the substantial improvement (+5) of an environmental condition.25
The USDA website indicates
that this tool is a resource for NRCS field planners, and is applied to the process of EQIP
contract ranking in the field.25
This tool encompasses the six NRCS environmental priorities
listed above, and therefore should be a useful resource for state and local NRCS offices.
However, it is not adequate in summarizing the Effectiveness of EQIP practices holistically and
possesses some limitations even for its intended users.
Firstly, the process used to create the rankings, as well as the data source, is unclear.
Therefore, this evaluation is unable to assess the quality and timeliness of data within the matrix
and it is possible that this also limits tool usage in the field. Secondly, while the resource seems
to have been created using a systematic method to allocate rankings, it is far too complex to be
accessible to lay audiences. The website indicates that the matrix was developed for NRCS field
planners, and thus a lay audience is not their intention. Even if this tool is considered useful by
field planners, an annual summary report would be more effective in providing meaningful
insight on the Effectiveness of conservation programs for decision makers.
The second agency mechanism used to determine environmental outcomes is the
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP).6
Initiated in 2003, this program is a
multiagency effort to quantify the impacts of agricultural conservation practices across many
government programs, including EQIP.26
This program was useful in assessing EQIP with the
RE-AIM framework as it aims to guide USDA conservation policy and program evolution, in
addition to helping NRCS staff make EQIP contractual allocations.26
CEAP reviews conservation impacts in five main domains: cropland, grazing land,
wetlands, wildlife and watersheds.26
These five areas incorporate the six NRCS environmental
priorities described above on page 21. While there is substantial information available, there are
also limitations. For example, on a national scale, the first round of CEAP assessment data
(CEAP-1) estimates that,
“… relative to if no conservation practices were in use, cropland conservation practices
used across the Nation in 2003-06 decrease: sediment losses from water erosion by 53% (278.1
million tons per year), nitrogen surface losses by 41% (1.7 billion pounds per year), nitrogen
subsurface losses by 31% (2.1 billion pounds per year), and phosphorus losses by 44% (584.1
million pounds per year).”26
This excerpt demonstrates that quantifiable Effectiveness data does exist, yet it is limited
by relevancy, in that the data is over ten years old. This data is one example of the way in which
the effectiveness of conservation practices is measured by CEAP. Similar assessments have been
conducted for the other four domains of CEAP reviews. For brevity, results from CEAP findings
in each area will not be summarized but instead their existence acknowledged. In totality, these

12. 12
results show mixed evidenced of the Effectiveness of conservation practices. Despite the
presence of Effectiveness data for each of these CEAP conservation impact domains, the
applicability of CEAP results to the evaluation of EQIP is limited.
Firstly, the analysis and subsequent findings from CEAP are not specific to EQIP.26
Some reports may assess EQIP in relation to a single environmental practice, but no overarching
reports on the NRCS website could be found that holistically evaluated EQIP practices.
Secondly, the summarized national findings developed to drive federal level programmatic
improvements, rely on old data. For example, the cropland section indicates that current reports
rely on impact data form 2003-2006.26
More specific reports, such as a special study conducted
on croplands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in 2011, have used more recent data. 26
Yet, for
the purposes of this evaluation, regional reports are less useful in shaping the overall image of
the environmental impacts of the EQIP program.
Cost-Effectiveness
Per statutory requirements, cost-effectiveness must be incorporated in the ranking and
selection process of EQIP contracts. The purpose of including cost-effectiveness is to ensure that
proposed conservation practices are both efficient and targeted to achieve the highest
environmental benefits.6
Thus, this element relies on knowledge of relevant environmental
issues, key conservation methods proven to address such issues, and an understanding of their
costs compared with alternatives in various regions of the country.
According to the GAO report on EQIP, cost-effectiveness is weighted at 10% of the
overall ranking system for all applications, at both the state and national level.6
Given the limited
weight of cost-effectiveness in the ranking system, it is apparent that cost-effectiveness has a
limited impact on an application’s success rate. NRCS officials, when questioned about this low
proportion by GAO officials, were unsure of the rationale, but stated that it had been in place
since 2006 when the application evaluation tool was developed by economists.6
The GAO report
found that some applications with a cost-effectiveness of zero were funded in FY2015.6
Thus,
cost-effectiveness, as utilized in NRCS ranking procedure, is not currently a key priority for
overall EQIP Effectiveness.
Overall, the review of EQIP’s Effectiveness led to two main findings. First, the CPPE
and CEAP mechanisms provide useful insight for different audiences regarding the
environmental outcomes of EQIP practices and elucidate the program’s Effectiveness. However,
sound Effectiveness data is impactful as long as it is current, well communicated and utilized at
all levels of NRCS for decision making. This consideration leads into the dimension of
Implementation, and further review of how Effectiveness results are utilized is addressed in that
section. Second, cost-effectiveness is utilized as an element of the EQIP application ranking
system, but is not very influential in shaping how the program ensures a return on investment.
Adoption
Upon conducting an assessment of Adoption, limitations in data availability and the
applicability of this framework component to the evaluation of EQIP became evident. In the RE-
AIM framework, assessment of Adoption is conducted by comparing how different governing
bodies enact a policy or program. For the purposes of this EQIP evaluation, local and state level
NRCS reports provide key information in assessing program Adoption. However, due to limited
availability of data, the Reach component of the evaluation was adapted to include similar local
and state level data. Specifically, the Reach component analyzed state level data since individual

13. 13
farmer level data, with the exception of the NYFC survey results, was unavailable. Therefore,
overlap between the Reach and Adoption components occurred when applying the RE-AIM
framework to EQIP. Thus, this section focused on a review of the top and bottom five states
receiving EQIP funds from FY2014-FY2016 to identify trends in Adoption and examine the
influence of contextual factors.21
The top five states receiving EQIP obligations has experienced consistency since the
2014 Farm Bill.21
Table 2 provides a summary of the top and bottom five states receiving EQIP
obligations in the last three fiscal years.21
Across the last three fiscal years, all top five states
have remained in the top five, with the top three always remaining the same and only Colorado
and Mississippi switching from 2014 to 2015.21
The bottom five states receiving EQIP
obligations experienced similar consistency, with all five bottom states remaining at the bottom
five for the past three fiscal years.21
Massachusetts and Rhode Island have remained 49 and 50
for EQIP funds, respectively. New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire have all shared
places from 46-48, but have rotated from year to year.21
Varying levels of Adoption are due to a mix of political, environmental and other
contextual factors.19
These factors are complex, not always quantifiable, and often unavailable.
Based on the Table 2 and Figures 2 through 4, some conclusions can be drawn. A state’s
physical footprint and geological landscape largely influences the acres of available farmland,
and thus eligible farms that apply for EQIP contracts. For example, Rhode Island has
significantly less eligible farms, ranches and wildlife habitats than California. Generally, the
bottom five states are comparatively much smaller in landmass than those in the top five.21
In addition, the GOA report indicated that the state of California possesses significant
water bird habitat.6
As previously stated, per statutory funding requirements, 5% of EQIP funds
must be devoted to wildlife habitat initiatives. Further, a Migratory Bird Treaty exists between
the United States and Canada to protect migrating bird populations.6
Therefore, the California
state NRCS adopted a goal to protect at least 10,000 acres of California using EQIP funds.6
These contextual factors demonstrate how California has consistently been allocated large EQIP
funds, as well as the importance of internal EQIP requirements and special initiatives in shaping
Adoption rates.
Another meaningful contextual factor that may influence Adoption is the experience of
climate related risks, such as drought. Practices such as conservation tillage and irrigation related
infrastructure were reviewed in a study conducted by the ERS in 2013 to evaluate the influence
of drought on conservation program enrollment.27
While this report was published prior to 2014,
the findings were determined to be relevant based on the few programmatic changes that
occurred from 2008 to 2014 in EQIP. The ERS report indicated that,
“Counties with higher drought risk tend to have higher EQIP participation rates” for
both conservation tillage and irrigation related infrastructure and “Counties with higher
erodibility and greater groundwater dependence also have higher EQIP participation rates
among irrigators.” 27
However, the study also found variability by state, even when climatic and hydrologic
conditions were similar. Specifically, western Nebraska and northern Texas had high EQIP
irrigation practice participation rates, while western Oklahoma and western Kansas had lower
participation rates despite all four states sharing relatively high drought risk and geography.27

14. 14
These contradictions complicate the assessment of Adoption and demonstrate how
environmental concerns are not always prioritized in EQIP contract allocation. NRCS offices
have substantial discretionary authority in allocating EQIP funds.27
However, the example above
would require qualitative data, such as key informant interviews, to distill the reason for
variability in Adoption. This data was not available at the time of this report, but it is reasonable
to surmise that the gaps in Effectiveness resources, previously discussed, including untimely
data, may play a role.
Implementation
As previously described, Implementation provides a picture of how well a program has
been operationalized to consistently meet its objectives, or statutory requirements, and is
supported by the program’s compliance and enforcement mechanisms.19
Since the 2002 Farm
Bill, the primary objective of EQIP has been to optimize environmental benefits while providing
for continued agricultural production.6,24
Thus, EQIP’s Implementation fidelity reviewed
whether statutory requirements were met and assessed the allocation of federal and state funds
based on environmental benefits and the amount of EQIP contracts left unmet.
Statutory funding stipulations are a compulsory aspect of EQIP Implementation. The
2014 Farm Bill indicated that EQIP must commit 60% of its funding to livestock operations, 5%
to beginning farmers and ranchers, 5% to socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and
ranchers, and 5% to wildlife habitat protection.7,8,13
The data sources and summaries provided by
the EWG and NRCS provide details regarding the types of practices funded per year, and how
many acres and total contracts of each type were completed.21,23
However, the data is not
organized in a manner that enables confirmation of statutory funding requirements. Further,
especially in relation to the livestock funding requirement, practice definitions are not always
transparent enough to confirm whether they are related to livestock operations. Thus, quantitative
data to support the first three funding requirements was not readily apparent in order to draw
conclusions on statutory Implementation. However, as these percentages are based on statutory
requirements in the Farm Bill, the expectation is that these minimums are met.
While quantitative evidence to support the 5% of EQIP funding earmarked for beginning
farmers and ranchers and socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers was not
ascertained, qualitative responses from a survey conducted by the National Young Farmers
Coalition provide evidence suggesting extensive Adoption and Implementation of EQIP general
funding and EQIP initiatives among young farmer groups.22
Their 2017 survey findings
indicated that 71% of survey respondents reporting participation in this program.22
The EQIP
High Tunnel System Initiative was the most used federal program with 39% of respondents
participating.22
As aforementioned, the primary objective of EQIP is to optimize environmental benefits
while providing for continued agricultural production.6,24
However, effectiveness findings do not
always inform EQIP implementation in the field.3,6
The EWG provides a useful example of how
little CEAP effectiveness data influences the provision of EQIP contracts for water quality
related issues.3
Their online article titled, “Trouble in Farm Country: Ag Runoff Fouls Tap Water
Across Rural America” explains the poor state of water quality in rural America and the
inadequate implementation of proven water-quality EQIP programs. 3
Despite knowledge that
nitrate levels in rural water sources have been found to be twice the legal limit, EWG found
significant under-investment in water quality related conservation in regions of the country
where they are most needed.3
Particularly, EWG’s article states that, “Almost 40 percent of

15. 15
communities with elevated nitrate levels are in counties where none of the EQIP contracts
support the planting of cover crops. Almost a third are in counties with no EQIP support for
erosion and runoff control practices, and more than a third are in counties with no EQIP
support for managing use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers.”3
A 2014 report by the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) supported the EWG’s
claims more broadly, indicating that EQIP implementation has lacked loyalty to its objectives.28
The OIG concluded that, “[NRCS] state offices did not sufficiently base allocations on
environmental concerns.”6,28
Three years later, the GAO conducted a similar review of EQIP
with data from 2009 to 2015, with results supporting OIG’s initial findings.6
Their analysis found
that the process for allocating EQIP funding from NRCS headquarters to state offices was more
highly correlated with historical funding amounts than the environmental benefits associated
with a proposed contract (Figure 5 below).6
This evidence indicates that OIG recommendations
were not well implemented, since EQIP allocation to states from 2009 to 2015 was not primarily
based on environmental concerns.6
One explanation for this lack of implementation fidelity related to prioritizing
environmental concerns in fund allocation is that the most current CEAP studies are based on
data from 2003 to 2006, and thus NRCS headquarters officials felt they lacked credibility.6
Similar findings at the state level supported the trend of poor implementation fidelity. The
GAO’s investigation involved a review of the primary factor influencing EQIP allocations in
eight states.6
Their results indicated that four of the eight did not rank environmental concerns as
the main factor for EQIP allocation, and instead prioritized land use type and previous funding
levels.6
However, half of the surveyed states did comply with the program’s intention.6
One example was Arkansas, which allocated FY2016 funding, “based on the percentage
of at-risk or high-needs acres in each county for each environmental concern.” 6
Interestingly,
the Arkansas NRCS office worked with a local university to develop models that identified at-
risk or high-need areas based on state assumptions.6
This information was aggregated into a
Geographic Information System and ultimately served as an objective tool for the state to link
fund allocation to state environmental priorities. Other best practices utilized by states to support
Implementation fidelity were demonstrated by states such as Iowa.6
The NRCS office in Iowa
adjusted payment rates by EQIP practice, funding approximately 50% of most contracts and
increasing funding to 75% for practices adopted in high-priority watersheds within the state.6
These examples illustrate the wide variety of implementation compliance with EQIP
objectives, and thus varying Implementation fidelity across the program. At the federal level,
EQIP allocation is disconnected from Effectiveness data. At the state level, there are connections
to Effectiveness data, although there is a lack of standardization. Some states model funding
allocation practices that are well-aligned with local and state environmental priorities, while
other states follow suit with national practices. Clearly, sound environmental impact data is
necessary in order for NRCS offices to ensure state and local environmental objectives are met.
However, in spite of the existence of such data at the state level, implementation practices vary
widely.
Maintenance
The final component of RE-AIM is Maintenance. This section reviewed how EQIP has
evolved over time and has been influenced by elements of the RE-AIM framework as well as
other contextual factors.

16. 16
At its inception in 1996, the main objective of EQIP was to incentivize “farmers and
ranchers to adopt practices that reduce environmental and resource problems” via a lengthy list
of structural and management practices.29,30
At that time, the program was authorized at $1.3
billion over seven years with half of the funding allocated toward livestock production.29,30
Most of the changes to EQIP since 1996 have involved shifts in the scope and funding of
the program. Adjunct Public Policy Professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, Robert Paarlberg,
wrote a commentary in 2001 on the political climate leading up to the 2002 Farm Bill.31
In it, he
describes three key factors that influence Farm Bill policy outcomes: party control of Congress,
crop prices, and budget constraints.31
With these factors in mind, the party in control and the
Federal budget were likely the most influential factors leading up to the 2002 Farm Bill.
According to Paarlberg, Republicans – who were in control of Congress at that time – prefer less
market and supply controls, which would lead them to favor the growth of voluntary incentive
programs, such as EQIP.31
In addition, compared to the federal budget, which was in a deficit in
1996, the federal budget of the early 2000’s possessed a significant surplus.31
These factors help
explain the expansion in funding in the 2002 Farm Bill, with graduated funding increases for
each year beginning with $400 million in 2002 and ending with $1.3 billion for 2007.32
The 2002 Farm Bill was also notable as it indicated that contracts should be prioritized
based on cost-effectiveness of the conservation practices, especially those aligned with national
conservation priorities.33
Further, this version of the bill indicates that “optimization of
environmental benefits” was considered within the purpose of EQIP.33
While evidence to support
these changes could not be identified, both changes are reasonable next steps that may have been
advocated for by NRCS offices and environmental groups to better harness the potential of EQIP
after observing its implementation challenges and benefits over the prior four years. In addition,
the creation of the CEAP in 2003 further supports a theme of environmental return on investment
in this Farm Bill that likely grew from observing anecdotal benefits, but lacking a formal
mechanism to measure them.
In contrast to the climate of the 2002 Farm Bill, the period leading up to the 2008
legislation faced more budgetary and spending constraints.12
However, the 2008 Farm Bill still
followed the trend of increasing EQIP funding by authorizing $3.4 billion over ten years.34
Other
changes were marked by many new programmatic initiatives, that were likely the result of
engagement of many stakeholder groups, such as national farm groups and conservation
organizations, and their proposals for conservation program improvements.12
Resulting changes
to EQIP were the inclusion of forest management within EQIP’s goals, as well as a focus on new
environmental priorities such as organic production, air quality concerns and water quality
conservation. Additionally, the bill expanded access for beginning farmers and ranchers as well
as socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by setting aside 5% of total EQIP spending for
each group.34
Following this expansion of special initiatives and programs in EQIP in 2008, the
resulting climate leading up to the 2014 Farm Bill shifted toward prioritization of both program
consolidation and budget reduction.7,24
The 2014 Farm Bill repealed 12 of the 20 conservation
programs in the 2008 Farm Bill, created two new ones and merged two programs into existing
ones.7,24
This consolidation was likely called for by NRCS since they handle the daily challenges
of implementing and managing so many programs; however contextual evidence to support this
supposition was not identified. In addition, the federal deficit existing at the time of the
legislation pressured Congress to make substantial spending cuts. Ultimately, the conservation
title was cut by $3.97 billion over 10 years.7
Despite cuts to the conservation title in that same

17. 17
year, EQIP funding remained relatively unaffected when compared to other conservation
programs, despite the addition of WHIP. Also, in 2014 EQIP became a mandatory fixture of the
Conservation Funding structure.7,24
This mandatory status means that if the most current revision
of the farm bill were to expire after the five-year authorization period, EQIP funding would
continue based on 2014 allocations. These measures demonstrate the longevity of EQIP.
In summary, many factors have influenced the evolution of EQIP since its creation in
1996. Overall, increased breadth and funding has been a general trend, despite broad Farm Bill
cuts in 2014. While political and economic factors likely influence the Farm Bill and EQIP
changes the most, implementation issues and stakeholder motivations have also shaped the bill
over time.
VI. DISCUSSION
If fully optimized, EQIP would: Reach the land most in need, include only practices with
demonstrated Effectiveness, be Adopted and Implemented consistently and restructured or
Maintained accordingly. Currently, EQIP does not fulfill these ideals.
Did the program achieve its stated objectives regarding environmental impacts?
Prior to the evaluation, Effectiveness and Adoption were determined as key aspects to answer
the first research question. These elements were prioritized as they connect the environmental
outcomes data (Effectiveness) to the buy-in or support (Adoption) of the primary implementing
organization, the NRCS. While Effectiveness is key to answering this question, effective
practices in the absence of broad utilization would not improve the state of agricultural lands in
this country. While Reach was also important to answer this question, NRCS Adoption and
promotion was viewed as imperative -- due to the voluntary nature of EQIP -- for Reach to be
established.
A primary observation made with regard to Effectiveness is that mechanisms exist to enable
robust environmental effectiveness determination. However, the development, implementation
and scope of these mechanisms, CPPE and CEAP, is lacking. Namely, the CPPE is based on
studies that are ten years old or more.25
NRCS offices have reported that they do not find this
data reliable and cite this as a reason for excluding environmental impacts scores in contract
ranking.6
However, the NRCS website indicates that existing studies are underway on data from
2015, suggesting that this issue is being addressed and will be mitigated in the future.26
The CEAP has and continues to provide a robust set of reports on five conservation areas.
While these are accessible on the NRCS website, the breadth of material is such that the
Effectiveness of EQIP practices alone cannot be distilled. This complexity makes it difficult to
determine the overall effectiveness of EQIP, holistically. Finally, cost-effectiveness has been
acknowledged by the GOA report as an underutilized and often irrelevant in the ranking of EQIP
contracts. Viewing these aspects of Effectiveness together, this evaluation has determined that
the Effectiveness of EQIP has been scientifically established. However, improvements can be
made to ensure the data is more usable and influential in shaping EQIP contract allocation.
Adoption was a challenging dimension of the RE-AIM framework to assess. Despite the
nuances of defining and applying this concept to EQIP, reliable conclusions were still attainable.
Specifically, contextual factors have both consistent and unexpected impacts on EQIP funding
disbursement by NRCS state and local offices.

18. 18
A state’s physical footprint and geological landscape continually shape state EQIP
obligations.21,23
However, when it comes to natural resource protection and climate issues,
Adoption rates are variable. This variability in Adoption, specifically when EQIP contracts do
not align with environmental concerns, is worrying. Reliable data will enable broader, more
confident Adoption and likely more standardized Implementation on behalf of NRCS. Some
NRCS offices have argued that CEAP data is not utilized in ranking systems due to poor data
quality, resulting in variability in EQIP practices despite known environmental risks.
Ultimately, widespread Adoption is necessary for EQIP to achieve the goal of improving
environmental outcomes. Effectiveness and Adoption results demonstrate that specific EQIP
conservation practices are successful in restoring the environment. However, a lack of trust in the
data due to its limitations has led to variable adherence, and has limited the potential of EQIP’s
environmental impact.
How did program utilization vary across states and regions?
There are two main conclusions from the Reach results about the variable utilization of
EQIP. First, qualitative reports from the NYFC survey indicated that EQIP is highly utilized by
young farmer groups across the country. This data suggests that a potentially high proportion of
EQIP’s Reach could be among young farmers, but the dearth of individual level data limits the
ability to make comparisons that would strengthen and support this conclusion. A review of
additionality indicated that the Reach of EQIP varies by practice type, with additionality being
high for structural practices but mixed for management practices.20
These results may reflect
farmer motives, as structural activities often have high installation costs and their benefits may
be more long term. Thus, they are potentially more likely to directly benefit the individual farmer
than management practices, and the financial assistance provided by EQIP is highly attractive.
An awareness of this variability may be useful in prioritization of conservation practices within
EQIP and other conservation programs.
Adoption variability was identified in a few ways. A consistent theme was that the
physical footprint and geological landscape of a state influenced a state’s ability to fully engage
with the variety of EQIP practices.21
In addition, the evaluation found conflicting results
regarding the influence of climate related risks on EQIP adoption.27
In particular, the analysis
found that some NRCS contract appraisal processes do not weight proven EQIP practices highly
enough despite existing in climate prone environments, while other NRCS do.27
These findings
demonstrate that contextual factors influence the adoption of EQIP practices.
Implementation results also provided insight into the variability of EQIP utilization
across the country. Two main themes emerged to explain variability: a lack of standardization of
contract ranking systems across NRCS offices as well as inconsistent use of environmental
effectiveness data in the funding allocation process.6
By design, state and local NRCS offices
have considerable autonomy when allocating funds in order to prioritize local and regional
environmental risks.6,27
However, the minimum standard should be heavily weighted to prioritize
both environmental outcomes and cost-effectiveness in every NRCS jurisdiction. Improved
standardization and compliance would ensure that, for example, historical funding levels are not
more influential in the contract appraisal than relevant regional environmental concerns, as
described in the GOA report. Further, better Implementation is linked to more reliable and
trusted environmental effectiveness data.
Some variability should be expected in the allocation of EQIP, based on the landmass of
our country and the variety of environmental issues to be addressed. However, the evaluation

19. 19
using the RE-AIM framework demonstrated that variability is inconsistent and not always related
to the prioritization of local needs. Instead, a multitude of other factors, such as politics, budget,
human resources and capacity, likely lead to undue variability of EQIP funding allocation in the
United States.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The evaluation of EQIP using the RE-AIM framework has led to the identification of four
recommendations to improve the program. Since improved effectiveness measures underline the
success of this program, the primary recommendation is to:
Increase resources, both funding and staff, to support the Conservation Practice
Physical Effects matrix and Conservation Effect Assessment Program.
This is the primary recommendation as it underpins the broader understanding of the
impact that EQIP can have. Effectiveness data ultimately affects how the program is Adopted
and Implemented by NRCS, which is also linked to the program’s Reach. By increasing funding
and resources for these Effectiveness measurement tools, the quality and reliability of
Effectiveness data will improve. This recommendation aims to ensure that data is current,
reliable and available. In addition, the CPPE framework should incorporate additionality. In
association with this recommendation, program-specific, comprehensive reviews should be
conducted by the CEAP on a regular basis in order to ensure that objectives are met and that tax-
payer dollars are appropriately applied. This will also enable policy makers to adjust and
Maintain government programs accordingly.
Following this key proposal, a few other changes are recommended. The limited
accessibility and detail of data were key challenges in conducting this assessment. Thus, the
second recommendation is to:
Increase the accessibility and transparency of EQIP and conservation program data,
especially at the individual farm or ranch level.
This improvement would allow more due-diligence and accountability of the program.
The EWG conservation database took over seven years to compile and required 28 FOIA
requests.35
Gathering conservation program should not be so difficult. If data is made more
transparent, than external groups and researchers can support the significant assessment activities
undertaken by the multi-agency CEAP effort. Ultimately, this would expedite the review process
and enhance the objectivity of reporting.
Increased quality, access and transparency of EQIP Effectiveness data will lead to more
standardized Adoption and Implementation across NRCS offices. However, flexibility should
remain so as to allow localities, states and regions to prioritize the most urgent environmental
needs. The two final recommendations are similarly related to NRCS processes and activities:
NRCS headquarters should require environmental impacts data to be utilized in
contract prioritization and should reevaluate the weight of cost-effectiveness in the contract
ranking score to ensure contracts prioritize these measures.
&

20. 20
NRCS Headquarters should conduct annual assessments to ensure contract
allocation is aligned with core program objectives.
The 2014 final NRCS rulings eliminated the need for a NRCS Regional Conservationist
to review contracts exceeding $150,000.18
In support of the above recommendation, this review
advocates for this critical review to be reinstated.
VIII. CONCLUSION
EQIP is a key component of the nation’s working lands conservation programs. Its
environmental impact has been mixed, most notably due to unreliable and often inaccessible
effectiveness data. The above recommendations will ensure that EQIP can optimize its objectives
and improve the environment at the local, regional and national levels. If these recommendations
are observed, the quality of the air, land and water will improve, creating more sustainable
ecosystems and habitats. In addition, ecosystem enhancements will lead to public health benefits
across the country. In the 2018 revision of the Farm Bill, Congress should preserve and expand
conservation programming – with these recommendations in mind – to enable farmers and
ranchers to produce crops in a manner that supports their local viability, sustains the nations’
economy and ultimately improves the country’s environment and public health.
IX. LIMITATIONS
The main limitations of this evaluation were data specificity and accessibility. With
regard to data, the NRCS and EWG platforms were comprehensive but both had limitations.
Neither source had data at the level of the individual farmer, which limited the application of the
RE-AIM framework. The interpretation of Reach and Adoption for this evaluation were
impacted due to this gap. Ultimately, valuable conclusions were made in each section of the
framework, but improvements could be made. Farm and ranch-level data would not only have
enhanced this evaluation, but also this data would be even more meaningful for future
assessments conducted on EQIP and conservation programs in general.
Additionally, the NRCS site did not provide a review of which EQIP practices were
conducted in each state, however this gap was filled by the EWG resource. Similarly, the EWG
source only had data up to 2015, while the NRCS had data up to FY2016. Further, there were no
data sources found that confirmed that statutory minimums were met.35
The EWG specifically
highlights that there is a lack of transparency regarding the number of confined animal feeding
operations that receive conservation funding, such as EQIP contracts.35
Qualitative data,
especially to support Maintenance, was not always available. A few reports provided contextual
factors that could be referenced, but sometimes assumptions were drawn.
Accessibility of data was also a challenge. The EWG reported that the resource on their
website took seven years to develop and required 28 unique Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests.35
Importantly, an external group, such as the EWG may have more delays in accessing
data when compared to an internal group, such as the NRCS or even the OIG and GOA for their
respective reports. However, even the CEAP effort, which should have fewer limitations to data,
is still in the process of conducting round two of its comprehensive review.

21. 21
X. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Robert Martin and Carolyn Hricko from the Center for a Livable
Future for their guidance on this research report, as well as numerous rounds of edits. In
addition, I’d like to thank Colin O’Neil from the Environmental Working Group, Andrew
Bahrenburg and Erin Foster West from the National Young Farmer’s Coalition, Alyssa Charney
from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Kari Hamerschlag from Friends of the
Earth, and Patty Lovera from Food and Water Watch; all of the aforementioned contributors
helped provide insight on their respective organization’s perspective on EQIP, which gave
credence to my findings and helped inform my recommendations.
XI. APPENDIX
Figure 1. Percentage of Mandatory funding devoted to Farm Bill Conservation Programs
by Type from 2002, 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills
Source: Conservation provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill7
Table 1. Total EQIP Obligations, Contracts and Acres for Fiscal Years 2014-2016
Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016
Total funds obligated $1,313,933 $1,248,419 $1,454,100
# of active and completed
contracts
37,207 32,958 36,395
Total # of acres on active and
completed contracts
11,216,439 9,964,309 10,578,294
Source: NRCS
21

22. 22
Figure 2. Number of acres with Active & Completed EQIP contracts, Fiscal Year 2014
Source: NRCS21

23. 23
Figure 3. Number of acres with Active & Completed EQIP contracts, Fiscal Year 2015
Source: NRCS21
Figure 4. Number of acres with Active & Completed EQIP contracts, Fiscal Year 2016
Source: NRCS21

24. 24
Table 2. Top and Bottom Five States receiving EQIP Obligations for FY 2014-2016 (in
thousands)
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Rank State
Total
EQIP
spending State
Total
EQIP
spending State
Total
EQIP
spending
1 California $114,702 California $123,665 California $109,010
2 Texas $105,894 Texas $95,354 Texas $108,653
3 Arkansas $55,113 Arkansas $53,978 Arkansas $56,009
4 Colorado $37,166 Mississippi $43,766 Mississippi $49,580
5 Mississippi $35,969 Colorado $37,197 Colorado $41,155
46 New Jersey $7,030 Connecticut $6,432 New Jersey $7,271
47 Connecticut $6,887
New
Hampshire
$6,417
New
Hampshire
$6,703
48
New
Hampshire
$6,506 New Jersey $6,243 Connecticut $6,099
49 Massachusetts $4,328 Massachusetts $4,623 Massachusetts $5,619
50 Rhode Island $3,352 Rhode Island $3,457 Rhode Island $3,971
Source: NRCS
21

25. 25
Figure 5: EQIP Fiscal Year 2016 Allocations compared to Critical Areas of Environmental
Concern and Historical Funding Levels (based off of Fiscal years 2013- 2015 in 20 states)
Source: GAO report6

26. 26
XII. REFERENCES
1. Dale, V. H., & Polasky, S. (2007). Measures of the Effects of Agricultural Practices on
Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 286-296.
2. Casey J, Kim B, Larsen J, Price L, Nachman K. Industrial food animal production and
community health. Curr Envir Health Rpt. 2015;2(3):259-
271. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26231503. doi: 10.1007/s40572-015-0061-0.
3. Cox C. Trouble in farm country: Ag runoff fouls tap water across rural
America. https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/trouble-in-farm-country.php. Accessed Apr 22,
2018.
4. McGranahan D. A historical primer on the US farm bill: Supply management and
conservation policy. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2013;68(3):67A-
73A. https://chooseyourfuture.cps.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/A_historical_primer_on_the_US_farm_bill_Supply_ma-1.pdf
Accessed Feb 22, 2018.
5. Johnson, R. The 2008 Farm Bill: Major Provisions and Legislative Action. Congressional
Research Service Report for Congress (RL34696). November 2008.
https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20Farm%20Bill%20Maj
or%20Provisions.pdf. Accessed Mar 16, 2018.
6. Government Accountability Office. Agricultural conservation: USDA's environmental
quality incentives program could be improved to optimize benefits. United States
Government Accountability Office. 2017. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684073.pdf.
Accessed Mar 29, 2018.
7. Stubbs, M. Conservation Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79). April 24, 2014.
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R43504.pdf. Accessed Mar
16, 2018.
8. NSAC Blog. 2014 Farm Bill drill down: The bill by the numbers. Feb 4,
2014. http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/2014-farm-bill-by-numbers/. Accessed March
30, 2018.
9. Batie, S. Green payments as foreshadowed by EQIP.
1998. http://aftresearch.org/research/resource/publications/wp/wp98-8.html. Accessed
March 26, 2018.

27. 27
10. USDA Economic Research Services. The Agricultural Situation in the Soviet Union:
Review of 1973 and Outlook for 1974. Economic Research Service Report ERS-F-358.
March 1974. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/ERSF//1970s/1974/ERSF-03-11-
1974_The%20Soviet%20Union.pdf. Accessed Mar 6, 2018.
11. Johnson, M-V. Norfleet, M. Atwood, J. Behrman, K. Kiniry, J. Arnold, J., White, M., and
Williams, J. The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP): a national scale
natural resources and conservation needs assessment and decision support tool. 2015.
IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 25, 012012.
12. Johnson, R. The 2008 Farm Bill: A Summary of Major Provisions and Legislative
Action. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (RL33934). June 2008.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20080619_RL33934_614d6a0faf11fe1b17757b3ce
ff90babdaa67bde.pdf. Accessed Mar 16, 2018.
13. USDA NRCS website. 2014 Farm Bill Rules - Changes In The EQIP Final
Rule. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/farmbill/?cid=s
telprdb1265925. Accessed March 30, 2018.
14. USDA NRCS website. Environmental Quality Incentives
Program. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eq
ip/ Accessed Feb 5, 2018.
15. NSAC website. Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
http://sustainableagriculture.net/publications/grassrootsguide/conservation-
environment/environmental-quality-incentives-program/. Accessed Feb 10, 2018.
16. USDA NRCS website. Socially Disadvantaged, Limited Resource, Beginning Farmers,
Veteran
Farmers. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/people/outreach/sl
bfr/?cid=nrcsdev11_001040 Accessed Feb 10, 2018.
17. Federal Register. Final ruling on EQIP.
2016. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/12/2016-
10161/environmental-quality-incentives-program-eqip. Accessed Apr 30, 2018.
18. NSAC website. Comments on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program Interim
Rule Docket No. NRCS-2014-0007; Submitted online via regulations.gov

28. 28
http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NSAC-EQIP-IFR-
Comments-2-10-15.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2018.
19. Jilcott S, Ammerman A, Sommers J, Glasgow RE. Applying the RE-AIM framework to
assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007;34(2):105-
114. https://academic.oup.com/abm/article/34/2/105/4569381. Accessed Apr 30, 2018.
doi: 10.1007/BF02872666.
20. Horowitz J, Duquette E, Ueda K. Additionality in U.S. agricultural conservation and
regulatory offset programs. USDA: Economic Research Service. 2014:1-
81. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err170. Accessed Mar
1, 2018.
21. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Financial Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI)
2012-2016 Data. Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) 2009-2011 Data.
ProTracts Program Contracts System October 2016. National Planning and Agreements
Database November 2016. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 31
May 2017. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/fb08_cp_eqip.html
Accessed April 1, 2018.
22. NYFC website. Building a Future with Farmers II: Results and Recommendations from
the National Young Farmer Survey. http://www.youngfarmers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/NYFC-Report-2017.pdf Accessed April 8, 2018.
23. EWG website. Conservation Database: EQIP.
https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=totaleqip&regionname=theU
nitedStates Accessed March 14, 2018.
24. Stubbs, M. Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs (CRS-R40763). July 13,
2017. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R40763.pdf Accessed
Mar 16, 2018.
25. USDA NRCS website. National Conservation Practice Standards.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/
26. USDA NRCS website. Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP).
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/ceap/. Accessed
April 14, 2018.

29. 29
27. Wallander, Steven, Marcel Aillery, Daniel Hellerstein, and Michael Hand. The Role of
Conservation Programs in Drought Risk Adaptation, ERR-148, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2013
28. Office of the Inspector General. USDA EQIP audit report: 10601-0001-31. July 2014.
https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/10601-0001-31.pdf Accessed Mar 29, 2018.
29. Economic Research Service. Provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42096/32936_aib729d_002.pdf?v=4248
7 Accessed March 1, 2018.
30. Economic Research Service. Agricultural Outlook Supplement: 1996 FAIR Act Frames
Farm Policy for 7 Years.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42096/32943_aosupp_002.pdf?v=42487
Accessed March 14, 2018.
31. Paarlberg, R. The Politics of Farm Policy in 2001-2002: The Political Climate for the
Farm Bill Debate.
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/harl/FFB/papers/2%20Political%20Climate_Paarlbe
rg.pdf Accessed on April 14, 2018.
32. Economic Research Service. The 2002 Farm Bill: Provisions and Economic Implications.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42660/13779_ap022_6_.pdf?v=41879.
Accessed April 1, 2018.
33. O'Brien D. Summary and evolution of U. S. farm bill conservation titles - expanded
discussions. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/conservation/expanded-discussions/.
Accessed Apr 1, 2018.
34. Newsletter from Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Farm Bill:
Investments for the Future (2008).
https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2008_farm_bill_highlights.pdf
Accessed March 1, 2018.
35. EWG Conservation Database. What do Conservation Data Tell us?
https://conservation.ewg.org/what-do-conservation-data-tell-us.php Accessed March 14,
2018.