LegiStorm

Summary:

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42459 Summary The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a number of significant agricultural conservation provisions designed to reduce farm production and conserve soil and water resources. Many of the provisions remain in effect today, including the two compliance provisions—highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster). The two provisions, collectively referred to as conservation compliance, require that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production. Conservation compliance affects most USDA benefits administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These benefits can include commodity support payments, disaster payments, farm loans, and conservation program payments, to name a few. If a producer is found to be in violation of conservation compliance, then a number of penalties could be enforced. These penalties range from temporary exemptions that allow the producer time to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is ineligible for any USDA farm payment and must pay back current and prior years' benefits. A controversial issue in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) debate was whether federal crop insurance subsidies should be included on the list of program benefits that could be lost if a producer were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible land and wetlands. Ultimately the 2014 farm bill did add federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of benefits that could be lost, but created separate considerations when addressing compliance violations and the loss of federal crop insurance premium subsidies compared with the loss of other farm program benefits. How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply, and traditional exemptions and variances were not amended. The 2014 farm bill also extended limited protection for native sod in select states. In April 2015, USDA issued an interim final rule amending conservation compliance regulations in response to changes made in the 2014 farm bill. The levels of interest and debate generated by the changes to conservation compliance in the 2014 farm bill are likely to continue with implementation, raising additional questions and oversight in Congress. Recent concerns about a growing backlog of wetland determinations in the northern plains and approaching compliance deadlines for crop insurance policyholders have been raised. Additionally, the reduction in soil erosion from highly erodible land conservation continues, but at a slower pace than following the enactment of the 1985 farm bill. The leveling off of erosion reductions leaves broad policy questions related to conservation compliance, including whether an acceptable level of soil erosion on cropland has been achieved; whether additional reductions could be achieved, and, if so, at what cost; and how federal farm policy could encourage additional reductions in erosion. Contents Recent Developments: June 1st Deadline 1 Conservation Compliance Today 1 Sodbuster 2 Swampbuster 3 Sodsaver 5 Affected Program Benefits 5 Implementation 7 Issues for Congress 8 Wetland Determinations 8 2014 Farm Bill Implementation 9 Crop Insurance 9 Wetland Mitigation Banking and Violations 10 Erosion and Conversion Rates 11 Oversight 12 Conclusion 13 Figures Figure 1. Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland 3 Figure 2. Soil Erosion on Cropland by Year 12 Tables Table 1. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions 4 Table 2. USDA Benefits Affected by Conservation Compliance 6 Table 3. Summary of Conservation Compliance Status Reviews 8 Table A-1. Comparison of Conservation Compliance Provisions Enacted in the 2014 Farm bill to Prior Law 19 Table B-1. FSA, NRCS, and RMA Responsibilities Administering Conservation Compliance on Highly Erodible Land 22 Appendixes Appendix A. A Brief Legislative History of Conservation Compliance 15 Appendix B. FSA, NRCS, and RMA Responsibilities 22 Contacts Author Contact Information 23 Federal policies and programs traditionally have offered voluntary incentives to producers to plan and apply resource-conserving practices on private lands. It was not until the 1980s that Congress took an alternative approach to agricultural conservation through enactment of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill). The bill's more publicized provisions—the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), highly erodible land conservation (sodbuster), and wetland conservation (swampbuster)—remain significant today. The latter two "conservation compliance" provisions require that in exchange for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79) added federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of program benefits that could be lost if a producer were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible land and wetlands. Compliance violations related to the loss of federal crop insurance premium subsidies now have separate considerations from violations related to the loss of other farm program benefits. How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply, and traditional exemptions and variances were not amended. The 2014 farm bill also extended limited protection for native sod in select states. Recent Developments: June 1st Deadline To remain eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies, producers were required to certify their compliance with conservation compliance provisions no later than June 1, 2015. USDA conducted a number of outreach activities prior to the deadline, including direct mailings, call centers, and public radio announcements. In July 2015, USDA reported a 98.2% certification rate, suggesting that those not certified were likely no longer farming or filed forms with discrepancies that may still be reconciled. Conservation Compliance Today The 1985 farm bill included a number of significant conservation provisions designed to reduce crop production and conserve soil and water resources. The highly erodible land conservation provision (sodbuster) introduced in the 1985 farm bill was not intended to "allow the Federal government to impose demands on any farmer or rancher concerning what may be done with their land; ... only that the Federal government will no longer subsidize producers who choose to convert highly erodible land to cropland unless they also agree to install conservation system(s)." Similarly, the wetland conservation provision introduced in the 1985 farm bill does not authorize USDA "to regulate the use of private, or non-Federal land"; rather, "the objective of this provision is to deny various Federal benefits to those producers who choose to drain wetlands for the purpose of producing agricultural commodities." Since the enactment of the 1985 farm bill, each succeeding farm bill has amended the compliance provisions. For a brief history of the farm bill legislative changes to the conservation compliance provisions since the 1985 farm bill, see Appendix A. Sodbuster What Is "Highly Erodible"? For land to be considered highly erodible (as defined under 16 U.S.C. 3801) it must be— land that currently has, or if put into agricultural production would have, an excessive average annual rate of erosion in relation to the soil loss tolerance level (see "The T'' Factor" text box, below); or cropland that is classified as class IV, VI, VII, or VIII land under the land capability classification system in effect on December 23, 1985. The land capability classification system is an interpretive grouping on soil maps made primarily for agricultural purposes. Capability "classes" are broad categories of soils with similar hazards or limitations. There are eight classes, with soil damage and limitations on use becoming progressively greater from class I to class VIII. NRCS classifies about 97.7 million acres of U.S. cropland as highly erodible, approximately 27% of total cropland (see Figure 1). The highly erodible land conservation provision, as enacted in the 1985 farm bill, introduced the concept that in exchange for certain federal farm benefits a producer must implement a minimum level of conservation. The provision, still in force today, applies the loss of benefits to land classified as highly erodible that was not in cultivation between 1980 and 1985 (i.e., newly broken land, referred to as sodbuster) and any highly erodible land in production after 1990, regardless of when the land was put into production. Land meeting this classification can be considered eligible for USDA program benefits if the land user agrees to cultivate the land using an approved conservation plan. In addition to the application of an approved conservation plan, a number of exemptions are possible. Good faith. If the person has acted in good faith and without the intent to violate the compliance provisions, then the producer may be granted up to one year to comply with a conservation plan. Graduated penalty. Under some circumstances, producers could be subject to a minimum of $500 and no more than $5,000 loss in benefits, rather than a loss of all benefits. Allowable variance. If a conservation system fails and the failure is determined to be technical and minor in nature, and to have little effect on the erosion control purposes of the conservation plan, then the producer may not be found out of compliance. Similarly, the producer may not be found out of compliance if the system failure was due to circumstances beyond the control of the producer. Temporary variance. A producer may be granted a temporary variance for practices prescribed in the conservation plan due to issues related to weather, pests, or disease. USDA has 30 days from the date of the request to issue a temporary variance determination; otherwise the variance is considered granted. Economic hardship. A local Farm Service Agency (FSA) county committee, with concurrence from the state or district FSA director and technical concurrence from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is allowed to permit relief if it is determined that a conservation system causes a producer undue economic hardship. Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. Producers new to compliance requirements (after enactment of the 2014 farm bill on February 7, 2014) have five reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan. Producers with compliance violations prior to February 7, 2014, are allowed two reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan before the loss of the crop insurance premium subsidies. Figure 1. Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland (2007 Natural Resources Inventory) Source: USDA, NRCS, Acres of Highly Erodible Cropland, 2007, Natural Resources Inventory, Beltsville, MD, February 2012. Notes: This map only identifies broad spatial trends and should not be used to determine site-specific information. Data are not collected on federal land. In some cases, overlaying dots may completely cover up underlying dots. Data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Pacific Basin. Swampbuster The "swampbuster" or wetland conservation provision extends the sodbuster concept to wetland areas. Producers who plant a program crop on a wetland converted after December 23, 1985, or who convert wetlands, making agricultural commodity production possible, after November 28, 1990, are ineligible for certain USDA program benefits. This means that, for a producer to be found out of compliance, crop production does not actually have to occur; production only needs to be made possible through activities such as draining, dredging, filling, or leveling the wetland. Similar to sodbuster, the 2014 farm bill amends the wetlands conservation provision to include crop insurance premium subsidies as an ineligible benefit if found to be out of compliance. The amendment treats the time of wetland conversion differently (Table 1). The amendment also extends the list of exemptions for compliance violators, allowing additional time (one or two reinsurance years) for producers to remedy or mitigate the wetland conversion before losing crop insurance premium subsidies. Table 1. Crop Insurance Eligibility and Wetland Conversions (amendment in the 2014 farm bill) Timing Violation Penalty Newly Converted Wetlands—wetlands converted after February 7, 2014. Converted wetland violation impacting five or more acres. Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies, unless exemption applies or required mitigation actions are taken. Converted wetland violation impacting less than five acres. Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies, unless the landowner pays 150% of the cost of mitigation to a wetland restoration fund or conducts the required mitigation actions. Prior Converted Wetlands—wetlands converted before February 7, 2014. Any converted wetland violation. Eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies. Ineligible for other USDA program benefits, unless exemption applies or required mitigation actions are taken. New Insurance Policies—wetlands converted after February 7, 2014, but before a new insurance policy or plan is made available for the first time. Any converted wetland violation. Ineligible for crop insurance premium subsidies, if prior conversions are not mitigated within two reinsurance years. Source: 16 U.S.C. 3821(c)(2). Notes: Table only applies to federal crop insurance premium subsidies. All other existing wetland compliance violations were unaffected by the 2014 farm bill provision. Under the wetlands compliance provision, the following lands are considered exempt: a wetland converted to cropland before enactment (December 23, 1985); artificially created lakes, ponds, or wetlands; wetlands created by irrigation delivery systems; wetlands on which agricultural production is naturally possible; wetlands that are temporarily or incidentally created as a result of adjacent development activities; wetlands converted to cropland before December 23, 1985, that have reverted back to a wetland as the result of a lack of drainage, lack of management, or circumstances beyond the control of the landowner; wetlands converted if the effect of such action is minimal; and authorized wetlands converted through a permit issued under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344), for which wetland values, acreage, and functions of the converted wetland were adequately mitigated. Wetlands Mitigation Under wetlands conservation, compliance violators have the option of mitigating the violation through the restoration of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the creation of a new wetland. Debate over these wetland mitigation requirements arose during the 2014 farm bill and centered on the concern that some producers were required to mitigate wetlands with a greater than 1-to-1 acreage ratio (i.e., more than one acre of mitigated wetland is required to replace one acre of wetland lost). This is allowed by statute if "more acreage is needed to provide equivalent functions and values that will be lost as a result of the wetland conversion to be mitigated." The provisions remained unchanged in the 2014 farm bill. The conference report (H.Rept. 113-333), however, included language encouraging USDA to use a wetland mitigation ratio not to exceed 1-to-1 acreage. The 2014 farm bill also provided $10 million in mandatory funding for mitigation banking efforts. Based on the 2015 interim final rule published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2015, USDA will implement a "prioritized and competitive mitigation banking program through an Announcement of Program Funding that focuses on agricultural wetlands." To date, no announcement of funding has been made. Sodsaver The 2014 farm bill amended and expanded the "sodsaver" provision, which reduces benefits for crops planted on native sod. The provision applies only to native sod acres in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska. If a producer chooses to plant an insurable crop on native sod, then crop insurance premium subsidies are reduced by 50 percentage points during the first four years of planting. Crops planted on native sod also will have higher fees under the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) and reduced yield guarantees. This provision is expected to reduce the federal incentive to produce on native sod. Affected Program Benefits As it exists today, conservation compliance applies to most farm program payments, loans, or other benefits administered by FSA and NRCS. Table 2 includes the statutory description and examples of specific USDA program benefits that are affected if a producer is found to be out of compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions. Table 2. USDA Benefits Affected by Conservation Compliance Statutory Description Examples of Benefits Contract payments under a production flexibility contract, marketing assistance loans, and any type of price support or payment made available under the Agricultural Market Transition Act, the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.), or any other Act. Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments, Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) payments, Margin Protection Program (MPP), and Marketing Assistance Loans A farm storage facility loan made under Section 4(h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b(h)).a Farm Storage Facility Loan Disaster paymentsa Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance program (NAP), ad hoc disaster assistance programs, Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-raised Fish (ELAP), Livestock Forage Program (LFP), Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), and Tree Assistance Program (TAP) A farm credit program loan made, insured, or guaranteed under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act or any other provision of law administered by FSA.b FSA Farm Operating Loans, Farm Ownership Loans, and Emergency Disaster Loans Any portion of the premium paid by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) Federal crop insurance premium subsidiesc A payment made pursuant to a contract entered into under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) or any other provision of Subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). A payment made under Section 401 or 402 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 or 2202). Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program A payment, loan, or other assistance under Section 3 or 8 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1003 or 1006a). Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention program Source: 16 U.S.C. 3811 and 16 U.S.C. 3812. Notes: The examples listed should not be considered an exhaustive list. Also affected would be any payments made under Section 4 or 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b or 714c) for the storage of an agricultural commodity acquired by the CCC. Applies only to highly erodible land conservation provisions. Only applies if the proceeds of the loan will be used for a purpose that contributes to the conversion of wetlands that would make production of an agricultural commodity possible or for a purpose that contributes to excessive erosion of highly erodible land. Loans made before enactment of the 1985 farm bill are not affected. Does not apply retroactively. Only applies to reinsurance years following final determination and after all administrative appeals. If a producer requests any payment, loan, or other benefit subject to the conservation compliance provision, then the provision applies to all land owned by the producer or the producer's affiliates. This includes land located anywhere in the United States or U.S. territories, without regard to whether payments, loans, or other benefits are actually received for such land. In other words, if producers are found out of compliance on one portion of their land, they are deemed out of compliance for all land owned or associated with them, regardless of where it is located. Implementation Both NRCS and FSA implement conservation compliance as part of USDA farm programs. FSA has primary responsibility for making producer eligibility determinations about conservation compliance. NRCS has primary responsibility for technical determinations associated with conservation compliance. Each agency's role is outlined in Appendix B. Following the 1985 farm bill, conservation compliance requirements created a large workload for NRCS staff. Compliance required that new conservation plans be completed by 1990 on the approximately 140 million acres classified as highly erodible. In contrast, in 1984, the year before compliance was enacted, NRCS assisted with plans on about 2.5 million acres. Demands remained high ahead of the 1995 deadline for full implementation. Almost half of these plans were revised at least once before the 1995 deadline because of changes in farming techniques and crops, new conservation technology, and changes in ownership and tenancy. Another dynamic of implementing compliance was the requirement for NRCS to work with a large number of new, and sometimes less cooperative, clients. Most producers receiving farm program benefits were familiar with FSA because the agency was already administering many federal farm programs. However, prior to 1985, conservation programs administered by NRCS were small and voluntary. Because conservation compliance tied federal farm program benefits to the requirement for a conservation plan, some producers viewed compliance as coercive. This perspective made implementation more difficult, and caused many in the agricultural community to view NRCS as a regulatory agency. This resulted in several congressional oversight hearings to explore implementation of compliance following enactment. NRCS continues to conduct compliance status reviews on farm and ranch lands that have received USDA benefits and which are subject to the conservation compliance provisions (highly erodible land, wetland compliance, or both). A compliance status review is an inspection of a cropland tract to determine whether the USDA farm program beneficiary is in compliance with the conservation compliance provisions (Table 3). The review process requires an NRCS employee to make an on-site determination when a violation is suspected, and ensures that only qualified NRCS employees report violations. Ultimately, penalties for noncompliance are determined by FSA. Penalties may range from a good faith exemption that allows producers up to one year to correct the violation, to a determination that the producer is ineligible for any government payment and must pay back current and prior years' benefits. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) at USDA administers the federal crop insurance program and has limited responsibilities with conservation compliance implementation. RMA and associated approved insurance providers are prohibited from making any eligibility determinations regarding conservation compliance. Implementation duties are limited to providing approved insurance agents with compliance-related records and notifying FSA and NRCS of cases of misrepresentation, fraud, or schemes and devices where appropriate. Table 3. Summary of Conservation Compliance Status Reviews 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Tracts Reviewed 20,474 18,704 22,210 24,309 23,677 Total Acres Reviewed (approx.) 3 million 3.3 million 2.8 million 3.6 million 3.6 million Tracts Out of Compliance 277 344 530 744 680 Both Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Violations 177 167 372 401 464 Wetland Conservation Violation Only 100 177 158 343 216 Percentage Out of Compliance 1.4% 1.8% 2.4% 3.1% 2.9% Number of States Recording Non-Compliance 30 28 32 30 34 Variances or Exemptions Issued 726 732 887 1,081 1,354 Source: USDA, NRCS, complied by CRS. Issues for Congress The 1985 farm bill created the highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation compliance provisions, which tied various farm program benefits to conservation standards. These provisions have been amended with each subsequent farm bill, including the most recent 2014 farm bill. As the 114th Congress continues to review the implementation of farm programs, issues related to conservation compliance could be debated. Wetland Determinations Beginning in the 2000s, weather events and expanded production in the northern plains states resulted in an increased number of wetland determination requests from producers in order to remain in compliance with wetland conservation provisions. NRCS has sole responsibility for making wetland determinations, and the growing number of requests has resulted in a backlog. This backlog has continued to grow in recent years with over 4,000 pending wetland determinations in the Prairie Pothole region, including 2,000 requests in South Dakota alone. According to recent testimony, NRCS continues to chip away at the backlog by redirecting staff and resources to the Prairie Pothole region states with a goal of eliminating the backlog within three years. Budget restrictions are cited as the primary obstacle for reducing the backlog sooner. In November 2014, NRCS proposed changes to the offsite methods used to make wetlands determination in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The proposal would allow the four Prairie Pothole states to make wetland determinations based primarily on the use of aerial photography, rather than on-site visits. The proposal was met with opposition from a number of wildlife and conservation organizations that expressed concern that the off-site methods may not accurately account for seasonal and temporary wetlands, and that additional analysis should be conducted to ensure the determination methods are at least as accurate as the previous methods. In response, NRCS officials say the new process will be faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more consistent across the four states. 2014 Farm Bill Implementation On April 24, 2015, USDA published an interim final rule (2015 rule) amending conservation compliance regulations in accordance with changes made in the 2014 farm bill. The rule made three main amendments: (1) applied conservation compliance provisions to federal crop insurance premium subsidies, (2) modified easement provisions related to wetland mitigation banks, and (3) amended provisions related to agency discretion for certain violations. The level of interest and debate generated by the changes to conservation compliance in the 2014 farm bill is likely to continue as USDA proceeds with implementation. Crop Insurance The majority of changes made by the 2015 rule are in response to the 2014 farm bill's addition of federal crop insurance subsidies to the list of program benefits that could be lost if a producer were found to be out of compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible land and wetlands. The changes and deadlines for compliance are correlated to the changes made in the 2014 farm bill and described in Table A-1. How compliance is calculated, where compliance provisions apply, and traditional exemptions and variances were not amended by the rule. Producers must continue to self-certify their compliance with the sodbuster and swampbuster provisions, and approved conservation plans currently in place will remain valid. Changes in the 2014 farm bill are not expected to have a significant impact on USDA's implementation of conservation compliance. Crop insurance participants new to compliance requirements could create an increase in demand for conservation plans, but not near the levels seen in the 1980s and 1990s. The first deadline following the 2014 farm bill was on June 1, 2015. To remain eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies, producers are required to certify their compliance with sodbuster and swampbuster provisions using a form known as an AD-1026. USDA conducted a number of outreach activities to notify producers who were enrolled in the crop insurance program but did not have a current AD-1026 compliance form on file with FSA. Examples of additional outreach efforts by USDA include letters, postcards, radio broadcasts, direct telephone calls, town hall meetings, and stakeholder coordination. The department used the month of June to reconcile data prior to the start of the reinsurance year, which begins July 1. In July 2015, USDA reported a 98.2% certification rate, suggesting that those not certified were likely no longer farming or filed forms with discrepancies that may still be reconciled. According to USDA, the June 1 deadline is firm; however, some flexibility is available for producers experiencing extenuating circumstances or newly insured. Wetland Mitigation Banking and Violations Under wetlands conservation, compliance violators have the option of mitigating the violation through the restoration of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the creation of a new wetland. The 2015 rule amends regulations related to wetland mitigation banking and defining wetland conservation violations. Wetland mitigation banking is a type of wetlands mitigation whereby a wetland is created, enhanced, or restored, and "credit" for those efforts is sold to others as compensation for the loss of impacted wetlands elsewhere. While wetland mitigation banks are not new, challenges related to access and cost have prevented agricultural producers from utilizing this option for mitigation. The 2014 farm bill changes the wetland mitigation banking provision to allow for third parties to hold wetland mitigation easements, rather than USDA itself. The 2014 farm bill also created a permanent wetland mitigation banking program and provided $10 million in mandatory funding. USDA is expected to implement the program through an announcement of funding at a later date. Other changes in the 2015 rule were not directed by the 2014 farm bill, including a clarification regarding wetland conservation violations. According to the rule, there are two types of wetland conservation violations with two different consequences. The first type is violations for production on converted wetland, which can result in a graduated penalty determined by USDA, rather than a denial of all benefits. The second type is a conversion of wetland to production, which can result in a denial of all benefits. According to USDA, previous language was used by producers who converted a wetland to argue that USDA has discretion to issue a graduated penalty similar to that of production on converted wetlands rather than a full denial of benefits. It is unclear what level of confusion existed prior to this change and what impact, if any, this clarification will have on determining wetland compliance violations and associated appeals in the future. Erosion and Conversion Rates The "T" Factor Soil erosion occurs for a variety of natural and manmade reasons. An evaluation of different soil types and surrounding conditions (e.g., soil depth, slope, etc.) allows soil scientists to determine what an "acceptable" rate of soil erosion is for a given area. This is commonly referred to as "T" or soil loss tolerance rate. T is the maximum rate of annual soil loss that will permit crop productivity to be sustained economically and indefinitely on a given soil. Erosion is considered to be greater than T if either the water (sheet and rill) erosion or the wind erosion rate exceeds the soil loss tolerance rate. The higher the T value, the more soil erosion can be tolerated. The use of T is one of the bases for identifying highly erodible land