Erosion reduction that could be attributable to conservation compliance, 1982-97

Million tons per year

Stacked Bar chart with 5 groups and 9 items per group.

Group 1, Total erosion reduction, Total value of 1174.4.
Item 1, value of No data which is .0% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 2, Farms receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 3, Farm not receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 4, Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 5, Non-Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 6, Land Use Change value of No data which is .0% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 7, Cropped in 82 and 97 value of No data which is .0% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 8, Non-HEL value of 442.3 which is 37.7% of Total erosion reduction.
Item 9, HEL value of 732.1 which is 62.3% of Total erosion reduction.
Group 2, Erosion reduction on HEL, Total value of 732.1.
Item 1, value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 2, Farms receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 3, Farm not receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 4, Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 5, Non-Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 6, Land Use Change value of 367.2 which is 50.2% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 7, Cropped in 82 and 97 value of 364.9 which is 49.8% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 8, Non-HEL value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Item 9, HEL value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction on HEL.
Group 3, Erosion reduction not due to land use change, Total value of 367.2.
Item 1, value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 2, Farms receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 3, Farm not receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 4, Excess Erosion value of 36.2 which is 9.9% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 5, Non-Excess Erosion value of 331 which is 90.1% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 6, Land Use Change value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 7, Cropped in 82 and 97 value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 8, Non-HEL value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Item 9, HEL value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction not due to land use change.
Group 4, Reduction in excess erosion, Total value of 331.
Item 1, value of No data which is .0% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 2, Farms receiving payments value of 34.8 which is 10.5% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 3, Farm not receiving payments value of 296.2 which is 89.5% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 4, Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 5, Non-Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 6, Land Use Change value of No data which is .0% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 7, Cropped in 82 and 97 value of No data which is .0% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 8, Non-HEL value of No data which is .0% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Item 9, HEL value of No data which is .0% of Reduction in excess erosion.
Group 5, Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance, Total value of 296.2.
Item 1, value of 296.2 which is 100.0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 2, Farms receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 3, Farm not receiving payments value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 4, Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 5, Non-Excess Erosion value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 6, Land Use Change value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 7, Cropped in 82 and 97 value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 8, Non-HEL value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.
Item 9, HEL value of No data which is .0% of Erosion reduction that could be attributable to compliance.

Source: ERS analysis of 1997 NRI and ARMS data.

back