Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Damon B. Ford
Acting Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


09/01/2021

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision.  There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Introduction

The appellant’s position is currently classified as Soil Conservationist, GS-0457-11, but he believes his duties and responsibilities warrant an upgrade to the GS-12 level.  The position is in the Richland Center Field Operations, Central Region - Wisconsin, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in Richland Center, Wisconsin.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

The appellant makes various statements about the classification review process conducted by his agency and compares his position to similar but higher graded positions within NRCS.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of his position.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s position to others, which may or may not be classified correctly, as a basis for deciding his appeal.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the classification practices used by the appellant’s agency in classifying his position are not germane to the classification appeal process. 

Position information

Both the appellant and his supervisor certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s official standard position description (PD) number NHQDC11.  The appellant reports directly to the Assistant Wisconsin State Conservationist for Field Operations Area (FOA) 3, serving as the District Conservationist (DC) for the Richland Center managing a variety of conservation programs.  As a component of USDA, NRCS carries out various major USDA conservation financial and technical assistance programs.  These voluntary programs include the Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), managed by the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). 

The appellant leads a team which provides technical assistance to landowners, farmers, farming groups, and various government agencies.  His primary responsibility is to represent the NRCS in Richland County working with technical service providers in the development, application, and maintenance of soil and water conservation plans to implement various USDA Farm Bill programs under the Food Security Act, as amended.  The major purpose of his position is to assist the Richland Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) in developing work plans, providing technical guidance to achieve an integrated system of sound land-use and conservation treatment in harmony with the capability and needs of the land and landowner.  He collects data necessary for the further development of technical guides and promotes a coordinated approach to the identification and solution of the modification of practices and procedures, when necessary.  The appellant serves on a local work group and conducts outreach to keep the community informed of the changing needs and progress in soil conservation.  He assists landowners in applying for participation and funding in the various programs.  He works with the FSA component of USDA with executing some of their programs, and coordinates activities with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Richland County Department of Land Conservation, as needed.

In addition to his major duties described above, the appellant also spends approximately 15 percent of his time administratively and technically supervising a Soil Conservationist, GS-0457-09, and Soil Conservation Technician, GS-0458-07.

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully reviewed all information provided by the appellant and his agency including the major duties described in his official PD which we find sufficient for purposes of classification and have incorporated it by reference into this decision.  In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his supervisor to learn more about the major duties and responsibilities assigned to and performed by the appellant. 

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency has classified the appellant’s position in the Soil Conservation Series, 0457, titling it Soil Conservationist, and the appellant does not disagree and we concur.  This series covers positions that manage, supervise, lead, or perform professional, research, or scientific work involving conserving soil, water, and related environmental resources to achieve sound land use.  Positions in the 0457 series are graded by application of Part II of the Job Family Standard (JFS) for Professional Work in the Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences Group, 0400.  Our evaluation of the grade of the position by application of the grading criteria in the 0400 JFS follows.

As previously discussed, the appellant spends about 15 percent of his time providing technical and administrative supervision to two employees.  However, since only duties occupying at least 25 percent of an employee’s time can affect the grade of a position (Introduction, section III.J), that function of the position does not meet the coverage requirements for supervisory titling and application of the grading criteria in the General Schedule Supervisory Guide.  Therefore, we have not evaluated the appellant’s supervisory duties in this decision.

Grade determination

The 0400 JFS uses the Factor Evaluation System (FES), which employs nine factors.  Under the FES, each factor-level description in the JFS describes the minimum characteristics needed to receive credit for the described level.  Therefore, if a position fails to meet the criteria in a factor-level description in any significant aspect, it must be credited at a lower level, unless an equally important aspect that meets a higher level balances the deficiency.  Conversely, the position may exceed those criteria in some aspects and still not be credited at a higher level.  Each factor level has a corresponding point value.  The total points assigned are converted to a grade by use of the Grade Conversion Table in the 0400 JFS.

The appellant disagrees with his agency’s assignment of Level 3-3 for Factor 3, Guidelines; Level 5-3 for Factor 5, Scope and Effect; and Level B for Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts.  Initially, he also expressed concern that no points were assigned in the evaluation in his PD for Factor 6, Personal Contacts.  However, after OPM staff explained that Factors 6 and 7 are combined in the 0400 JFS for purposes of assigning total points, he agreed that the agency’s assignment of Level 3 for Factor 6 was appropriate.  The appellant agrees with his agency’s assignment of Factor Level 1-7 for Factor 1, Knowledge Required by the Position; Level 2-4 for Factor 2, Supervisory Controls; Level 4-4 for Factor 4, Complexity; Level 3 for Factor 6, Personal Contacts; Level 8-2 for Factor 8, Physical Demands; and Level 9-2 for Factor 9, Work Environment.  After careful review, we agree with the agency’s factor level assignments for Factors 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9.  Therefore, we have confined our analysis below to Factors 3, 5, and 7. 

Factor 3, Guidelines

This factor covers the nature of guidelines and the judgment needed to apply them.

At Level 3-3, the employee uses a wide variety of reference materials and manuals; however, they are not always directly applicable to the work or have gaps in specificity.  Available precedents outline existing approaches to more general problems or issues.  The employee uses judgment in selecting, interpreting, and applying available guidelines for adaptation to specific problems or issues.

At Level 3-4, the employee uses guidelines and precedents that are very general regarding agency policy statements and objectives.  Guidelines specific to assignments are often scarce, not applicable, or have gaps in specificity that require considerable interpretation and/or adaptation for application to issues and problems.  The employee uses judgment, initiative, and resourcefulness in deviating from established methods to:  deal with specific issues or problems; research trends and patterns; propose new policies and practices; develop new methods and criteria; and/or modify, adapt, and/or refine broader guidelines to resolve specific complex and/or intricate issues and problems.

Level 3-3 is met.  While the appellant provided some examples of work he believes warrants a higher factor level for Guidelines (i.e., comments and recommendations from his rotational assignment as EQIP local work group chairperson; preparing funding proposal for Little Willow Creek) these tasks do not constitute guidelines for performing his work within the context of Factor 3.  However, like Level 3-3, the appellant regularly applies NRCS guidelines including agency technical guides, supplemental specifications, environmental laws, and Federal program regulations.  Comparable to Level 3-3, he adapts these to specific land configurations affecting soil conservation, water quality, wetlands, trees, habitat, native species, and pastureland, feed lots, manure and flood control, among others, as well as the needs of the customers serviced.  For example, he applies screening tools used for ranking requests for various Local Work Group land use fund pools.  As at Level 3-3, he uses judgment in selecting, interpreting, adapting, and applying the appropriate guidelines to specific problems or issues to meet state, county, and district requirements.

Level 3-4 is not met.  Unlike this level, the appellant’s guidelines are more specific than general agency policy statements and objectives and are available and applicable for application to issues presented.  The range of issues he deals with do not require him to routinely deviate, refine, or extend established methods and practices or modify occupational methods, criteria, or policies.  The conservation issues under his direct control can be resolved by applying established methods and techniques typical of Level 3-3.  He is not required to apply the level of judgment needed to apply the guidelines to deal with the types of tasks listed under the higher level. 

This factor is credited at Level 3-3 and 275 points are assigned.

Factor 5, Scope and effect

This factor covers the relationship between the nature of the work (i.e., the purpose, breadth, and depth of the assignment), and the effect of the work products or services both within and outside the organization.

At Level 5-3, the scope of the work involves investigating, analyzing, or advising on a variety of conventional resource or refuge problems and environmental conditions in accordance with established criteria; identifying common problems involving plant and animal diseases, habitat conditions, or environmental impacts from recreational, commercial, and industrial operations; and ensuring the effective development and use of multiple-use resources areas at the local level.  Work may also involve performing the full range of routine tests, procedures, and activities and resolving a variety of problems, questions, or conditions in accordance with established precedents.  Work results affect agency credibility with internal and external customers; and adequacy, accuracy, and effectiveness of activities, such as field investigations, research studies, or laboratory services; and/or efficient utilization, development, protection, and management of natural resources and socioeconomic well-being of lease and permit holders and other users of natural resources.

At Level 5-4, the scope of the work involves: investigating, analyzing, and evaluating problems and situations involving a wide variety of circumstances or unusual conditions; developing new or improved techniques, criteria, or alternatives to meet requirements involving specific natural resources, research problems, and issues, or agency clinical activities; and upgrading current capabilities involving natural resources or research activities; and/or assessing program effectiveness.  Work results affect the: effectiveness and acceptability of agency goals, programs, and activities; continued existence of a resource or resource area in compliance with applicable legislation, regulation, and agency policy, and in the public interest; and/or agricultural, commercial, industrial, and recreational uses and conditions.  It can also affect a wide range of scientific activities within the agency and the planning and direction of major investigatory or scientific projects. 

Level 5-3 is met.  Like this level, the appellant investigates and analyzes soil conservation problems and issues in his area.  He advises and motivates individuals and groups of landowners on methods and practices needed to resolve negative environmental conditions affecting soil and watersheds.  For example, he assists and provides technical guidance to local farmers concerning changing climate conditions through the CRP and use of floodplain easements and various conservation practices through such programs as EQIP and CSP.  He further explains the availability of Federal financial assistance and services linked to financial planning, farm succession, and no-cost counseling to farmers and their families.  Similar to Level 5-3, he prepares land and water treatment plans, measures, and techniques in accordance with established criteria and recommends their adoption.  The work performed by the appellant affects the adequacy of conservation program activities in the mostly rural county area, the attainment of annual plan of operation objectives, and agency credibility among program participants.  For example, each landowner receiving Farm Bill payments agrees to protect against soil erosion and maintain water quality standards included in the Farm Bill.  Each spring the appellant conducts conservation compliance visits for each county landowner receiving such payments to ensure the established standards in the Farm Bill are being met.

Level 5-4 is not met.  Unlike this level, the scope of the appellant’s work does not include investigating, analyzing, and evaluating a wide variety of natural resource issues or unusual soil and watershed conditions, and developing new or improved techniques to deal with such matters  including new planning and evaluation criteria for dealing with complex resource conservation problems.  Further, his work does not impact the agency’s operations and goals or the continued existence of resources (e.g., soil and water) in compliance with applicable legislation, regulation, agency policy, and in the public interest. 

This factor is credited at Level 5-3 and 150 points are assigned.

Factor 7, Purpose of contacts

Levels described under Factor 6, Personal Contacts, and Factor 7, Purpose of Contacts, are based on what is required to make the initial contact, the difficulty of communicating with those contacted, and the setting in which the contact takes place.  These factors are interdependent.  The appropriate level for personal contacts and the corresponding level for purpose of contacts are determined by applying the Point Assignment Chart for Factors 6 and 7 in the 0400 JFS. 

At Level 7-B, the purpose of contacts is to plan, coordinate, or advise on work efforts, or to resolve issues or operating problems.  Contacts involve influencing or persuading people who are working toward mutual goals and have cooperative attitudes.  Contacts typically involve identifying options for resolving problems. 

At Level 7-C, the purpose of contacts is to influence and persuade persons or groups who may be skeptical or uncooperative.  Employees must be experienced in approaching the individual or group to obtain the desired effect, such as gaining compliance with established policies or acceptance of established methods using persuasion, negotiation, or establishing rapport to gain information.

Level 7-B is met.  Like this level, the purpose of the appellant’s work contacts is to advise on the development of soil and water conservation measures, plan and coordinate the implementation of a range of technical practices, and recommend practical and effective alternative conservation solutions for the benefit of the landowners and the community.  For example, he served as his District’s outreach specialist with the Kickapoo River Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) project, a program established through the 2014 Farm Bill, allowing conservation partners with similar missions to collaborate with the NRCS to further the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of soil, water, and wildlife habitat.  At the project meeting, various groups including grazing cooperatives, Duck Unlimited, Prairie Enthusiast, and the University of Wisconsin Extension discussed their ideas, exchanged views, and came to a general agreement about the goals of their partnership.  With the appellant’s involvement, the groups submitted a joint RCPP proposal to the NRCS requesting conservation program funding be set aside to give producers within the partnership area an opportunity to apply for funding through EQIP.  As a result, over 1,000 acres of rotational grazing was developed, hundreds of acres of prairie restored, and many trout habitat improvements were accomplished.  Like Level 7-B, the appellant was able to influence and persuade those participating in the RCPP project who were working toward mutual goals and had cooperative attitudes. 

Another example illustrating Level 7-B involves the appellant’s regular attendance at the annual EQIP LWG meeting consisting of diverse groups including various government agencies, organic farming representatives, home gardeners, and individual farmers.  During the meeting, the DCs present past program successes and discuss the NRCS tools available to address the attendees’ specific issues.  The interchange of information and recommendations from this meeting assists the DCs with EQIP program direction and resolving resource concerns for other USDA programs for the upcoming fiscal year.  Like Level 7-B, typical of all his contacts with farmers and landowners in planning and advising on resource conservation work efforts, those contacted at the EQIP meeting are working toward mutual goals and have cooperative attitudes. 

Level 7-C is not met.  Unlike this level, the purpose of the appellant’s work contacts is not to influence or persuade persons or groups who may be skeptical or uncooperative.  While some disagreements may occur regarding recommendations for specific conservation courses of action, the appellant identifies options for resolving the problems and exercises skill in persuading and influencing contacts to accept NRCS methods and practices.  Contrary to Level 7-C, in most cases those contacted are working toward mutual goals and have cooperative attitudes. 

Based on application of the Point Assignment Chart in the 0400 JFS, a combination of Level 6-3 and 7-B equates to a total of 110 points assigned. 

Summary of FES Factors

Summary
Factors	Level	Points
1. Knowledge required by the position	1-7	1250
2. Supervisory controls	2-4	450
3. Guidelines	3-3	275
4. Complexity	4-4	225
5. Scope and effect	5-3	150
6. & 7. Personal contacts/Purpose of contacts	3b	110
8. Physical demands	8-2	20
9. Work environment	9-2	20
Total		2,500

A total of 2500 points falls within the GS-11 point range (2355-2750) on the Grade Conversion Table in the 0400 JFS.  Therefore, the appellant’s position is properly graded at the GS-11 level.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Soil Conservationist, GS-0457-11.

 

 

Back to Top