USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on Participation
and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species and
Their Habitats (15-NOV-06, GAO-07-35).
Authorization for several conservation programs administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expires in 2007,
raising questions about how these programs may be modified,
including how they can better support conservation of threatened
and endangered species. Private landowners receive funding under
these programs to implement conservation projects directed at
several resource concerns, including threatened and endangered
species. In this report, GAO discusses (1) stakeholder views on
the incentives and disincentives to participating in USDA
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and
their suggestions for addressing identified disincentives and (2)
coordination efforts by USDA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to benefit threatened and endangered species. In
performing this work, GAO conducted telephone surveys with a
nonprobability sample of over 150 federal and nonfederal
officials and landowners.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-35
ACCNO: A63384
TITLE: USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on
Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and
Endangered Species and Their Habitats
DATE: 11/15/2006
SUBJECT: Conservation
Conservation practices
Conservation programs
Eligibility criteria
Endangered species
Federal funds
Interagency relations
Policy evaluation
Program evaluation
Surveys
Wildlife conservation
Incentives
Interagency agreements
Private lands
Program coordination
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-35
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conser
* [4]Incentives for Participating in USDA Conservation Programs t
* [5]Financial Benefits
* [6]Program Criteria That Give Greater Consideration to
Projects
* [7]Landowners' Personal Interest in Conservation
* [8]Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation Programs
* [9]Limited Funding for Programs and Participants
* [10]Fears About Government Regulations
* [11]Administrative and Paperwork Requirements
* [12]Participation and Eligibility Requirements
* [13]Potential for Participation to Hinder Current or Future
Agri
* [14]Suggestions for Addressing Disincentives to Participating in
* [15]Increasing Funding for Programs and Landowners
* [16]Improving Education and Outreach to Landowners
* [17]Streamlining Paperwork Requirements
* [18]Allowing Greater Flexibility in Participation and
Eligibilit
* [19]Implementing Suggestions Has Potential Limitations for
Threa
* [20]Agency Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Spe
* [21]Agency Survey Respondents and Other USDA and FWS Officials S
* [22]Survey Respondents and Other Agency Officials Cited Staff Mo
* [23]USDA and FWS Are Working to Improve Coordination Efforts thr
* [24]Conclusions
* [25]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [26]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [27]Incentives, Disincentives, and Suggestions
* [28]Telephone Surveys
* [29]Coordination
* [30]Introduction
* [31]Eligibility
* [32]Application Process
* [33]Selection Process
* [34]Payments and Conditions
* [35]Summary of Selected Survey Responses
* [36]Introduction
* [37]Eligibility
* [38]Application Process
* [39]Selection Process
* [40]Payments and Conditions
* [41]Summary of Selected Survey Responses
* [42]Introduction
* [43]Eligibility
* [44]Application Process
* [45]Selection Process
* [46]Payments and Conditions
* [47]Summary of Selected Survey Responses
* [48]Introduction
* [49]Eligibility
* [50]Application Process
* [51]Selection Process
* [52]Payments and Conditions
* [53]Summary of Selected Survey Responses
* [54]Introduction
* [55]Eligibility
* [56]Application Process
* [57]Selection Process
* [58]Payment and Conditions
* [59]Summary of Selected Survey Responses
* [60]Introduction
* [61]Eligibility
* [62]Application Process
* [63]Selection Process
* [64]Payments and Conditions
* [65]Summary of Selected Survey Responses
* [66]GAO Contact
* [67]Staff Acknowledgments
* [68]GAO's Mission
* [69]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [70]Order by Mail or Phone
* [71]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [72]Congressional Relations
* [73]Public Affairs
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
November 2006
USDA CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Stakeholder Views on Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened
and Endangered Species and Their Habitats
GAO-07-35
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5
Background 8
Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation
Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species, and Suggestions for
Addressing Disincentives 12
Agency Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species Occurs
Primarily at State and Local Levels and Agency Officials Cited Staff
Motivation as Key to Successful Coordination 27
Conclusions 34
Recommendations for Executive Action 35
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37
Appendix II Comments from the Department of the Interior 40
Appendix III Conservation Reserve Program 42
Appendix IV Conservation Security Program 47
Appendix V Environmental Quality Incentives Program 52
Appendix VI Grassland Reserve Program 55
Appendix VII Wetlands Reserve Program 58
Appendix VIII Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 61
Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64
Table
Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs 11
Abbreviations
AFWA Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CSP Conservation Security Program
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program
FSA Farm Service Agency
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
GRP Grassland Reserve Program
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
WRP Wetlands Reserve Program
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
November 15, 2006
The Honorable James M. Inhofe Chairman Committee on Environment and Public
Works United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Endangered Species Act protects about 1,300 plant and animal species
facing extinction or likely to face extinction (referred to as endangered
and threatened species, respectively). As one of the federal agencies
responsible for administering and implementing the act, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) identifies species that are threatened or
endangered, and is generally required to identify habitat that is critical
to these species' survival.^1 Many threatened and endangered species occur
on private lands. Farmers and ranchers own or manage a good portion of
this land--about one-half of the land area of the continental United
States--thus, they are among the most important stewards of the nation's
soil, water, and wildlife habitat. Because of this important
responsibility, private land--and specifically agricultural land--is
increasingly recognized as vital to conserving the nation's environment
and natural resources.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service
Agency (FSA), both agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
administer a number of programs that provide technical and financial
assistance to landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural
lands. A number of these conservation programs were established in 1985.
Every 5 or 6 years since then, Congress has expanded the range of
conservation topics that can be addressed by revising existing programs,
adding new ones, and increasing funding. For example, conservation goals
such as addressing water quality problems and protecting wildlife,
including threatened and endangered species, have been added to some of
these programs. Recognizing the need for more conservation on private
lands as well as attempting to reduce a large and growing backlog of
applications for many of the programs, Congress authorized a significant
increase in funding in 2002 for an array of new and existing conservation
programs through fiscal year 2007, amounting to an approximately 80
percent increase over prior funding levels.^2
1The Department of the Interior is responsible for freshwater and land
species while the Department of Commerce is responsible for anadromous
fish and most marine species; the departments have delegated
implementation responsibility to FWS and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, respectively. In addition, the act directs all federal agencies
to utilize their authorities to conserve threatened and endangered
species.
Six of USDA's voluntary conservation programs have received substantial
funding and have incorporated provisions to address wildlife--which can
include threatened and endangered species--and their habitats. Of these
programs, FSA implements the Conservation Reserve Program and NRCS
implements the Conservation Security Program, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program. Both agencies share responsibility for implementing
the Grassland Reserve Program.^3
o The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was established in 1985
and obligated $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2005. It aims to
conserve and improve soil, water, air, and wildlife resources by
providing financial assistance to landowners who convert land in
agricultural production to less intensive uses, such as
establishing grasses and other vegetative covers.
o The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was established in 2002
and obligated $202 million in fiscal year 2005. This program is
intended to secure existing conservation actions being implemented
by agricultural producers by providing financial assistance to
help them meet and sustain a certain level of conservation.
o The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was
established in 1996 and obligated $950 million in fiscal year
2005. EQIP funds conservation practices on working agricultural
land to achieve the following national priorities--reduce nonpoint
source pollution such as nutrient and pesticide runoff, protect
and conserve ground water resources, reduce air pollutants, reduce
soil erosion, and promote habitat conservation for species whose
populations are declining--which can include species that are
threatened or endangered.
o The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) was established in 2002 and
obligated $71 million in fiscal year 2005. It aims to assist
landowners in protecting, conserving, and restoring grassland
resources on private lands through short- and long-term rental
agreements and easements. Program objectives include maintaining
and improving plant and animal biodiversity.
o The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was established in 1990 and
obligated $267 million in fiscal year 2005. It provides payments
to landowners to restore farmed or converted wetlands and retain
such lands as functioning wetlands through a combination of
30-year and permanent easements.
o The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was authorized in
1996 and obligated $46 million in fiscal year 2005. The purpose of
the WHIP is to help participants develop habitat for upland
wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species,
fish, and other types of wildlife.
Given the multitude of entities involved in managing the nation's
natural resources--federal and state agencies, local soil and
water conservation districts, private landowners, and
others--federal agencies have been focusing on initiatives to
coordinate and promote cooperative conservation among these
entities.^4 Specifically, in August 2004, the President signed
Executive Order 13352 to facilitate cooperative conservation in
the United States. The order addresses actions relating to the
use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural resources, and that
involve collaborative activity among federal, state, local, and
tribal governments, private institutions, and other
nongovernmental entities and individuals. GAO has also addressed
the issue of collaboration in an October 2005 report that
recognized that when agencies act together--for example, by
pooling resources--they can more effectively achieve beneficial
outcomes for the public than could be produced when they act
alone.^5 In the 2005 report, we identified practices that can help
federal agencies enhance and sustain collaboration such as
establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, agreeing on
roles and responsibilities, developing mechanisms to measure and
report results, and establishing accountability measures for
individuals and agencies.
Authorization for several significant USDA conservation programs
expires in 2007, and debates have begun over how these programs
may be modified, including how they can better support species
conservation. Recognizing the need to improve progress in
recovering threatened and endangered species as well as protecting
other declining species (collectively referred to as "at-risk"
species), federal agencies and members of Congress are looking for
more tools to assist in this process. Because USDA's programs are
voluntary, understanding the motivations of eligible landowners to
participate in them for the benefit of imperiled species as well
as reasons for nonparticipation is important to the debate. You
asked us to obtain stakeholder views on the incentives and
disincentives to participating in these programs for the benefit
of threatened and endangered species as well as stakeholders'
suggestions for addressing identified disincentives. You also
asked that we examine how USDA and FWS are coordinating their
efforts to benefit threatened and endangered species and the
factors that have contributed to successful collaborative efforts.
We selected six USDA conservation programs for our review based on
expenditures, the extent to which they might offer benefits to
threatened and endangered species, and USDA's confirmation that
they were appropriate given our objectives. We selected a
nonprobability sample of 19 states, each of which had high levels
of USDA conservation program expenditures for the six conservation
programs, high or moderate numbers of threatened and endangered
species relative to other states, and represented a variety of
geographic locations.^6 We conducted a telephone survey with a
nonprobability sample of 157 FSA and NRCS state and local
officials, soil and water conservation district officials, and
landowners--including program participants and eligible
nonparticipants--within the 19 states to identify the incentives,
disincentives, and suggestions for addressing disincentives to
participating in the programs for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species and their habitats. We also used telephone
surveys with USDA officials to solicit information about the
nature of coordination that occurs between USDA and FWS to benefit
threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Moreover, we
surveyed national, regional, and field officials with FWS to
discuss coordination as well as the status of species in the 19
states in our sample. A more detailed description of our scope and
methodology is presented in appendix I. We conducted our work
between December 2005 and October 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently
identified financial benefits as the primary incentive for
landowners to participate in the six USDA conservation programs we
reviewed for the benefit of threatened and endangered species or
their habitats. The types of financial benefits respondents
identified as encouraging participation include easement payments
that compensate landowners for the loss of discretion in how their
land may be used into the future and cost-share payments that
compensate landowners for a certain percentage of the costs
necessary to implement specific conservation practices. The next
most frequently identified incentives were program evaluation
criteria that give projects directly addressing threatened or
endangered species greater chances of being funded under USDA's
multi-purpose programs and landowners' personal interest in
conservation. Regarding evaluation criteria, respondents explained
that landowners have an incentive to include activities that
directly address threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species
in their applications in order to receive extra ranking points,
thereby increasing the likelihood of their application being
accepted and funded by a USDA conservation program. For example,
program applicants in Oklahoma can receive higher ranking points
to help qualify for WHIP funding if their proposed project
addresses certain at-risk species such as the threatened Arkansas
River shiner or the lesser prairie-chicken. Survey respondents
also explained that a landowner's personal commitment to
conservation in general is an important reason for participating
in these programs. Many landowners explained that they were
interested in providing habitat that could support wildlife for
both their own personal enjoyment as well as for the welfare of
species in general. Some respondents also cited a desire to
provide safe habitat for threatened, endangered, or other at-risk
species specifically.
Relatedly, limited funding was the most frequently identified
disincentive to participation in the six USDA programs we
reviewed. Fears about federal government regulations, paperwork
requirements, participation and eligibility requirements, and the
potential for participation to hinder current or future
agricultural production were the other most frequently identified
factors limiting participation. Respondents frequently reported
that, in general, there was not enough money available in the
programs to provide contracts to all eligible landowners, and that
the financial incentives offered by the programs to individual
landowners were often not competitive with other ways of making
use of agricultural land, such as planting a commodity crop or
selling to a developer. Respondents also reported that landowners
share a general reluctance to enroll in these federal conservation
programs, believing that participation would expose their
operations to greater scrutiny and potential regulation. For
example, some respondents expressed a fear of having their
operations restricted under the Endangered Species Act should they
provide habitat for threatened or endangered species on their
land. Further, respondents indicated that the sheer volume of
paperwork, as well as the degree of personal information required,
can overwhelm people and discourage them from even applying to the
programs. Moreover, respondents cited a number of different ways
in which participation is restricted because of the programs'
eligibility requirements, such as limits on a landowner's adjusted
gross income, even though they may be willing to implement
projects that would be beneficial to threatened and endangered
species. And lastly, some survey respondents noted that
participation in the programs could limit or harm current and
future agricultural uses. For example, if conservation practices
implemented on lands enrolled in the programs attract wildlife
such as deer or geese that can be destructive to enrolled or
nearby lands or both, then the landowner's operation could be
jeopardized.
Increasing funding, improving education and outreach, streamlining
paperwork requirements, and allowing more flexibility in program
participation and eligibility requirements were the most
frequently suggested solutions to encourage greater participation
in USDA conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species in the six programs we reviewed. Respondents
frequently suggested increasing the amount of funding in a
particular program's budget--thus allowing more landowners to have
their applications accepted and funded--and increasing the amount
of the payments awarded to individual landowners for participating
in programs. Survey respondents also indicated that educating and
reaching out to more landowners may address a number of
disincentives identified by respondents, including the fear of
government regulations. For example, educating landowners about
the regulatory impacts of providing habitat for threatened and
endangered species and the regulatory assurances that can be
provided is one way to assuage the fear of the regulatory burden
associated with the Endangered Species Act. With respect to
streamlining paperwork requirements, respondents offered a number
of suggestions, primarily focused on reducing both the volume of
paperwork and the time required to complete and process program
applications. When recommending more flexibility in program
participation and eligibility requirements, respondents frequently
suggested making the rules less prescriptive or strict, such as
loosening grazing limits under CRP or allowing for variable widths
of buffers along streams. For some disincentives, respondents
noted that while addressing them might entice more people to
participate in the programs, it would not necessarily benefit
threatened and endangered species. For example, while some
respondents suggested relaxing requirements on the size of buffer
strips in riparian areas, others noted that doing so might harm
certain species that are dependent on riparian areas for habitat.
Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species occurs at their field offices at
the state and local level, and is largely driven by the personal
motivation of the staff involved. The types of coordination
efforts that occur include sharing technical and financial
assistance, simplifying regulatory compliance procedures,
assisting with special conservation projects, and participating on
agency advisory groups. For example, FWS biologists assist USDA
staff in evaluating applications to WRP by providing input on the
level of restoration required to benefit threatened, endangered,
or other at-risk species. Agency officials we interviewed most
often cited personal motivation of individual staff as a leading
factor contributing to successful coordination. Officials noted
that coordination is largely driven by individuals who have a
strong commitment to coordinate, good interpersonal skills, and a
willingness to work with others. Agency officials also recognized,
however, that the quality of working relationships and the
frequency of coordination between USDA and FWS staff varies
considerably by location--ranging from extremely good to not good
at all. To help work more efficiently and effectively with others
to benefit threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species, NRCS
initiated the development of a draft memorandum of understanding
that, among other things, establishes a formal framework for
coordination between NRCS, FWS, and the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). The draft memorandum specifies actions
to be taken such as sharing information on imperiled species,
providing greater outreach to landowners about the availability of
incentive programs, and streamlining regulatory processes. While
the draft memorandum is an important step toward potentially
strengthening coordination between the agencies to help species,
it could be improved by articulating how these efforts are to be
monitored and reported on to ensure that the intended goals are
achieved and that coordination is sustained. In a previous report,
GAO has recognized that such measures are important to enhancing
and sustaining successful collaborative working relationships
between agencies.^7 Furthermore, the draft memorandum of
understanding does not include FSA, which manages the largest
conservation program in USDA. To address these gaps, we are
recommending that USDA and FWS include monitoring and reporting
mechanisms in the final version of the memorandum of
understanding, and add FSA as a party to the memorandum or develop
a separate memorandum to address coordination with FSA.
USDA and the Department of the Interior provided comments on a
draft of this report and generally concurred with our findings and
recommendations. However, Interior suggested that the
recommendations be directed only at NRCS since it is the lead
agency for the memorandum. We did not modify the recommendation as
suggested because, while NRCS initiated development of the draft
memorandum, it is not identified as the lead agency in the
memorandum; instead, as currently drafted, the agencies appear as
equal partners. In addition, Interior suggested that we allow
developing a separate memorandum with FSA as an option for
addressing coordination between FSA, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA. We
modified our recommendation to reflect this option. The agencies
also provided technical clarifications, which we have addressed
where appropriate. The Department of the Interior's letter is
presented in appendix II; USDA provided oral comments.
Background
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve
threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which
they depend.^8 Currently, there are about 1,300 threatened and
endangered species protected under the act and approximately 280
candidate species that may eventually warrant future protection
under the act.^9 The Endangered Species Act generally requires
that the Secretary of the Interior (or the Secretary of Commerce
for species under its jurisdiction) designate critical habitat for
protected species--that is, habitat essential to a species'
conservation--and to develop recovery plans that include actions
necessary to bring species to the point that they no longer need
the act's protection.^10 The act requires all federal agencies to
utilize their authorities, in consultation with the Secretaries of
the Interior or Commerce, to carry out programs for the
conservation of threatened and endangered species. In addition,
where a federal agency action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the act requires the agency to consult with the
relevant secretary to ensure that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any protected species or
adversely modify critical habitat. Federal agencies assess the
potential effects proposed projects may have on protected species
and may modify projects to avoid harmful effects. We have
previously reported that these consultations often take longer
than the allotted timeframes and frustrate federal agency
officials and private parties involved in this process.^11
Protecting habitat is an important component to recovering many
threatened and endangered species, as habitat loss is a leading
cause of species decline. Habitat destruction and degradation is
caused by many factors, and sometimes is the result of land
conversion (e.g., for home and road building or commercial
development), and logging activities including logging roads and
other forest management practices. In some situations,
agricultural activities such as diverting water for irrigation
purposes, livestock grazing, and applying pesticides and
fertilizers, can contribute to habitat destruction or degradation.
However, the extent to which such activities impact species and
their habitats is a function of many factors, including the nature
of the agricultural activity and its proximity to the species.
Despite its impact on habitat, agricultural land is nonetheless
widely recognized as vital to the protection of the nation's
environment and natural resources. As such, USDA operates
approximately 20 conservation programs designed to address a range
of environmental concerns--such as soil erosion, surface and
ground water quality, loss of wildlife habitat and native species,
air quality, and urban sprawl--by compensating landowners for
taking certain lands out of agricultural production or employing
conservation practices on land in production.^12 USDA has
established regulations governing these programs, including
eligibility requirements pursuant to authorizing statutes.
Depending on the program, decisions about the projects to fund
occur at the national, state, or local levels.
Table 1 summarizes the six USDA programs included in our
review.^13 While the authorizing statutes for each of these
programs include measures designed to benefit wildlife and
wildlife habitat, WHIP is the only program where authorizing
legislation specifically mentions the development of habitat for
threatened and endangered species. However, USDA includes
protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk
species in the national priorities it developed for EQIP and WHIP
in 2006.^14
2Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Congressional Budget
Office estimated that the 2002 law increased mandatory spending by a total
of $9.2 billion over 6 years, to a total of $20.8 billion.
^3Funding amounts provided for each program are actual obligations for
fiscal year 2005. Additional information on these conservation programs is
provided in appendices IV through IX of this report.
^4Soil and water conservation districts are units of state government that
operate at the local level and are charged with identifying natural
resource problems within their boundaries and offering assistance in
resolving them. Throughout this report, we refer to individuals who own,
manage, lease, or rent land that may be used for agricultural production
or ranching as "landowners."
^5GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [74]GAO-06-15 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
^6Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
about a population because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of
the population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.
^7 [75]GAO-06-15 .
^8According to the act, conserve means to use all methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any threatened or endangered species to the
point at which the measures provided pursuant to the act are no longer
necessary.
^9Candidate species are plants and animals for which FWS has sufficient
information on their biological status and the threats they face to
propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act,
but for which higher priority listing activities are precluding their
listing under the act.
^10Critical habitat refers to habitat that has features that are essential
to the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. The act includes provisions for
excluding areas from designation as critical habitat if the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of
the critical habitat.
^11GAO, Endangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is Needed to
Improve the Consultation Process, [76]GAO-04-93 (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
19, 2004). By law, regulation, and policy, consultations should take
between 30 and 135 days, depending on the level of review required.
^12The total number of conservation-related programs can be defined in
several ways. As described by the Congressional Research Service, some
programs have subprogram components, while others were created by
administrative action. Above and beyond these 20 programs, Congress has
authorized a large number of other small discretionary programs (in terms
of spending levels), usually with a specific geographic focus; some of
these programs have never been funded or implemented. The programs
referred to in this report are only those created by Congress.
^13Additional information on these conservation programs is provided in
appendixes III through VIII of this report.
^14As of August 2006, USDA had not developed national priorities for the
other four programs.
Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs
Original Fiscal Year
Authorizing Principal 2005 Payment Contract
Program Legislation Purpose Obligations Type Period
Conservation Food To take $1.9 Annual 10 to 15
Reserve Security Act highly billion rental year
Program (CRP) of 1985 erodible and payments contracts
other
qualified Cost-share
lands out of payments
agricultural
production
and to
establish
vegetative
cover on such
lands to
conserve
soil.
Conservation Farm To reward $202 Annual 5 to 10
Security Security and farmers and million payments year
Program (CSP) Rural landowners contracts
Investment for past Enhancement
Act of 2002 conservation payments
work, provide
technical and Cost-share
financial payments
assistance to
help develop
conservation
plans that
address
specific
natural
resource
concerns, and
complete
additional
conservation
projects.
Environmental Federal Promote $950 Cost-share 2 to 10
Quality Agriculture agricultural million payments year
Incentives Improvement production contracts
Program and Reform and Incentive
(EQIP) Act of 1996 environmental payments
quality as
compatible
national
goals, and to
optimize
environmental
benefits.
Grassland Farm To protect $71 million Easement 10 to 30
Reserve Security and virgin payments year
Program (GRP) Rural grassland and contracts
Investment former Annual
Act of 2002 grassland rental 30-year and
capable of payments permanent
restoration easements
and providing Cost-share
wildlife payments
habitat
value.
Wetlands Food, To restore $267 Easement 30-year and
Reserve Agriculture, farmed or million payments permanent
Program (WRP) Conservation converted easements
and Trade wetlands and Cost-share
Act of 1990 then retain payments 10-year
such lands as restoration
functional agreements
wetlands
through
easement
agreements.
Wildlife Federal To develop $46 million Cost-share 5 to 15
Habitat Agriculture fish and payments year
Incentives Improvement wildlife contracts
Program and Reform habitat on
(WHIP) Act of 1996 private land
such as
restoring
native
vegetation or
stabilizing
stream banks.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA information and laws and regulations.
While billions of dollars have been invested in conservation practices
through these USDA programs over the years, including actions to benefit
wildlife, clear data on the effects of these programs has been relatively
limited and many questions remain regarding the conservation impacts of
these practices. As a result, USDA is currently engaged in an effort to
quantify the environmental benefits of its conservation program practices.
This effort, known as the Conservation Effects Assessment Project, began
in 2003 and has three primary components: an assessment of national
summary estimates of conservation practice benefits and the potential for
USDA conservation programs to meet the nation's environmental and
conservation goals, watershed assessments involving basic research on
conservation practices in selected watersheds to provide a framework for
evaluating and improving performance of national assessment models, and
development of bibliographies and literature reviews on conservation
programs to document what is known and not known about the environmental
benefits of conservation practices and programs for cropland and fish and
wildlife.
Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to
Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species, and Suggestions for Addressing
Disincentives
Survey respondents identified various incentives and disincentives, as
well as suggestions to address disincentives, to participating in the six
conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species. The most frequently identified incentives were
financial benefits, program evaluation criteria that give projects
directly addressing threatened and endangered species greater chances of
being funded, and landowners' personal interest in conservation. Financial
issues were also identified as a disincentive to participating in these
programs, with limited funding available to the programs overall and for
individuals specifically, most frequently identified by survey
respondents. The other most frequently identified factors limiting
participation were fears about federal government regulations,
administrative and paperwork requirements, participation and eligibility
requirements, and potential limits on current and future uses of the
enrolled land. The most frequently identified suggestions for encouraging
greater participation were increasing funding, improving education and
outreach to landowners, streamlining paperwork requirements, and allowing
greater flexibility in program participation and eligibility requirements.
Respondents noted that while some of these suggestions may serve to
increase participation in the programs, they may not necessarily benefit
threatened and endangered species.
Incentives for Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to Benefit Threatened
and Endangered Species
As might be expected, respondents most frequently identified financial
benefits as the primary incentive to participating in the six USDA
conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species or their habitat. Program evaluation criteria that give
projects directly addressing threatened, endangered, or other at-risk
species greater chances of being accepted and landowners' personal
interest in conservation were the next most frequently identified
incentives.^15
Financial Benefits
Survey respondents most frequently identified financial benefits as a
primary incentive for a landowner to participate in the conservation
programs we reviewed. Several types of financial benefits were identified
as encouraging participation, including annual rental payments, cost-share
assistance, enhancement and incentive payments, and conservation easement
payments.
o Annual rental payments. Annual rental payments are available to
producers enrolled in two of the six USDA programs we
reviewed--CRP and GRP. Annual rental payments provide landowners
with a guaranteed source of income for their land in exchange for
agreeing to participate in multi-year contracts in order to
provide sustained conservation benefits. For example, under CRP,
FSA provides annual rental payments for 10 to 15 years to
participants who convert land in agricultural production to less
intensive uses such as establishing grasses and other vegetative
covers to, among other things, control soil erosion and enhance
wildlife habitat.
o Cost-share payments. Cost-share assistance is available through
each of the six programs we reviewed. In this report we use
"cost-share assistance" to mean a payment by USDA for a certain
percentage of the cost of implementing an approved conservation
practice where the participant and--depending on the
program--public agencies, nonprofit organizations or others
contribute to the remaining amount. For instance, under EQIP, NRCS
may pay up to 75 percent of the costs of implementing conservation
practices such as manure management facilities, that are important
to improving and maintaining the health of the environment and
natural resources.^16 While EQIP may provide cost-share
percentages of as much as 75 percent, each NRCS state office may
determine its own percentage per conservation practice, within
statutory limits. For example, an agency official from Hawaii
explained that EQIP participants may receive the 75 percent
maximum cost-share allowed in the program for 12 of 51 accepted
conservation practices that have been determined to provide the
greatest environmental benefits; these 12 practices include some
that benefit threatened and endangered species such as fencing out
feral animals and planting native trees. The remaining 39
practices are eligible for a 50 percent cost share. WHIP also
provides cost-share payments and provides a higher level of
cost-share assistance for those participants who enter into
15-year agreements and undertake projects in areas that NRCS has
identified as essential habitat for certain species. A respondent
from Ohio explained that sharing the cost of implementing
conservation practices through WHIP has allowed producers to
convert land that was unsuitable for farming to woodlands, which
has helped wildlife by reducing land fragmentation in the state.
o Enhancement and incentive payments. Enhancement and incentive
payments are additional types of financial benefits available in
CRP, CSP, and EQIP. In general, enhancement and incentive payments
provide a participant additional funding--beyond the annual or
cost-share payments available in these programs--for implementing
practices that can improve a resource condition beyond that which
is required for program eligibility. Enhancement payments in some
states focus on benefiting targeted species, as determined by USDA
state officials or local stakeholders. For example, a NRCS local
office in New Mexico--with support from a local EQIP working group
and approval by the NRCS state conservationist--offers an annual
incentive payment for landowners to defer grazing on enrolled
lands that benefit the lesser prairie-chicken, a candidate species
for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Similarly, according
to an official in Colorado, enhancement payments are geared toward
landowners whose projects benefit state-selected species of
concern.
o Easement payments. Landowners can also receive payments by
entering into easement agreements with USDA; easement payments can
be made to participants in GRP and WRP. An easement under these
programs essentially results in the landowner agreeing to how the
enrolled land will be managed under the program for the length of
the agreement in return for an easement payment.^17 Compared to
the temporary duration of the other financial incentives offered
by USDA programs, what is most distinctive about easements is the
long-term or permanent character of the restriction on future
development of enrolled land. Two easement options are available
under GRP and WRP--30 years or permanent. According to one
respondent, the incentive to pursuing an easement is the long-term
certainty that they will be adequately compensated for making
habitat improvements. Under WRP, a participant agreeing to a
permanent easement may also receive a higher cost-share
percentage. Specifically, these participants may receive up to 100
percent of the cost needed to implement projects to enhance or
restore wetlands. For these landowners, this combined financial
incentive available under WRP--the permanent easement payment and
higher than typical cost-share payments--can be helpful for giving
them a return on land that is marginally productive. For example,
according to an agency official, participating in WRP in
Washington allows landowners to be compensated for creating
wetlands to benefit salmon species, including some that are
threatened and endangered, on agricultural lands where production
is limited by high water tables and flooding.
Program Criteria That Give Greater Consideration to Projects that
Directly Address Threatened and Endangered Species
Another most frequently identified incentive for landowner
participation for the benefit of threatened and endangered species
or their habitat--in all but one of the six USDA conservation
programs we reviewed, CSP--was program evaluation criteria that
give projects directly addressing threatened, endangered, or other
at-risk species greater chances of being approved.^18 These
criteria are one of several factors used to evaluate and rank
applications for program participation and funding. Respondents
explained that there is an incentive to include activities that
directly address threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species
in applicants' projects if these activities receive extra ranking
points, thereby increasing their likelihood of being accepted and
funded by a USDA conservation program.
Including criteria for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk
species in the ranking process is done primarily by giving more
points to projects that address specific species, geographic
areas, or habitat types. For example, according to an Oklahoma
agency official, the state-level WHIP application ranking process
in Oklahoma includes criteria that give more points to projects
that develop or restore habitat for the threatened Arkansas River
shiner and the lesser prairie-chicken (a candidate species). In
Colorado, between 5 and 25 percent of EQIP funds, per a specific
watershed area, are spent for projects that address wildlife or
enhance riparian and wetland habitat. Such funding has been used
to target a state species of concern, the sage grouse, and
federally-listed threatened and endangered species such as the
Preble's meadow jumping mouse. In Montana, in addition to
providing greater ranking points to WHIP projects that directly
benefit threatened and endangered species, NRCS offers EQIP
special initiatives that are designed to address natural resource
concerns that may not be addressed through traditional EQIP
practices or that are determined to be such a critical need that a
separate funding opportunity is warranted. Approximately 20
percent of Montana's EQIP funding is directed toward these special
initiatives, some of which directly target creating benefits for
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species, such as the
gray wolf and grizzly bear.^19 Eligible applicants who reside in
areas that are the focus of the special initiatives, and who are
willing to implement specific practices, are likely to receive
funding.
Landowners� Personal Interest in Conservation
A landowner's personal interest in conservation was also among the
most frequently identified incentives to participate in USDA
conservation programs for each of the six programs we reviewed.
Many respondents explained that landowners were interested in
providing habitat that could support wildlife for both their own
personal enjoyment as well as for the general welfare of species,
while others articulated a desire to provide safe habitat for
threatened and endangered species specifically. This incentive was
frequently identified for programs that are specifically geared
toward benefiting wildlife, such as WRP and WHIP. Many respondents
explained that, for people who are concerned about wildlife, the
goals for these two programs themselves were the incentive to
participate. Respondents explained that individuals have their own
personal or ethical motivations to establish habitat and that
according to one respondent, some landowners would do it
regardless of program funding. However, as noted by another
respondent, with the financial support offered by these programs,
the landowner has more resources with which to better establish
such habitat and benefit species. Many respondents also identified
benefiting wildlife as an important incentive for participating in
CRP. For example, one respondent from Georgia explained that while
receiving financial assistance was the most important incentive
for participating in CRP, the indirect benefit of helping to
re-establish an ecosystem that provides a safe environment for
certain species was an incentive.
Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to
Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species
Survey respondents most frequently identified limited funding as a
primary disincentive to participating for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species or their habitat in the six USDA
conservation programs we reviewed. Fears about federal government
regulations, administrative and paperwork requirements,
participation and eligibility requirements, and the potential for
current or future agricultural uses to be harmed or restricted
were the other most frequently identified factors limiting
participation.^20
Limited Funding for Programs and Participants
Survey respondents identified limited funding and funding
uncertainty for the programs in general, and for the individual
payments offered to program participants specifically, most
frequently as disincentives for participating in four of the six
programs reviewed--CRP, EQIP, GRP, and WHIP. Respondents
frequently stated that there was not enough funding available for
the programs to accept all eligible applications. Several
respondents explained that a lack of program funding can deter
applicants, particularly when those with credible, highly-ranked
applications do not receive funding. According to one respondent,
continuous rejection may result in some landowners choosing to
sell their property. The choice to sell portions of property can
help make retaining land economically feasible, rather than
repeatedly attempting to apply for conservation program funds.
Uncertainty about program funding levels can also discourage
participation. For example, a respondent from Florida said that it
is hard for landowners to plan for conservation if program funding
levels are not known from year to year, or if there is uncertainty
about whether the program and its objectives will change.
In addition to limited funding in general, many respondents
identified limited or insufficient financial payments to program
participants as a disincentive. According to many respondents,
landowners may be hesitant to participate in a conservation
program because the cost share provided by the programs is
insufficient. For example, one respondent said that funding
amounts available for certain conservation practices do not cover
the costs associated with implementing the conservation practices,
particularly for EQIP and WHIP. Respondents also reported that the
financial benefits to implement conservation practices were often
not competitive with the financial gain a landowner could realize,
for example, by planting a commodity crop or selling their land to
a developer. One respondent from Washington said that the profit
margins for farmers are so low that having to cover a 50-percent
share of a project's costs is too high, especially if there are no
other economic benefits from implementing the conservation
practice. Others stated that even a 75-percent cost share may not
be enough for some landowners.
Fears About Government Regulations
Fears about government regulations was among the most frequently
cited factors limiting participation in USDA conservation programs
for all six of the programs we reviewed.^21 Respondents indicated
that landowners fear that participating in a conservation program
would expose their operations to greater scrutiny, including
potential restrictions under the Endangered Species Act, should
they adopt conservation measures that result in creating habitat
for a threatened or endangered species on their land. For example,
a respondent from Florida noted that landowners considering
enrolling in a program may be deterred by the prospect of surveys
and assessments for threatened and endangered species on their
land. Similarly, landowners are hesitant to take actions that
would help the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog, which has
adopted livestock watering tanks as a safe habitat because of loss
of native habitat, because of concern about potential regulatory
impacts under the Endangered Species Act. According to one
respondent in Minnesota, some farmers in the state do not take
conservation actions under USDA programs that may benefit the
prairie fringed orchid--a threatened species--fearing that
enrolled lands supporting the orchid may cause the species to grow
in adjacent, non-enrolled lands.^22 Respondents also explained
that some landowners are generally averse to any government
intervention and seek to avoid governmental monitoring, even if
they could receive financial or technical assistance in return.
Administrative and Paperwork Requirements
Burdensome administrative and paperwork requirements was also
among the most frequently mentioned factors limiting participation
in all six of the programs we reviewed. According to several
respondents, the length of time needed to go through the entire
process of receiving funds from these conservation programs is
long and acts as a disincentive to participating. This process
generally includes applying to the program, adopting a
conservation practice, and receiving payment. For example, one
respondent from Ohio said that it can take almost a year from
submitting an application to starting work on the ground.
Respondents explained that the timing of the application process
is also a concern for landowners. For example, a respondent from
Arkansas noted that the EQIP application process starts in the
spring when farmers are often busy, typically preparing their
lands for planting. If the process started in the winter, it would
allow farmers more time to devote to the application process.
Respondents also indicated that the sheer volume of paperwork, as
well as the degree of personal information required to
participate, can overwhelm people and discourage them from
applying for the programs. Several respondents indicated that when
landowners examine a conservation program's lengthy contract and
its stipulations, they find the process intimidating and do not
apply. In addition, some respondents said that they feel that the
relatively small amount of money available in the programs is not
enough to justify the large amount of paperwork required to apply.
One respondent said that filling out all of the forms is
particularly burdensome for landowners with smaller farms, and
that such landowners cannot afford to spend time tracking down the
information for the forms when they instead need to be working on
their land. Furthermore, CSP encourages participants to perform
self-certification and develop conservation plans. These
additional recordkeeping responsibilities can deter potential
participants. Some respondents stated that landowners may not have
adequate records to prove that they meet the extensive eligibility
requirements for a program. Furthermore, some respondents told us
that some potential applicants avoid participating because of
application requirements to divulge personal information, such as
their adjusted gross income, work history, and backgrounds.
Finally, according to some survey respondents, obtaining necessary
permits to implement conservation practices can slow down an
already long process.^23 For instance, one respondent from
Washington told us that the permitting process for implementing
in-stream projects for threatened and endangered fish is lengthy
and inefficient, and may require the involvement of multiple
stakeholders, including USDA, FWS, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, state departments of fish and wildlife and ecology, as
well as county and local permitting agencies. While the issuance
and approval of the permits are not the responsibility of USDA,
from the applicant's perspective, these permits add to the
burdensome nature of applying for USDA funds.
Participation and Eligibility Requirements
Also among the most frequently cited disincentives to
participating in all of the six programs was that some of the
programs' participation requirements were too restrictive and
inflexible. A number of respondents told us that program
requirements about what can and cannot be performed in a
conservation project are too rigid, and often do not include the
very components that are necessary for achieving the intended
conservation benefit. For example, limitations on grazing under
CRP and GRP were cited by numerous respondents as inflexible.
While grazing restrictions were established, in part, to improve
ground cover for species such as ground-nesting birds like the
lesser prairie-chicken, some respondents contend that the
restrictions may actually provide less benefit to some species. An
agency official from Oregon explained that the inability to
disturb grass stands under 10-year CRP contracts could be
counter-productive, because while the undisturbed grass is viable
and beneficial for wildlife in the first 5 to 6 years, it will
then begin to die out, and could present a fire hazard for the
landowner; it is possible that a fire could also result in the
destruction of important habitat.^24 This respondent further
explained that while ground-nesting species may use the
undisturbed grass for protection, allowing grass to grow too tall
deters insects and ungulates from using the area and breaking up
the sod. Breaking up the sod is critical to maintain healthy
grasses.
Respondents also told us that landowner eligibility requirements
can serve to restrict participation by landowners interested in
benefiting threatened and endangered species. For instance, the
adjusted gross income requirement for participation renders a
number of landowners ineligible, and according to some
respondents, these ineligible landowners might have applied if
permitted.^25 Respondents noted that the income restriction was a
particular problem in areas such as Hawaii, where property income
is relatively high, but where many threatened and endangered
species could benefit from conservation actions. Several
respondents from Hawaii explained that the income requirement
excludes potential participants who own a majority of the
threatened and endangered species habitat on private property
relative to the rest of Hawaii. One respondent told us that he was
willing to consider establishing conservation practices that would
help protect an endangered plant and other species, but he is
ineligible to receive financial assistance to do so because of the
adjusted gross income limit.
Similarly, respondents expressed concern about CSP's eligibility
requirements that limit participation to selected watersheds.
According to one respondent, the number of new watersheds expected
to be funded through CSP for fiscal year 2006 was 110, but the
number actually funded was 60. This reduction was a result of a
lack of available funding. Therefore, some landowners who might be
interested in implementing CSP conservation practices may not
reside in a watershed eligible for funding. Even when in an
eligible watershed, a respondent from Washington said that some
landowners may still not be eligible to receive funds because the
program uses an inappropriate soil conditioning index criteria to
select projects. The criteria used are based on Midwest soil types
rather than desert soils such as those found in Washington and
other states in the West.^26 A respondent in Illinois noted that
CSP also prevents farmers that rent lands for production for short
periods of time from participating. The program requires farmers
to control enrolled land for the life of the contract.
Potential for Participation to Hinder Current or Future Agricultural
Production
The potential for participation in USDA programs to limit current
or future agricultural production was among the most frequently
cited disincentives for three of the six programs we
reviewed--CRP, EQIP, and WRP. For example, some respondents said
that promoting wildlife may result in crop damage, as some animals
such as deer or geese may eat crops. Because of this crop damage,
some respondents may view such wildlife as pests. Furthermore, a
respondent from Pennsylvania described how taking lands out of
production can result in noxious weeds invading the area. These
weeds are difficult to eradicate and can also spread to and infest
other productive lands.
Suggestions for Addressing Disincentives to Participating in
Programs to Benefit Threatened an
Survey respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding,
improving education and outreach to landowners, streamlining
paperwork requirements, and allowing greater flexibility in
program participation and eligibility requirements to address
disincentives and encourage greater participation in the six USDA
conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of threatened
and endangered species and their habitats.^27 Respondents,
however, also noted that while some of these suggestions might
increase participation in the programs, they would not necessarily
benefit threatened and endangered species.
Increasing Funding for Programs and Landowners
Increasing funding--for both programs in general and the amounts
paid to individual landowners specifically--was the most
frequently mentioned suggestion for encouraging participation in
USDA's conservation programs for four of the programs we
reviewed--CRP, EQIP, GRP, and WRP; it was the second most
frequently identified suggestion for CSP and WHIP. A majority of
respondents agreed that increasing the overall investment in the
programs could greatly or very greatly help threatened and
endangered species. For example, increasing GRP's budget was
mentioned by some respondents as a way to include more applicants
in the program, thereby increasing the number of acres enrolled
and thus increasing benefits to species that depend on grassland
ecosystems. One USDA official explained that if he could pick one
program to put additional money into, it would be GRP, in part
because of its untapped potential. Similarly, a USDA official in
Iowa suggested the need to increase CSP's overall budget because
the program generally only has enough money to fund the
highest-ranking applicants and, in Iowa, these tend not to be
those landowners who include practices to benefit threatened and
endangered species in their applications. According to this
official, most of the highest ranking applications are for
projects proposed on cropped farmlands, where there is less
opportunity to benefit threatened or endangered species. Likewise,
respondents suggested increasing WHIP's budget to allow more high
quality applications to receive funding, particularly given that
the program's primary purpose is to benefit wildlife.
Respondents also frequently recommended increasing the amount of
payments offered to individual program participants. For CRP,
respondents specifically suggested increasing the rates of annual
rental payments associated with the program since this, in part,
would help make setting land aside competitive with other
agricultural uses of the land. Further, one USDA official in
Massachusetts suggested tailoring the amount of rental payments to
specific areas within states and counties in order to better match
the payments with local land values. Under EQIP, respondents
frequently suggested increasing the cost-share percentage
available for projects. Respondents explained that raising the
cost-share amount borne by the federal government could help
encourage landowners to implement projects that benefit threatened
and endangered species since those typically do not provide
long-term financial returns. Some respondents recommended putting
additional funding into practices that provide direct benefits to
threatened and endangered species, such as providing a greater
cost-share percentage under EQIP for certain species-friendly
practices--as is done, for example, in Hawaii--or raising the
rental rate for CRP for those acres that will directly benefit
imperiled species. A similar suggestion, made by a respondent in
Minnesota, was to provide more funding under GRP to those
landowners whose land includes habitat that is essential for
threatened and endangered species. Some of the FWS officials we
interviewed suggested that USDA could target its funding
allocations within programs based on geographic areas determined
to be of high priority for threatened, endangered, and other
at-risk species. As one soil and water conservation district
official in Iowa explained, people would look into helping
threatened and endangered species more if they knew they could get
money for doing so.
Improving Education and Outreach to Landowners
Respondents identified improving education and outreach to
landowners as a way to encourage greater participation for the
benefit of threatened and endangered species most frequently for
CSP and WHIP; it was the second most frequently mentioned solution
for the other four programs we reviewed. Respondents recommended
actions including building trust and developing personal
relationships between landowners and agency staff, doing more to
advertise the programs, and focusing education on the benefits of
helping threatened and endangered species and other wildlife and
the specifics on how to accomplish this. One soil and water
conservation district official suggested targeting outreach
efforts to younger farmers. Some USDA officials we interviewed in
Texas noted that, in some areas, agricultural land is starting to
change hands to younger farmers and, in particular, to owners who
do not depend on agricultural production for income. These
officials said that some of these new landowners are more oriented
to using their land for recreational purposes and are more
amenable to taking steps to help threatened, endangered, and other
at-risk species.
Respondents indicated that improving education and conducting more
outreach to landowners could address a number of different
disincentives. First, educating landowners about the regulatory
consequences of providing habitat for threatened and endangered
species is one way to assuage fears about regulation under the
Endangered Species Act. One soil and water conservation district
official in Colorado said he reassures people that providing
habitat "is a good thing" and that they will not be punished for
it; a USDA official in Ohio said the majority of landowners with
fears about the act are reassured after learning more about how
the law is implemented. A USDA official in Oklahoma explained that
NRCS needs to educate landowners so they see at-risk species, like
black-tailed prairie dogs, not just as pests, but instead as
opportunities for them to benefit from participating in WHIP.
Second, one respondent explained that educating people during the
application process as to their chances of receiving funding for a
competitive program like EQIP can help adjust their expectations
and reduce the frustration of not receiving funding. Third, taking
the time to educate people about the necessities of some of the
paperwork requirements may help them better understand, even
though they may still dislike, the bureaucratic process, according
to some respondents. For example, a soil and water conservation
district official in Oregon suggested the need to explain that
paperwork requirements related to threatened and endangered
species are often part of a system of checks and balances that are
in place for a reason. Finally, one USDA official explained that
telling people the reasons why certain conservation practices were
developed under WHIP may help overcome some landowners' perception
that the strict requirements regarding how practices are to be
installed are a disincentive to participating.
Streamlining Paperwork Requirements
Streamlining the amount of paperwork associated with the programs
was one of the most frequently suggested ways of encouraging
greater landowner participation in CSP, EQIP and WRP. Respondents'
suggestions focused on the need to simplify the application and
permitting processes. Respondents suggested simplifying the
application process by reducing both the volume of paperwork and
the processing time for each application. Specifically, a
landowner in Missouri suggested creating only one set of paperwork
to apply for multiple programs, while a soil and water
conservation district official in Washington proposed linking
forms so information needs to be entered only once and can be
carried forward automatically where needed.^28 Respondents also
suggested making the permitting process less time consuming by,
for example, allowing Endangered Species Act consultations and
other environmental assessments to be performed jointly for more
than one project, eliminating the need to do separate assessments
for each individual project. Reducing the programs' paperwork
requirements, according to a USDA official in California, would
allow NRCS staff to spend more time in the field with landowners
instead of processing paperwork in the office.
Allowing Greater Flexibility in Participation and Eligibility
Requirements
More flexibility in participation and eligibility requirements was
also among the most frequently mentioned suggestions for
encouraging participation in USDA conservation programs under CRP,
EQIP, and WRP. For CRP and WRP specifically, respondents
frequently mentioned making the programs' rules governing
participation less prescriptive or strict. Respondents indicated
that these programs contain restrictions on the amount of
agricultural production that can take place on enrolled lands, and
that allowing more production could entice landowners to
participate, while not significantly detracting from the
conservation purposes of the programs. For example, a USDA
official in Montana suggested that allowing for some limited
grazing in CRP might help persuade landowners who otherwise were
turned off by the 10-year minimum length of the required contract.
In addition, respondents suggested allowing variable widths for
buffers along streams under CRP rather than setting a standard
width, and allowing a producer to implement additional management
practices beyond what is allowed in their program contract. For
example, according to one USDA official, the enhancement program
under CRP in Pennsylvania only allows mowing to control weeds
during the first three years of a 10-year contract, and that
allowing additional mowing each year before or after the mating
season for ground-nesting birds would better help these
species.^29
For EQIP, respondents frequently suggested allowing greater
flexibility in eligibility requirements for potential
participants. Respondents recommended allowing landowners who are
not agricultural producers--such as hobby farmers or people living
on large parcels of land--to qualify for participation in the
program; such landowners can receive funds under WHIP. As one soil
and water conservation district official explained, it should not
matter who owns the land, if the goal is to install projects that
benefit threatened and endangered species. Other suggestions
included allowing multiple landowners to apply together on one
EQIP application, thereby ensuring coordinated management of
adjacent lands--an action that would ultimately protect the
threatened and endangered species in the area--and creating an
exemption to the adjusted gross income requirement for landowners
in Hawaii. This potential exemption was suggested because there
are so many lands in the state with valuable habitat that are part
of large ranches that do not meet the income eligibility
requirement. According to one respondent in Hawaii, allowing the
large landowners on Maui to participate in USDA conservation
programs, for example, would greatly benefit threatened and
endangered species. He said that the two largest private
landowners alone could help protect several thousand acres of
habitat for these species as their land is adjacent to
already-protected habitat, including Haleakala National Park.
Implementing Suggestions Has Potential Limitations for Threatened
and Endangered Species
Some respondents noted that while implementing the suggestions
might entice more people to participate in the programs and
address disincentives that were identified, doing so would not
necessarily benefit threatened and endangered species in all
cases. For example, according to some respondents, allowing for
more management or variable buffer widths under CRP may increase
participation in that program because it would address landowner
resistance to the current rules; however, according to other
respondents, such an action may ultimately be to the detriment of
any threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species that depend
on certain conditions in these areas. Similarly, a few respondents
noted that reducing the paperwork requirements for CSP may result
in the loss of exactly the kind of information NRCS needs to
document good conservation--including benefits to threatened and
endangered species--for participation in the program. While only 5
of the 18 FWS officials we interviewed felt that USDA programs in
their current forms provide great to very great benefits to
threatened and endangered species, many stated that the programs
have a lot of potential to benefit these species. FWS officials
offered some specific suggestions to orient USDA's programs more
toward protecting threatened and endangered species. Some FWS
officials suggested committing a certain percentage of programs'
budgets to projects benefiting these species, while others
recommended targeting USDA spending to specific geographic areas
that have high priority species and habitat needs.^30
Agency Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species
Occurs Primarily at State and Local Levels and Agency Officials
Cited Staff Motivation as Key to Successful Coordination
USDA and FWS officials stated that coordination of their
conservation efforts to benefit threatened and endangered species
most often occurs at their field offices at the state and local
level and cited personal motivation as a key factor in successful
collaborative efforts. However, agency officials acknowledged that
the quality of working relationships and the frequency of
coordination between USDA and FWS staff varies by location. To
improve working relationships and coordination, USDA initiated
work on a memorandum of understanding that, among other things,
establishes a formal framework for coordination. Although the
draft memorandum is a positive step in improving coordination, it
currently lacks mechanisms to monitor and report on implementation
efforts to help ensure that coordination occurs and is sustained.
It also does not include FSA, even though the agency runs the
conservation program in USDA that can affect the most agricultural
land--the Conservation Reserve Program.
Agency Survey Respondents and Other USDA and FWS Officials Stated
That Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species
Occurs Primarily at Their Field Offices at the State and Local
Level
USDA and FWS officials told us that while coordination between
agencies occurs at all levels--headquarters, regional, state, and
local--the majority of the work takes place at their field offices
at the state and local level in the day-to-day implementation of
their programs. Coordination generally involves FWS field office
officials providing USDA staff in state and local offices with
information about species and habitat needs relevant to
conservation program decisions, while NRCS officials, who are
often soil scientists and civil engineers, provide surveying and
engineering expertise to FWS staff on the design and construction
of specific conservation projects. Some NRCS officials told us
that they routinely include FWS biologists in the onsite
evaluations they conduct of WRP applications. For example, in
Oklahoma, a FWS biologist serves on NRCS's wetland review team
with NRCS and state agency officials, making site visits and
ranking applications.^31 FWS biologists assist USDA staff with
ranking the biological value of WRP applications and, for those
applications that are approved, commenting on the types of
vegetation and level of restoration that should be implemented to
benefit at-risk species.
In some cases, USDA and FWS may also jointly fund projects,
although there are some restrictions on how funds from different
federal programs may be combined.^32 Officials told us that
working together to secure funds from multiple programs across
agencies can be particularly helpful to landowners who otherwise
would not have been able to undertake a conservation project if
they received funds from just one program. For example, NRCS and
FWS jointly funded a riparian restoration project to improve
habitat for the endangered shiner minnow in Calhoun County, Iowa.
NRCS provided funds through WHIP for excavation work along the
stream bank, as well as the purchasing of stone for stream bank
stabilization. FWS funds covered all structural costs associated
with the project, including the installation of stone barriers
within the stream. The joint financial contributions by both
agencies helped to significantly lower the total project cost to
the landowner.
The agencies have also worked together to help streamline the
consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Under the
act and its implementing regulations, NRCS must consult with FWS
on each conservation project it funds that may affect a threatened
or endangered species to ensure the projects are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. We have previously reported
that agency officials and private entities that must go through
this process complain that it is time consuming and frustrating;
some agency officials reiterated those concerns during this
review. To address such concerns, FWS works with agencies to
develop programmatic consultations that set forth parameters or
guidelines for how specific actions might be conducted in order to
avoid adverse effects to species and their habitats. If such
guidance is followed, the subsequent consultation should
presumably go more quickly. In Florida, for example, the FWS field
office developed a programmatic consultation for conservation
actions that NRCS commonly uses, such as controlled burning and
mowing, activities that might harm the threatened eastern indigo
snake. In developing the programmatic consultation, FWS and NRCS
reached agreement on the best management practices to be used when
implementing the conservation actions in order to avoid adversely
harming the snake or its habitat. According to NRCS and FWS
officials, programmatic consultations can dramatically reduce the
amount of time spent consulting with FWS on projects.
USDA and FWS also collaborate on broader conservation projects
involving other government agencies and nongovernmental
organizations. These collaborations include:
o State and local agency initiatives. USDA and FWS work together
with state and local agencies on conservation initiatives. For
example, in an effort to address the loss of wetlands, officials
in Kane County, Illinois, requested assistance from NRCS and FWS.
Based on maps of groundwater recharge areas and extensive soil and
topographic surveys from NRCS, together with information about the
plant and animal communities relying on the wetlands in the county
from FWS, the agencies assisted county officials in identifying
wetlands that were in most need of protection.^33 Their actions,
according to a NRCS official, also contributed to improving water
quality, educating the local public on the importance of
protecting wetlands, and helping the county's forestry division
identify potential lands for public ownership.
o NRCS State Technical Committees. NRCS established these
committees in every state to assist in making technical
recommendations on issues relating to the implementation of
natural resource conservation activities and programs. Committee
members include representatives from NRCS, FSA, FWS, and other
federal agencies; state agriculture and wildlife agencies;
nongovernmental organizations; and private landowners.^34
Recommendations are made by the committee for consideration by the
implementing USDA program agency. Survey respondents and other
officials told us that committee work and discussions among
members can identify opportunities to coordinate on specific
projects to benefit threatened and endangered species. For
example, discussions among committee members in Ohio led to FWS
working on a CRP project--and making recommendations to modify the
implementation of the project--that improved the possibility of
providing habitat for the threatened copperbelly water snake. FWS
and FSA officials worked together with the landowners to
incorporate the modifications into the project.
o Habitat Joint Ventures. Habitat joint ventures were established
in the late 1980s to help implement the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Their purpose is to restore, protect, and enhance
waterfowl habitat on a regional scale throughout North America;
there are 11 habitat joint ventures in the United States. Each
joint venture is comprised of numerous public and private
entities. A key aspect of these joint ventures is to identify
funding sources for needed conservation and to prioritize projects
to receive that funding. USDA and FWS are members on these joint
ventures and provide technical and financial assistance to
implement projects to restore and enhance habitat and protect
waterfowl. While the primary purpose of the joint ventures is
waterfowl, habitat important for waterfowl is also often important
for threatened and endangered species.
At the national level, USDA and FWS coordinate on developing
program regulations, policy, and training. For example, the
agencies have recently begun joint training sessions on the
consultation process required by the Endangered Species Act.^35
The training is ultimately expected to be offered to local USDA
staff in an effort to help them better understand and navigate the
consultation process. Officials noted that such sessions also help
FWS staff to better understand USDA's programs and become more
familiar with USDA staff. Additionally, the agencies have worked
together at the national level to develop the criteria used in
evaluating and ranking proposed CRP projects. These projects are
assessed, among other things, on their expected environmental
benefits to soil resources, water quality, and wildlife habitat.
Officials in headquarters offices have also worked together in
developing conservation practices and standards for USDA and FWS
conservation programs.
While survey respondents provided many examples of successful
coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of threatened,
endangered, and other at-risk species, they also indicated that
the level of coordination that occurs at the local office level
varies considerably--ranging from extremely good to not good at
all. We also found this to be the case during interviews with
agency officials. For example, several USDA officials stated that
they work closely with FWS in implementing conservation programs,
such as WRP and CRP, and often share information concerning
threatened and endangered species. However, other officials we
interviewed said that coordination between USDA and FWS was
limited or generally poor and only occurs in limited situations,
such as when construction is involved on a project. Similarly,
several USDA officials stated that they coordinate with FWS
principally on state conservation plans or through e-mail when
necessary. Still, some agency officials we interviewed noted that
despite past problems between USDA and FWS, coordination is
improving.
Survey Respondents and Other Agency Officials Cited Staff
Motivation as a Leading Factor in Successful Coordination
USDA survey respondents and FWS officials we interviewed most
often stated that the personal motivation of staff was a leading
factor in successful collaboration between USDA and FWS.
Specifically, officials noted that individuals who possessed a
strong commitment to coordinate, had good interpersonal skills,
and demonstrated a willingness to work with others were often the
driving force behind successful collaborative efforts. For
example, one USDA survey respondent reported that it was the
personal attitude of the FWS official working with USDA that made
the difference in helping to establish habitat for the threatened
copperbelly water snake in Ohio. His positive attitude in working
with USDA staff, commitment in attending meetings, and willingness
to actively participate all contributed significantly to the
success of their collaboration. Similarly, a FWS respondent noted
that the people skills and collaborative attitude of NRCS and FWS
staff were linchpins in completing a watershed project on the
upper Little Red River in Arkansas, a project that improved
habitat for a listed species of mussel and a candidate species of
fish.
Commonly-shared goals and management support and direction for
collaboration were other important factors that contribute to
successful collaboration highlighted in our survey and in
interviews with agency officials. For example, FWS officials
reported that successful coordination in Montana has resulted
largely from direction provided by the NRCS state conservationist
who put an emphasis on threatened, endangered, and other at-risk
species for EQIP and WHIP and makes funding decisions for these
programs at the state level (as opposed to the county level as
done in other states). Trust was another important factor cited.
Unfortunately, trust between agencies is not something that can be
dictated from management; it takes time to develop. Learning about
other agencies' programs and becoming familiar with counterparts
at other agencies are important components to this process. In
some cases, this process has been expedited by having staff from
one agency collocated at another agency's offices. For example, in
Colorado, two FWS officials are located at NRCS offices in the
state to help address threatened and endangered species and other
wildlife issues. Similarly, in Texas, an official from the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department is collocated with the NRCS state
office. According to Texas officials, this close contact has been
very beneficial to promoting a better understanding of each
agency's respective programs and how they can work together.
USDA and FWS Are Working to Improve Coordination Efforts through
a Memorandum of Understanding for At-Risk Species; however, the
Memorandum Lacks Key Elements
NRCS has drafted a memorandum of understanding with FWS and AFWA
to establish and maintain a framework of cooperation to
proactively conserve at-risk plant and animal species and their
habitats.^36 Initial efforts on the memorandum began in January
2005, under the direction of the chief of the NRCS, with the aim
of developing a mechanism that would allow the agency to better
utilize its programs to address the needs of declining species.
Currently, the draft memorandum states that its purpose is to
strengthen cooperation among NRCS, FWS, and AFWA to proactively
conserve at-risk plant and animal species and their habitats. The
memorandum also states that it is the intent of NRCS, FWS, and
AFWA to identify and create more opportunities to work together to
preempt the need to list additional species under the Endangered
Species Act, foster the recovery of species already listed, and
address similar needs for species that are of conservation concern
to states.
Under the draft memorandum, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA would be
responsible for taking individual and joint actions to more
effectively meet their obligations and priorities for conserving
at-risk species and their habitats. The draft memorandum stresses
the importance of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies
participating on USDA's state technical committees. Additionally,
the draft memorandum directs NRCS to provide information to FWS
and state fish and wildlife agencies about NRCS-administered
programs that could assist them in meeting species' needs. These
actions and others in the draft memorandum focus on sharing
information about species and habitat needs and where conservation
program funds might be available to address these needs. Moreover,
the draft memorandum addresses actions between NRCS and FWS to
streamline regulatory processes, such as the Endangered Species
Act consultation process. To help evaluate the effectiveness of
the memorandum of understanding, the draft document states that
NRCS, FWS, and AFWA will develop protocols for gathering data for
reporting and assessing the effectiveness of conservation efforts
for at-risk species and their habitats; however, the memorandum
does not include any specific monitoring or reporting
responsibilities. In addition, the draft memorandum does not
include FSA even though CRP enrolls nearly 36 million acres of
land each year. NRCS officials told us that FSA was not included
in the drafting of the memorandum because adding another entity
would have slowed down the development and review process. NRCS
and FSA officials said they saw no reason why FSA could not be
added to the agreement in the future.
While intrinsically valuable, interagency coordination is not
always easy. Each agency has its own unique mission and program
priorities, regulations, and organizational culture. Sometimes
coordinating within an individual agency can be challenging as
well. Based on literature reviews, expert interviews, and reviews
of numerous coordination efforts among agencies, in an October
2005 report, we identified eight practices that help enhance and
sustain collaboration.^37 Among the practices highlighted in the
report were the need to define and articulate a common outcome;
identify and address needs by leveraging resources; agree on roles
and responsibilities; and develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate,
and report on the results of collaborative efforts. In the report,
we pointed out that federal agencies engaging in collaborative
efforts need to create the means to monitor and evaluate their
efforts to enable them to identify areas for improvement. We found
that reporting on these activities can provide key decision makers
within the agencies, as well as clients and stakeholders,
important feedback that they can use to improve both policy and
operational effectiveness.
We recognize that the memorandum of understanding is still in
draft form and believe that once finalized, it could contribute to
better coordination for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk
species. In fact, the draft memorandum embraces many of the
actions that survey respondents highlighted as examples of
successful coordination, such as using state technical committees
to better implement on-the-ground conservation, sharing
information, and leveraging resources. The draft memorandum also
contains some of the elements that we have previously identified
as being important to successful collaborative efforts. For
example, the draft memorandum articulates a common outcome,
defines roles and responsibilities, and discusses the need to
share information in order to leverage resources as well as
develop protocols to produce comparable data for reporting and
assessing on their efforts. However, the draft document does not
have monitoring and reporting mechanisms for ensuring that
coordination takes place, including who will be responsible for
monitoring and reporting, and the time frames for doing so.
Without such elements, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA cannot be assured that
a goal of the draft memorandum--improved coordination for the
benefit of threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species--will
be achieved. In particular, given that we found that successful
coordination between USDA and FWS is largely driven by staff
motivation, without follow-up to monitor and report on
implementation status, efforts pursuant to the draft memorandum
may simply maintain the status quo--those who want to coordinate
will coordinate, and others will not. Furthermore, FSA is not a
partner to the draft memorandum. With nearly $1.9 billion in
conservation investments and about 36 million enrolled acres,
CRP--under FSA's administration--has the potential to provide
significant benefits to imperiled species.
Conclusions
The extent to which viable habitat for threatened, endangered, and
other at-risk species can be established on private lands is
certain to be the subject of ongoing debate within the
environmental and agricultural communities and in the Congress.
Because the majority of land in the United States is
privately-owned, programs that encourage private landowners to
implement conservation actions on their lands are critical to
protecting imperiled species. USDA's conservation programs provide
billions of dollars annually to agricultural producers and others
for taking steps to address a myriad of environmental and natural
resource concerns, including restoring wildlife habitat. As
Congress and federal agencies consider legislative and
programmatic alternatives to better address at-risk species, it is
essential that we understand the factors that might motivate a
private landowner to choose to participate in conservation
programs to benefit imperiled species. While financial incentives
weigh heavy in a landowner's decision, other factors such as fears
about regulatory and paperwork burdens also play a role. Taking
steps to increase landowner participation in USDA programs,
however, must be complimented by efforts to ensure that the
intended benefits to species are meaningful. Moreover, improving
coordination between USDA and FWS--the nation's experts on
conserving natural resources and threatened and endangered
species--should help ensure that conservation program investment
decisions provide the most benefit to threatened, endangered, and
other at-risk species and their habitats as possible. While the
draft memorandum of understanding between the two agencies is an
important step toward improving coordination, without monitoring
and reporting mechanisms, NRCS and FWS lack important tools for
ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of their
collaborative efforts. Furthermore, the draft memorandum omits
FSA, a key agency that administers CRP, the largest conservation
program in the United States--and thus fails to capitalize on an
opportunity to coordinate investments from this $2 billion program
to better address at-risk species and their habitats.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To enhance and sustain coordination at USDA's and FWS's field
offices at the state and local level for the benefit of
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species, we recommend
that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior:
o direct the Chief of NRCS and the Director of FWS to work with
AFWA to incorporate monitoring and reporting mechanisms in their
memorandum of understanding prior to finalizing it for
implementation; and
o direct the Chief of NRCS, the Administrator of FSA, and the
Director of FWS, in cooperation with AFWA, to include FSA as an
additional partner to the memorandum or develop a separate
memorandum of understanding to address coordination.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture for review and comment. Interior provided
written comments (see app. II) and USDA provided oral comments.
The departments generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations. However, the Department of the Interior suggested
that we direct our recommendations to NRCS instead of NRCS and FWS
together, because our report specifically addresses USDA
conservation programs and that NRCS is the lead agency in the
memorandum of understanding. While we understand Interior's
position, the existing program management arrangement set forth in
the draft memorandum of understanding makes it necessary to
address our recommendations to both agencies. Specifically,
although NRCS initiated development of the draft memorandum, the
document does not specify that NRCS is the lead agency for
preparing and implementing it. Rather, USDA, FWS, and AFWA appear
as co-equal parties to the memorandum. The Department of the
Interior also suggested that both recommendations should recognize
AFWA as a partner to the memorandum of understanding. We agree and
have modified the recommendations to direct the federal agencies
to work with AFWA to implement our recommendations. With respect
to our second recommendation, Interior suggested allowing the
agencies the option of developing a separate memorandum for
addressing coordination with FSA. We have modified our
recommendation to reflect this suggestion. The departments also
provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the
report, as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send
copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior and other interested parties. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202)
512-3841 or [email protected] . Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributors to
this report are listed in appendix IX.
Sincerely yours,
Robin M. Nazzaro
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The objectives of our study were to identify (1) stakeholder views
on the incentives and disincentives for landowners to benefit
threatened and endangered species and their habitats through
participation in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
conservation programs as well as suggestions for addressing
disincentives to program participation, and (2) how USDA and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are coordinating their
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and
their habitats and the factors that agency officials believe have
contributed to successful coordination.
Incentives, Disincentives, and Suggestions
To identify incentives, disincentives, and suggestions to address
the disincentives for participating in USDA conservation programs,
we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and policies for the
programs as well as other independent reviews of them. We also
interviewed USDA headquarters officials to obtain information on
how these programs were implemented at the national, state, and
local levels. In addition, we conducted site visits in California,
including Yolo and Merced counties, and Texas, including San Saba
and Travis counties, to discuss state and local level
implementation of the programs and to observe on-the-ground
implementation of select conservation projects. We also conducted
telephone surveys with USDA and soil and water conservation
district officials, and private landowners.
Telephone Surveys
We conducted telephone surveys with a nonprobability sample of 157
USDA officials, soil and water conservation district officials,
and landowners from 19 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington).^1 We selected
these states based on three criteria: (1) high levels of USDA
conservation program allocations for the programs we reviewed, (2)
high or moderate numbers of threatened and endangered species
relative to other states, and (3) diversity of geographic
location. Within these states, we selected at least two
counties--in some cases as many as four--that had high levels of
USDA conservation program obligations and had significant
threatened and endangered species occurrences and diversity in
comparison with other counties in the state. We surveyed officials
in 49 counties across the 19 states.
In the different states, we surveyed (1) the state biologist or
the state conservationist in USDA's Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), who are responsible for helping to implement or
administer many of the department's conservation programs and (2)
the executive director or another state-level official in USDA's
Farm Service Agency (FSA), which administers USDA's largest
conservation program. In the different counties we selected, we
surveyed (1) the NRCS district conservationist, the lead official
for administering the agency's programs at the county level; (2)
soil and water conservation district officials, who work with USDA
to increase voluntary conservation practices among landowners; and
(3) private landowners.^2 The NRCS district conservationists
identified an initial list of landowners. We selected a
nonprobability sample of landowners from this list using criteria
to include landowners who participate in the USDA conservation
programs as well as those who were eligible to participate but
chose not to do so, and to reflect geographic diversity across the
19 states. In total, we interviewed 71 NRCS officials, 18 FSA
officials, 44 soil and water conservation district officials, and
24 landowners. In some cases, soil and water conservation district
officials were also landowners, and they responded to our
questions from both perspectives.
We conducted seven pretests with officials in headquarters and the
field and one landowner. After each pretest, we conducted an
interview to determine whether (1) the survey questions were
clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) the questionnaire
placed an undue burden on the respondents, and (4) the questions
were unbiased. On the basis of the pretests, we made appropriate
revisions to the survey.
Through our telephone survey, we gathered participants' opinions
about the primary incentives, disincentives, and suggestions to
address the disincentives for landowners to participate in seven
USDA conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species. We asked interviewees to identify the USDA
conservation programs they had knowledge of, and only asked them
questions relevant to those programs. The survey also included
questions specifically for landowners regarding their
participation in the conservation programs. The survey asked a
combination of questions that allowed for open-ended and
close-ended responses. To analyze the open-ended material, we
developed clear protocols for coding the content into categories.
The material was independently coded by one individual and then
verified by another individual.
We initially selected seven conservation programs to include in
our review, based on the amount of dollars obligated to these
programs and the extent to which they might offer benefits to
threatened and endangered species. These were the Conservation
Reserve Program, Conservation Security Program, Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, Farm and Ranch Lands Protection
Program, Grassland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, and Wetlands Reserve Program. USDA confirmed that these
programs were appropriate given our objectives. We dropped the
responses we collected with respect to the Farm and Ranch Lands
Protection Program from our analysis due to the lack of
familiarity by most respondents with the program.
Coordination
To determine how USDA and FWS are coordinating for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and the
factors that contributed to successful examples of such efforts,
we included questions in the survey with respect to coordination
between the two agencies that were posed to USDA officials as well
as 18 FWS officials in state and regional offices in our 19-state
nonprobability sample. We asked the USDA and FWS officials to
comment on the quality of coordination between the agencies at
varying levels of government; to provide examples of good
coordination for the benefit of threatened and endangered species
in their area; and to identify the factors they believed
contributed to successful coordination. In addition, we also
interviewed FWS and USDA officials at each agency's headquarters
in Washington, D.C., about formal coordination efforts between the
agencies to benefit threatened and endangered species. We also
used our site visits in California and Texas to discuss these
issues with USDA and FWS officials as well as meet with officials
from state fish and wildlife agencies.
We performed our work between November 2005 and October 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
^1Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
about a population because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of
the population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.
^2The respondents we identify as "landowners" also included people who
rent or lease land for agricultural or livestock production.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program
Introduction
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of the USDA's
largest and most ambitious conservation efforts, with
approximately 36 million acres enrolled and annual payments
totaling nearly $1.8 billion through June of 2006.^1 Administered
by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA), CRP was established by the
Food Security Act of 1985 and currently operates in all 50
states.^2 The purpose of CRP is to provide financial incentives to
landowners to conserve and improve soil, water, air, and wildlife
resources by converting land in agricultural production to less
intensive uses. Program participants agree to adopt a variety of
approved conservation practices such as installing structures,
planting vegetation, or implementing management techniques.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a
subprogram of CRP that is implemented on a state-by-state basis.
Governors request that CREP be implemented in their state to
address specific state and nationally significant
agriculture-related environmental problems, and commit to
providing a portion of the funds necessary to do so. Of foremost
concern to CREP are issues relating to water supplies and areas
around wells, wildlife species endangered by the loss of essential
habitat, soil erosion, and reduced habitat for fish such as
salmon.
Eligibility
In order to be eligible for CRP and CREP, a producer must have
owned and operated the eligible land for at least 12 months prior
to close of the CRP sign-up period; however, this requirement can
be waived under certain conditions.^3 In addition, the land must
meet one of several criteria in order to achieve overall program
goals, such as having a weighted average erosion index of eight or
higher, or being located in a national or state CRP conservation
priority area.^4
Eligible lands include:
o cropland that is planted or considered planted to an
agricultural commodity for four of the previous six crop years
from 1996 to 2001, and is physically and legally capable of being
planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity;
o certain marginal pastureland that is enrolled in the Water Bank
Program or suitable for use as a riparian buffer or for similar
water quality purposes;^5 or
o currently enrolled CRP land nearing expiration of its contract.
Application Process
Farm owners and operators can apply and eventually enroll their
land in CRP in two ways, through general or continuous sign-up.
General sign-up generally occurs for a few weeks each year.^6 For
both general and continuous sign-up, applicants must appear at one
of FSA's 2,351 offices and formally enter into a CRP contract. The
contract contains information on the participant (e.g., name,
address, Social Security number, and phone number) and information
on the conservation practices agreed to, the acreage enrolled, and
the acreage committed to each practice.
Continuous CRP sign-up, in contrast to general sign-up, is
available at any time of year for owners who agree to adopt
certain high-priority conservation practices. These practices
include installation of filter strips, riparian buffers, grass
waterways, shelterbelts, field windbreaks, living snow fences,
salinity reducing vegetation, shallow water areas for wildlife,
and wetland restoration. Continuous sign-up participants, like
general sign-up participants, sign contracts and agree to certain
stipulations in return for payments.
Enrollment in CREP occurs on a continuous basis, permitting
farmers and ranchers to join the program at any time rather than
waiting for specific sign-up periods. Enrollment in each state is
limited to specific geographic areas and practices. A CREP project
begins when a state, Indian tribe, local government, or local
nongovernmental entity identifies an agriculture-related
environmental issue of state or national significance. These
parties and FSA then develop a project proposal to address
particular environmental issues and goals. CREP, therefore, is a
partnership program among federal and state governments and other
program participants, and USDA expects non-federal partners to
provide commitments toward the overall cost of the program.
Selection Process
After applications are screened against program eligibility
criteria, FSA program staff evaluates them using an environmental
benefits index that weighs six factors: (1) wildlife habitat
benefits; (2) water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff,
and leaching; (3) on-farm benefits of reduced soil erosion; (4)
enduring environmental benefits^7; (5) air-quality benefits from
reduced wind erosion; and (6) cost. FSA officials at the national
level identify an environmental benefit index score cutoff value
to determine which applications to accept after analyzing and
ranking all eligible offers. FSA strives to ensure that, by using
the index, only the most environmentally sensitive lands are
selected and that all offers are considered fairly and equitably.
CRP is a competitive program, therefore producers who may have met
previous signup index cutoffs are not guaranteed a contract under
future sign-ups. As previously noted, under continuous sign-up,
all applicants that meet eligibility requirements are accepted,
provided acreage limits are not exceeded.
CREP applications are selected based on the extent to which they
improve water quality, erosion control, and wildlife habitat
related to agricultural use in specific geographic areas, where
specific environmental concerns are of a high priority.^8 CREP
applications are submitted to USDA by the governor of a state that
is involved in the application, after which USDA will convene an
interagency panel to review the proposal. The comments of the
panel are forwarded to the state for consideration in the
development of a final proposal that is set forth in a memorandum
of agreement between the governor and the Secretary of
Agriculture. As of June 2006, there were 37 CREP agreements in
effect in 29 states.
Payments and Conditions
CRP contracts generally require a 10- to 15-year commitment. By
signing a contract, participants agree to apply specific
conservation practices on their land, to file forms needed to
determine limits on payments, and to perform certain management
work. USDA and the participant agree on a conservation plan that
describes the vegetative or water cover to be established,
completion dates, and estimated environmental benefits. Agency
officials primarily rely on data provided by participants to
determine compliance with the agreement, but will also make
occasional spot checks of the land.
In return for implementing conservation practices, general CRP
participants receive annual rental payments that average about $48
an acre (payments vary with prevailing local rental rates, not
exceeding local dryland or non-irrigated rates). In addition,
participants receive cost-share payments for up to one-half the
cost of implementing approved conservation practices. Furthermore,
maintenance incentive payments are available where an additional
amount up to $5 per acre may be included with the annual rental
payment to perform certain maintenance obligations. Additional
incentives of up to 20 percent of the annual payment are available
for certain continuous sign-up practices (defined below).
Participants may also receive technical assistance from a handful
of entities, including USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), which provides technical land-eligibility
determinations and advice on conservation planning and
implementation techniques.
Under continuous CRP, FSA will offer annual rental payments as
well as financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the soil
rental rate for specific conservation practices,^9 and an
additional 10 percent can be added for land located with
EPA-designated wellhead protection areas. Continuous sign-up
enrollees may also receive added up-front and annual financial
incentives for participation. Incentive payments to encourage
practices supported by continuous sign-up can include $100 to $150
an acre for selected practices (depending on contract length) and
single payments of up to 40 percent for the cost of installing the
practice (known as a practice incentive payment).
Like CRP, CREP contracts require a 10- to 15-year commitment to
keep lands out of agricultural production. FSA uses CRP funding to
pay a percentage of the program's cost, while state, tribal
governments or other non-federal sources provide the balance of
the funds. States and private groups involved in the effort may
also provide technical support and other in-kind services. A
federal annual rental rate, including an FSA state
committee-determined maintenance incentive payment, is offered,
plus a cost-share of up to 50 percent of the eligible costs to
install the practice. Participants may also obtain 20 percent
annual bonus payments, above the rental payment, for installing
certain high priority practices such as certain types of filter
strips or riparian buffers. Furthermore, the program generally
offers a sign-up incentive for participants to install specific
practices.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and
suggestions for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species and their habitats are those that were most frequently
identified for CRP by the officials and landowners we surveyed.
These responses may differ slightly than those identified in the
body of this report because, in the report, we only include the
responses that were identified most frequently across the majority
of the six programs we reviewed.
o The most frequently identified incentives for participation in
CRP included: (1) financial; (2) a personal interest in
conservation; and (3) program criteria that give greater
consideration to projects that directly address threatened and
endangered, and other at-risk species.
o The most frequently identified disincentives for participation
in CRP included: (1) limited funding for both the program and
participants, (2) restrictive eligibility and participation
requirements, and (3) fears about government regulations.
o Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives
for CRP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2)
providing greater education and outreach, and (3) increasing
flexibility in program eligibility and participation.
^1Limits on enrolled CRP acreage have varied since the program's
inception, from 45 million acres in 1985, to 36.4 million acres in 1996,
to the most recent limit of 39.2 million acres.
^2Pub. L. No. 99-198 S 1231, 99 Stat. 1509. CRP also operates in Puerto
Rico.
^37 C.F.R. S 1410.5 defines eligible program participants, and 7 C.F.R. S
1410.6 defines land eligible for enrollment in the CRP.
^4The erosion index is a numerical expression of the potential of a soil
to erode, considering the physical and chemical properties of the soil and
climatic conditions where it is located. The higher the index, the greater
the investment needed to maintain the sustainability of the soil resource
base if intensively cropped. Scores above eight are equated to highly
erodible land.
^5The original purpose of the Water Bank Program was to conserve water,
preserve and improve the condition of migratory waterfowl habitat and
other wildlife resources, and secure other wildlife benefits through
10-year land use agreements with landowners and operators in important
migratory waterfowl nesting and breeding areas.
^6The most recent sign-up, sign-up 33, took place between March 27th and
April 14th, 2006.
^7The enduring environmental benefits factor is an evaluation of the
likelihood for certain conservation practices to remain in place beyond
the CRP contract period.
^8In particular, CREP supports particular conservation initiatives such as
installing filter strips and forested buffers to protect streams, lakes,
and rivers from sedimentation and agricultural runoff. CREP also
encourages landowners to develop and restore wetlands by planting
appropriate ground cover.
^9These practices include installation of filter strips, riparian buffers,
grass waterways, shelterbelts, field windbreaks, living snow fences,
salinity reducing vegetation, shallow water areas for wildlife, and
wetland restoration.
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program
Introduction
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was first authorized in
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and is
administered by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).^1 CSP is generally regarded as the most comprehensive
green payments program developed in the United States, primarily
because CSP promotes integrated, whole-farm planning for
conservation. Similar to other USDA conservation programs, CSP
provides financial and technical assistance to producers to
promote conservation and the improvement of soil, water, air,
energy, and plant and animal life on private and tribal
agricultural lands. In contrast to the other programs, CSP
provides assistance to farmers and ranchers who already meet
specified standards of conservation and environmental management
in their operations. CSP rewards three levels, or tiers, of
conservation treatment for qualified producers who enter into CSP
contracts with NRCS, and provides higher payments as landowners
increase the level of conservation implemented on their lands.
Although CSP is available only in selected watersheds in all 50
states, the intent is to implement the program in all watersheds
by 2011.^2 NRCS held the first CSP sign-up in fiscal year 2004,
which led to contracts covering nearly 1.9 million acres in 18
watersheds across 22 states, and about $34.6 million in payments
to landowners. In fiscal year 2005, over 9 million acres in 220
watersheds across all 50 states and Puerto Rico were covered, with
payments totaling about $171.4 million (including payments for
contracts approved in 2004).^3
Eligibility
CSP is available to farmers and ranchers who already meet
specified standards of conservation and environmental management
in their operations. To be eligible, landowners must meet several
criteria including: (1) land must be private agricultural land,
forested land that is an incidental part of an agricultural
operation, or tribal land, with the majority of the agricultural
operation located within a selected priority watershed; (2) the
applicant must be in compliance with highly erodible land and
wetlands provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 and generally
must have control of the land for the life of the contract; and
(3) the applicant must share in the risk of producing any crop or
livestock and be entitled to a share in the crop or livestock
available for marketing from the operation. Lands that are
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve
Program, or the Grasslands Reserve Program are not eligible for
CSP.^4
Application Process
NRCS offers periodic sign-ups in specific, priority watersheds.
The agency requires producers to complete a self-assessment, which
includes a description of the conservation activities on their
operations, to determine their eligibility for the program. Once
NRCS determines eligibility, landowners meet with local NRCS staff
to discuss their application. In addition to the self-assessment,
applicants must submit completed program applications, and two
years of written documentation on their implementation of certain
conservation actions, including fertilizer, nutrient, and
pesticide application schedules, tillage, and grazing schedules,
as applicable.
Selection Process
In determining which eligible CSP contract applications to accept,
NRCS first determines whether an application meets the minimum
requirements for one of three levels, or tiers, of conservation
treatment. Once an applicant's tier level is established, NRCS
uses enrollment categories to establish an applicant's eligibility
for funding through CSP. To qualify for a given tier, each
participant must have addressed the specified resource concerns in
accordance with program regulations on part or all of their
operation. For instance, tier I participants must have addressed
soil and water quality resource concerns to a specified minimum
level of treatment on at least part of the participant's operation
prior to acceptance into the program.^5,6 Tier II participants
must meet tier I requirements on the participant's entire
operation and must generally treat an additional resource concern
by the end of the contract period. Tier III participants must have
addressed all other applicable resource concerns, including
wildlife habitat, to a minimum level on their entire agricultural
operation prior to acceptance.^7 Some state NRCS offices used
targeted species assessment criteria, while others used general
wildlife assessment criteria. According to an NRCS official,
because habitat needs differ across the nation, it is not possible
to develop one set of criteria that would work for the whole
country and apply to all situations in determining which producers
would qualify for a given tier level. Because of these
differences, national guidance instructs each state to define its
own minimum criteria for each of the listed wildlife resource
components in the national guidance based upon the state's own set
of conditions. For example, for cropland, the national guidance
identifies the amount of noncrop vegetative cover such as
woodlots, wetlands, or riparian areas managed for wildlife as a
component that must be addressed and instructs NRCS state offices
to define the minimum percentage of noncrop vegetative cover.
In addition to these tiers, NRCS establishes enrollment categories
and subcategories. For the fiscal year 2005 sign-up, five
enrollment categories were used for cropland, pasture, and
rangeland. For example, for cropland, the enrollment categories
were defined by various levels of soil conditioning index scores
and the number of stewardship practices and activities in place on
the farm for at least 2 years. If an enrollment category could not
be fully funded, subcategories were used to determine application
funding order within a category. For the fiscal year 2005 sign-up,
12 subcategories were used, including the factor of whether the
agricultural operation is in a designated area for threatened and
endangered species habitat.
Payments and Conditions
Each of the three CSP tiers has a specified annual payment limit
and contract period. Tier I contracts are for 5 years and provide
annual payments of up to $20,000. Tier II contracts are for 5 to
10 years and provide annual payments of up to $35,000. Tier III
contracts are also for 5 to 10 years, but can provide annual
payments of up to $45,000. These payments may be comprised of four
components: (1) an annual stewardship component for the base level
of conservation treatment required for program eligibility (a
payment that is calculated separately for each land use based on
eligible acres, the stewardship payment rate, and other factors),
(2) an annual existing practice component for the maintenance of
existing conservation practices (these are calculated as a flat
rate of 25 percent of the stewardship payment), (3) a one-time new
practice component for additional approved practices, and (4) an
annual enhancement component for additional activities that
provide increased resource benefits beyond the base level and
conservation treatment that is required for program eligibility.^8
Currently under CSP, annual enhancement payments may be made for
five types of activities: (1) the improvement of a significant
resource concern to a condition that exceeds the requirement for
the participant's tier of participation and contract requirements;
(2) an improvement in a priority local resource condition, as
determined by NRCS, such as water quality or wildlife; (3)
participation in an on-farm conservation research, demonstration,
or pilot project; (4) cooperation with other producers to
implement watershed or regional resource conservation plans that
involve at least 75 percent of the producers in the targeted area;
and (5) implementation of assessment and evaluation activities
relating to practices included in the conservation security plan,
such as gathering plant samples for specific analysis.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and
suggestions for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species and their habitats are those that were most frequently
identified for CSP by the officials and landowners we surveyed.
These responses may differ slightly than those identified in the
body of this report because, in the report, we only include the
responses that were identified most frequently across the majority
of the six programs we reviewed.
o The most frequently identified incentives for participation in
CSP included: (1) financial, (2) recognition for good stewardship,
and (3) a personal interest in conservation.
o The most frequently identified disincentives for participation
in CSP included: (1) burdensome paperwork requirements, (2)
restrictive eligibility and implementation requirements, (3) fears
about government regulations, and (4) limited funding for both
programs and participants.
o Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives
for CSP participation included: (1) greater education and
outreach, (2) increasing funding, and (3) streamlining processes.
^1The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the Food
Security Act of 1985 and required the Secretary of Agriculture to
establish CSP.
^2CSP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas.
^3NRCS plans to accept CSP contract applications from eligible producers
in each of the nation's 2,119 watersheds. NRCS anticipates it will take 8
years--fiscal years 2004 through 2011--to implement the program to all
watersheds.
^4The following land is not eligible for any payment component in CSP:
land that is used for crop production after May 13, 2002 that had not been
planted, considered to be planted, or devoted to crop production, as
determined by NRCS, for at least 4 of the 6 years preceding May 13, 2002.
^5Although the law required producers to address at least one resource of
concern under CSP, NRCS program regulations require producers to treat at
least two resources--soil and water--to be eligible for the program.
^6Soil quality practices include crop rotations, cover crops, tillage
practices, prescribed grazing, and providing adequate bind barriers. Water
quality practices include conservation tillage, filter strips, terraces,
grassed waterways, managed access to water courses, nutrient and pesticide
management, prescribed grazing, and irrigation water management.
^7Wildlife habitat could also be a factor in determining applicant
eligibility for tier II. For example, to be eligible for Tier II under
NRCS's fiscal year 2005 sign-up notice, an applicant must address a third
applicable resource concern--in addition to soil and water quality--by the
end of the contract period. For some watersheds, NRCS identified wildlife
habitat as this third resource concern.
^8At a minimum, all CSP contract payments include some amount for the
stewardship and existing practice components. The enhancement payment and
new practice component amounts may be zero in some cases.
Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Introduction
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is
administered by USDA's NRCS and provides technical and financial
assistance to farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, air,
and related natural resources concerns, and encourages
enhancements on lands to be made in an environmentally beneficial
and cost-effective manner. NRCS provides assistance to
agricultural producers in a manner that promotes agricultural
production and environmental quality as compatible goals, and
assists participants in complying with federal and state
environmental laws. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 first authorized EQIP, which has been reauthorized and
amended in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
EQIP generally focuses on five national priorities: promoting
at-risk species habitat conservation; reducing non-point source
pollution; conserving ground and surface water resources; reducing
air emissions, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides; and
reducing soil erosion and sedimentation.
A locally-led process adapts the national priorities to address
local resource concerns and identifies which conservation
practices will be eligible for financial assistance in each state.
NRCS state conservationists can delegate the authority to
administer parts of the program to the local level--because of
this, EQIP implementation can differ between states and even
between counties. Participants receive cost-share and incentive
payments under contracts that last for at least one year after the
practices have been implemented, and at most, for 10 years.
In fiscal year 2005, NRCS obligated more than $794 million in
financial assistance to enter into more than 49,000 EQIP
contracts. Despite the sizeable allocation, an additional 33,000
applications went unfunded that year. In fiscal year 2006, NRCS
obligated an estimated $1 billion for EQIP.
Eligibility
EQIP is available in all 50 states.^1 To be eligible, applicants
must be engaged in livestock or agricultural production. State and
local governments are not eligible for EQIP payments. Applicants
must be in compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland
conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, which
aim to discourage farmers from producing crops on wetlands or
highly erodible land without erosion protection, and their average
adjusted gross income for the preceding three years must not
exceed $2.5 million, in accordance with the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002.^2 Lands that are eligible include
those where agricultural commodities or livestock are produced,
including cropland; rangeland; grassland; pasture land; private,
non-industrial forestland; and other land determined to pose a
serious threat to soil, air, water, or related resources. Lands
that are already under a Conservation Reserve Program contract are
not eligible for EQIP.
Application Process
Applicants may apply for EQIP through a continuous sign-up process
by submitting applications to local USDA offices. The NRCS state
conservationist or designee then works with the applicant to
develop an EQIP plan of operations. Applications are evaluated
periodically.
Selection Process
NRCS allocates funds from the national level to NRCS state offices
based on national priorities.^3 NRCS's state and local offices
then identify their own priority resource concerns and determine
the funding allocation to be made from the state offices to local
offices in each state. State and local NRCS offices select
eligible conservation practices and create lists of their costs to
address priority resource concerns, and then develop a ranking
process to guide the selection and prioritization of applications.
This locally-led process is guided by advice from the NRCS state
technical committee and associated local working groups in each
state. The NRCS state conservationist, or designated local
conservationist, ranks each application using the
locally-developed ranking process. When funds are allocated, the
state conservationist or designated conservationist makes offers
to those landowners whose applications ranked the highest.
Payments and Conditions
NRCS offers cost-share and incentive payments to participants in
EQIP. Conservation practices that are eligible for cost-sharing
are determined by NRCS with advice from state technical committees
and local work groups, and may include installing filter strips,
manure management facilities, caps on abandoned wells, and other
activities. NRCS may provide up to 75 percent of the cost of
implementing practices to program participants, and up to 90
percent for limited-resource and beginning farmers and ranchers.
The specific cost-share rate for each practice is determined by
NRCS with advice from state technical committees and local work
groups. Incentive payments may be made to encourage a participant
to perform certain land management practices that they might not
otherwise implement, such as wildlife habitat or irrigation water
management. Incentive payment rates and amounts are set by NRCS
with advice from state technical committees and local work groups
and may be provided for up to three years.
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and
suggestions for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species and their habitats are those that were most frequently
identified for EQIP by the officials and landowners we surveyed.
These responses may differ slightly than those identified in the
body of this report because, in the report, we only include the
responses that were identified most frequently across the majority
of the six programs we reviewed.
o The most frequently identified incentives for participation in
EQIP included: (1) financial benefits; (2) program criteria that
give greater consideration to projects that directly address
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species; (3) a
landowner's personal interest in conservation; and (4) receiving
technical assistance.
o The most frequently identified disincentives for participation
in EQIP included: (1) limited funding for both the program and
participants, (2) burdensome paperwork requirements, (3) fears
about government regulations, (4) restrictive eligibility and
participation requirements, and (5) that program implementation
can hinder current or future agricultural production.
o Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives
for EQIP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2)
providing greater education and outreach, (3) streamlining
paperwork requirements, and (4) increasing flexibility in program
eligibility and participation.
^1EQIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas.
^2An exemption to this provision is provided in cases where 75 percent of
the adjusted gross income is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry
operations.
^3GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process for
Allocating Funds to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, [86]GAO-06-969 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006) provides and
evaluation of this process.
Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program
Introduction
The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) helps landowners and operators
restore and protect grassland, including rangeland, pastureland,
shrub land, and certain other lands, while maintaining some
grazing uses by using a combination of easement, rental, and
restoration agreements. GRP emphasizes support for working grazing
operations; enhancing plant and animal biodiversity; and
protecting grassland and land containing shrubs and forbs under
threat of conversion to cropping, urban development, and other
activities. GRP is administered by USDA's NRCS and FSA, in
cooperation with the USDA's Forest Service. GRP was first
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
for up to $254 million through fiscal year 2007, and enrollment is
capped at 2 million acres.
Eligibility
To be eligible for easement agreements under GRP, landowners must
show clear title to the land, while both titled landowners and
other operators, such as those who rent land for agricultural
production, are eligible for rental and restoration agreements.
However, other operators must provide evidence that they will have
control of the property for the length of a contracted agreement
and have landowner concurrence. Individuals or entities that have
an average adjusted gross income exceeding $2.5 million for the
three tax years immediately preceding the year the contract is
approved are not eligible to receive program benefits or payments,
except when 75 percent of the adjusted gross income is derived
from farming, ranching, or forestry operations. To be eligible for
a restoration agreement, NRCS, in consultation with the program
participant, must determine if the proposed land needs restoration
actions and meets program requirements.
GRP is available only for privately owned or tribal lands, and
participants generally must enroll at least 40 contiguous acres
under an agreement. The types of land that are eligible for
enrollment include grasslands; land that contains forbs (including
improved rangeland and pastureland or shrub land); or land that is
located in an area that historically has been dominated by
grassland, forbs, or shrubs that has the potential to serve as
wildlife habitat of significant ecological value.
Eligible landowners and operators may provide applications to
either NRCS or FSA on a continuous sign-up basis. GRP offers
several enrollment options: 30-year and permanent easements; 10,
15, 20, or 30-year rental agreements; and cost-share restoration
agreements, which may be used in conjunction with an easement or
rental agreement.
Selection Process
Each state establishes ranking criteria to prioritize the
enrollment of working grasslands. The ranking criteria consider
threats of conversion, including cropping, invasive species, urban
development, and other activities that threaten plant and animal
diversity on grazing land.
Payments and Conditions
Under GRP contracts, participants voluntarily limit future use of
enrolled land while retaining the right to conduct common grazing
practices. Participants can produce hay, mow, or harvest for seed
production (subject to certain restrictions during the nesting
season of bird species that are in significant decline or those
that are protected under federal or state law); conduct fire
rehabilitation; and construct firebreaks and fences. GRP contracts
and easements prohibit the production of crops (other than hay),
fruit trees, and vineyards that require breaking the soil surface
and any other activity that would disturb the surface of the land,
except for appropriate land management activities included in a
conservation plan. There are several types of payment arrangements
under the program.
o Permanent Easement. This easement applies to the enrolled land
in perpetuity. Easement payments for this option equal the fair
market value, less the grassland value of the land encumbered by
the easement. These values are determined using an appraisal.
o Thirty-year Easement. USDA provides an easement payment equal to
30 percent of the fair market value of the land, less the
grassland value of the land encumbered by the easement.
o Rental Agreement. Participants may choose a 10, 15, 20, or
30-year contract. USDA provides annual payments in an amount that
is not more than 75 percent of the grazing value of the land
covered by the agreement for the life of the agreement.
o Restoration agreement. Restoration agreements are only
authorized to be used under GRP in conjunction with easements and
rental agreements provided under the program. Participants are
paid upon certification of the completion of the approved
practice. The combined total cost-share provided by federal or
state governments may not exceed 100 percent of the total actual
cost of the restoration project.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and
suggestions for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species and their habitats are those that were most frequently
identified for GRP by the officials and landowners we surveyed.
These responses may differ slightly than those identified in the
body of this report because, in the report, we only include the
responses that were identified most frequently across the majority
of the six programs we reviewed.
o The most frequently cited incentives for participation in GRP
included: (1) financial; (2) program criteria that give greater
consideration to projects that directly address threatened and
endangered, and other at-risk species; and (3) a personal interest
in conservation.
o The most frequently cited disincentives for participation in GRP
included: (1) limited funding for both the program and
participants, (2) fears about government regulations, (3)
restrictive eligibility and participation requirements, and (4)
burdensome paperwork requirements.
o Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives
for GRP participation included: (1) increasing funding and (2)
providing greater education and outreach.
Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program
Introduction
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is administered by USDA's NRCS
and authorizes the agency to provide technical and financial
assistance to eligible landowners to restore, enhance, and protect
wetlands. WRP was first authorized under the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, and was later reauthorized and
amended in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The
program has an acreage enrollment limit rather than a funding
limit. The 2002 act authorized up to 2,275,000 acres to be covered
under WRP and, as of September 2004, over 7,800 projects on nearly
1.5 million acres were enrolled in the program. WRP is available
in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.^1
Eligibility
To be eligible for WRP, land must be capable of restoring wetland
functioning and be able to provide wildlife benefits. Eligible
types of lands include farmed wetlands, riparian areas, lands
adjacent to protected wetlands that contribute significantly to
wetland functions and values, and previously restored wetlands
that need long-term protection. Lands that are expressly
ineligible for funding under WRP include lands converted to
wetlands after December 23, 1985; lands with timber stands
established under a Conservation Reserve Program contract; federal
lands; and lands where conditions make restoration impossible.
In general, to be eligible for funding under GRP, landowners must
have owned the land for at least 12 months prior to enrolling it
in the program (unless the land was inherited), exercised the
landowner's right of redemption after foreclosure, or, if the land
was purchased within 12 months of a WRP application, must have
proven that the land was not obtained for the purpose of enrolling
it in the program. Individuals or entities that have an average
adjusted gross income exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax
years immediately preceding the year a WRP contract is approved
are not eligible to receive program benefits or payments under the
program unless at least 75 percent of the adjusted gross income is
derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations.
Application Process
Landowners may file an application for a conservation easement or
a cost-share restoration agreement with USDA under WRP at any
time. Applications can be filed in person at a USDA office or
electronically, and applicants must have a copy of the easement
deed and other forms necessary for the transfer of land rights.
USDA carries out activities associated with recording the easement
in the local land records office, including recording fees,
charges for abstracts, survey and appraisal fees, and title
insurance.
Selection Process
NRCS evaluates each application and makes site visits to assess a
proposed project's technical and biological merits. The
applications are ranked according to criteria based on broad
national guidelines. NRCS state offices make decisions about which
applications to accept. NRCS state conservationists have the
authority to accept projects outside of this ranking process if
they occur in "special project" areas, such as specific geographic
areas that the state conservationist has identified. This enables
NRCS to fund wetlands projects in areas that have been determined
important for wetland restoration activities, regardless of
individual application ranking scores.
Payment and Conditions
Under WRP contracts, participants voluntarily limit future use of
enrolled land while retaining ownership. There are several types
of payment arrangements under the program.
Permanent Easement. This is a conservation easement in perpetuity.
Payments for permanent easements are done annually and are equal
to whichever is lower--the agricultural value of the land, an
established payment cap, or an amount offered by the landowner. In
addition to paying for the easement, USDA pays 100 percent of the
costs of restoring wetland functioning.
30-Year Easement. Easement payments through this option are up to
75 percent of what would be paid for a permanent easement,
including up to 75 percent of restoration costs.
Restoration Cost-Share Agreement. Under this type of agreement,
landowners commit to restoring degraded or lost wetland habitat,
generally for a minimum of 10 years, without signing an easement
agreement. USDA pays up to 75 percent of the cost of the
restoration activity.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and
suggestions for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species and their habitats are those that were most frequently
identified for WRP by the officials and landowners we surveyed.
These responses may differ slightly than those identified in the
body of this report because, in the report, we only include the
responses that were identified most frequently across the majority
of the six programs we reviewed.
o The most frequently cited incentives for participation in WRP
included: (1) financial; (2) a personal interest in conservation;
and (3) program criteria that give greater consideration to
projects that directly address threatened and endangered, and
other at-risk species.
o The most frequently cited disincentives for participation in WRP
included: (1) burdensome paperwork requirements, (2) fears about
government regulations, (3) limited funding for both the program
and participants, (4) restrictive eligibility and implementation
requirements, (5) potential for participation in the program to
hinder current and/or future agricultural production, and (6)
length of the required contract.
o Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives
for WRP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2)
providing greater education and outreach, and (3) increasing
flexibility in program eligibility and participation.
Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
Introduction
The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
authorized USDA's NRCS to work with landowners to develop wildlife
habitat on their property through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program (WHIP).^1 Through WHIP contracts, NRCS provides technical
advice and financial assistance--through cost sharing on
conservation projects--to landowners and others to develop upland,
wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitat areas on their property.
Although the primary purpose of WHIP is wildlife habitat
development and enhancement, practices installed as a result of
WHIP funding are often beneficial to farming and ranching such as
actions to control invasive species, stabilize streambanks, and
re-establish native vegetation. In fiscal year 2005, USDA provided
more than $34.3 million in financial assistance, and enrolled
approximately 458,000 acres in over 3,300 WHIP agreements. WHIP
participants may also receive financial and other assistance from
other entities such as state and local government agencies,
conservation districts, and private organizations. In fiscal year
2005, partners contributed almost $10 million to help WHIP
participants establish wildlife practices on enrolled lands.
Eligibility
WHIP is available in all 50 states.^2 To be eligible, an entity
must own or have control of the land that is to be enrolled in the
program for the duration of the contract. Lands may be privately
owned; federally owned, if the primary benefit of the proposed
project will be to private or tribal land; tribal land; or, in
some cases, state and locally owned land. Lands that are already
enrolled in some of the other USDA conservation programs are
generally not eligible for WHIP.
Application Process
Applicants may apply for WHIP at any time, through a continuous
sign-up process.
Selection Process
NRCS selects applications based on criteria that are developed
pursuant to each state's WHIP implementation plan, which
identifies wildlife habitat needs, and national priorities. NRCS
state offices develop these plans with assistance from their
respective state technical committees. Ranking criteria give
priority to projects that will protect habitat or species of
national or regional significance, or address needs in a state's
WHIP plan. If land is determined to be eligible, NRCS also places
an emphasis on enrolling land in habitat areas where wildlife
species are experiencing declines or have significantly reduced
populations, and where state and local partners and Indian Tribes
have identified important wildlife and fishery needs. NRCS also
emphasizes projects that include practices that are beneficial to
fish and wildlife, but may not otherwise be funded.
Payments and Conditions
NRCS provides cost-share payments to landowners that are generally
between 5 and 10 years in length depending on the practices
installed.^3 NRCS provides these payments to landowners who agree
to adopt certain conservation practices, including land management
practices (e.g., timber stand improvement to improve forest
health); vegetation practices (e.g., planting native grasses to
provide wildlife habitat); and structural practices (e.g., fencing
to keep livestock out of streams). NRCS may provide up to 75
percent of the cost of installing practices. NRCS will provide
greater cost-share payments for landowners that sign 15-year
contracts and undertake habitat development practices on essential
plant and animal habitat. Partners, including public agencies,
nonprofit organizations and others, may also assist through
providing cost-share dollars, supplying equipment, or installing
practices for the participants.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and
suggestions for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species and their habitats are those that were most frequently
identified for WHIP by the officials and landowners we surveyed.
These responses may differ slightly than those identified in the
body of this report because, in the report, we only include the
responses that were identified most frequently across the majority
of the six programs we reviewed.
o The most frequently identified incentives for participation in
WHIP included: (1) financial, (2) a personal interest in
conservation, (3) program criteria that give greater consideration
to projects that directly address threatened and endangered
species and other at-risk species, and (4) the ability to receive
technical assistance.
o The most frequently identified disincentives for participation
in WHIP included: (1) limited funding for both the program and
participants, (2) fears about government regulations, (3)
burdensome paperwork requirements, and (4) restrictive eligibility
and implementation requirements.
o Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives
for WHIP participation included: (1) increasing funding and (2)
providing greater education and outreach.
^1WHIP was reauthorized in 2002 by the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002.
^2WHIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas.
^3Shorter-term agreements are available for installing practices needed in
situations where wildlife habitat is threatened as a result of a disaster
and emergency measures are necessary to address the potential for dramatic
declines in one or more wildlife populations.
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Trish McClure, (202) 512-6318
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Ulana Bihun, John
Delicath, John Johnson, Richard Johnson, Jean McSween, Leslie
Pollock, and Aaron Shiffrin made key contributions to this report.
GAO�s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
the performance and accountability of the federal government for
the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
(202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
(202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
^15Some of the other incentives identified less frequently by survey
respondents included being recognized for good stewardship and the ability
to receive technical assistance from USDA; a total of 16 types of
incentives were identified by respondents.
^16For beginning farmers and ranchers and limited resource producers,
USDA's cost-share percentage may be up to 90 percent.
^17An easement is an interest in another person's land entitling the
easement owner to a limited use of the land, or a right to preclude
specified uses in the easement area by others. The easement becomes a part
of the property deed and remains in effect for the life of the agreement.
^18For most of the six USDA programs we reviewed, it was agency officials,
rather than landowners or local soil and water conservation district
officials, who mentioned this as a primary incentive.
^19According to an agency official in Montana, the goal is to spend 20
percent of EQIP funding on special initiatives. The percentage may vary
from year to year depending on program interest and actual program
expenditures.
^20Survey respondents identified a total of 21 types of disincentives.
Some of the other disincentives that were identified less frequently
included a limited awareness of the available USDA conservation programs
and excessive contract lengths.
^21This disincentive was reported by all types of respondents--officials
from NRCS, FSA, and soil and water conservation districts, and landowners.
^22Plants occurring on nonfederal lands, however, are not protected under
the Endangered Species Act, unless they are protected under state law.
^23Permits may be needed, for example, to meet local zoning regulations or
Clean Water Act requirements.
^24As specified in its regulations, CRP does allow for some managed haying
and grazing and thus there is not a complete inability to disturb grass
stands. For example, under new CRP contracts mid-contract management is
required.
^25The adjusted gross income provision of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 affects eligibility for the six programs that are
the focus of this report. Individuals or entities that have an average
adjusted gross income exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax years
immediately prior to the year the contract is approved are generally not
eligible to receive program benefits or payments. However, the individual
or entity may be eligible when at least 75 percent of the adjusted gross
income is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations.
^26According to NRCS, the soil conditioning index can predict the
consequences of cropping systems and tillage practices on the status of
soil organic matter, which is a primary indicator of soil quality and an
important factor in carbon sequestration and global climate change. The
index provides a means to evaluate and design conservation systems that
maintain or improve soil condition, and gives an overall rating, taking
into consideration biomass production, field operations, and erosion
rates.
^27Survey respondents identified a total of 21 suggestions to address
disincentives to participating in these programs.
^28According to USDA officials, NRCS will implement a single application
form in fiscal year 2007 for several programs, including CSP, EQIP, and
WHIP.
^29FWS and USDA officials noted in commenting on a draft of this report
that CRP contracts can allow for management actions in some cases.
^30While some FWS officials said that conservation program investments
should be targeted to specific geographic areas, about three-quarters of
the officials we interviewed did not believe designated critical habitat
should be used to target conservation program investments because few
species have designated critical habitat, designations have sometimes
excluded private lands, and of the negative perceptions associated with
designated critical habitat.
^31Regulations for WRP require that NRCS consult with FWS on
implementation of the program and in establishing program policies,
although all final decisions regarding WRP are made by NRCS.
^32In general, funds from most of USDA's conservation programs cannot be
combined with each other for implementation of the same conservation
practice on the same land, although they can be combined with funds from
other federal sources such as FWS programs. In no case, however, can
combined funding exceed 100 percent of the actual cost of implementing a
conservation practice.
^33A recharge area is an area of land that allows rainwater to soak into
the earth's surface to replenish groundwater resources.
^34NRCS is required to invite FWS representatives to participate on state
technical committees, and it is FWS policy to have representatives serve
as members of these committees.
^35According to NRCS and FWS officials, this training was initiated by the
agencies to implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which has
instigated more coordination between USDA and FWS.
^36AFWA represents state fish and wildlife agencies' interests in fish and
wildlife management for the 56 states and territories in the United
States.
^37 [85]GAO-06-15 .
(360649)
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-07-35 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [88]GAO-07-35 , a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate
November 2006
USDA CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Stakeholder Views on Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened
and Endangered Species and Their Habitats
Authorization for several conservation programs administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) expires in 2007, raising questions about
how these programs may be modified, including how they can better support
conservation of threatened and endangered species. Private landowners
receive funding under these programs to implement conservation projects
directed at several resource concerns, including threatened and endangered
species. In this report, GAO discusses (1) stakeholder views on the
incentives and disincentives to participating in USDA programs for the
benefit of threatened and endangered species and their suggestions for
addressing identified disincentives and (2) coordination efforts by USDA
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to benefit threatened and
endangered species. In performing this work, GAO conducted telephone
surveys with a nonprobability sample of over 150 federal and nonfederal
officials and landowners.
[89]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that USDA and FWS include mechanisms for monitoring and
reporting on coordination efforts in the final version of the agencies'
memorandum of understanding. USDA and the Department of the Interior
commented that they generally concurred with the findings and
recommendations.
As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently identified
receiving payments as the primary incentive for landowners to participate
in USDA conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species or their habitats. The other most frequently identified incentives
were program evaluation criteria that give projects directly addressing
threatened or endangered species greater chances of being funded by USDA
and landowners' personal interest in conservation. Relatedly, limited
funding for programs overall and for the amount available to individual
landowners was the most frequently identified disincentive to
participation in USDA's programs. Fears about federal government
regulations, paperwork requirements, participation and eligibility
requirements, and the potential for participation to hinder current or
future agricultural production were the next most frequently identified
factors limiting participation. Survey respondents most frequently
suggested increasing funding, improving education and outreach,
streamlining paperwork requirements, and allowing more flexibility in
program participation and eligibility requirements as ways to address
program disincentives to participating in USDA's programs for the benefit
of threatened and endangered species. Respondents indicated that educating
and reaching out to more landowners may address a number of identified
disincentives, including the fear of government regulations. For some
disincentives, however, respondents noted that, while addressing them
might entice more people to participate in the programs, it would not
necessarily benefit threatened and endangered species. For example, some
respondents suggested loosening requirements on the size of buffer strips
in riparian areas, but others noted that doing so might harm certain
species that are dependent on riparian areas for habitat.
Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species occurs at their state and local offices,
and is largely driven by the personal motivation of the staff involved.
The types of coordination efforts that occur include sharing technical and
financial assistance for implementing conservation projects, simplifying
regulatory compliance procedures, assisting with special conservation
projects, and participating on agency advisory groups. Agency officials
noted that successful coordination is largely driven by individuals who
have a strong commitment to coordinate, good interpersonal skills, and a
willingness to work with others. Officials also recognized, however, that
the quality of working relationships and the frequency of coordination
between USDA and FWS staff varies considerably by location. To help
improve working relationships and coordination, USDA and FWS have
developed a draft memorandum of understanding that includes actions such
as sharing information on imperiled species and streamlining regulatory
processes. While the draft memorandum is a positive step toward
strengthening coordination, it does not clearly articulate how these
efforts are to be monitored and reported on to ensure that the intended
goals are achieved and that coordination is sustained.
References
Visible links
74. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
75. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
76. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-93
85. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
86. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-969
88. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-35
*** End of document. ***