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.
			  
			  Landownersï¿½ 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.
			  
			  GAOï¿½s 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. ***