Background

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and  endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.  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. 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. 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.
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. 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.  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.
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.

			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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. Eligible applicants who  reside in areas that are the focus of the special initiatives, and who are  willing to implement specific practices, are likely to receive funding.

			Landowners’ Personal Interest in Conservation

A landowner’s personal interest in conservation was also among the most  frequently identified incentives to participate in USDA conservation  programs for each of the six programs we reviewed. Many respondents  explained that landowners were interested in providing habitat that could  support wildlife for both their own personal enjoyment as well as for the  general welfare of species, while others articulated a desire to provide safe  habitat for threatened and endangered species specifically. This incentive  was frequently identified for programs that are specifically geared toward  benefiting wildlife, such as WRP and WHIP. Many respondents explained  that, for people who are concerned about wildlife, the goals for these two  programs themselves were the incentive to participate. Respondents  explained that individuals have their own personal or ethical motivations  to establish habitat and that according to one respondent, some  landowners would do it regardless of program funding. However, as noted  by another respondent, with the financial support offered by these  programs, the landowner has more resources with which to better  establish such habitat and benefit species. Many respondents also  identified benefiting wildlife as an important incentive for participating in  CRP. For example, one respondent from Georgia explained that while  receiving financial assistance was the most important incentive for  participating in CRP, the indirect benefit of helping to re-establish an  ecosystem that provides a safe environment for certain species was an  incentive.

		Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species

Survey respondents most frequently identified limited funding as a primary  disincentive to participating for the benefit of threatened and endangered  species or their habitat in the six USDA conservation programs we  reviewed. Fears about federal government regulations, administrative and  paperwork requirements, participation and eligibility requirements, and  the potential for current or future agricultural uses to be harmed or  restricted were the other most frequently identified factors limiting  participation.

			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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 and Endangered Species

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.  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. 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.
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.

	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. 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. 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:    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. 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.
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.  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.
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. 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. 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. 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:    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   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  nazzaror@gao.gov. 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.

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). 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. 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program

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. 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. 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. 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.  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;   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;  or   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. 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; (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. 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, 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.
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.
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.
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.

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). 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. 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).

	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.

	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

Soil 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. 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. 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. 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.
The most frequently identified incentives for participation in CSP  included: (1) financial, (2) recognition for good stewardship, and (3) a  personal interest in conservation.
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.
Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for CSP  participation included: (1) greater education and outreach, (2) increasing  funding, and (3) streamlining processes.

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. 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. 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. 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.

	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 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.
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.
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.
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.

Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program

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.

	Application Process

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

	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.
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.
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.
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

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).  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. 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.  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.
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.
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.
Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for WHIP  participation included: (1) increasing funding and (2) providing greater  education and outreach.

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	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.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.