United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate 

USDA 

CONSERVATION 

PROGRAMS 

Stakeholder Views on 

Participation and 

Coordination to 

Benefit Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species and Their 

Habitats 

November 2006 

 

GAO-07-35 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2006

USDA CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Stakeholder Views on Participation and 

Coordination to Benefit Threatened and 

Endangered Species and Their Habitats 

Highlights of GAO-07-35, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works, U.S. Senate 

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 Recommends

GAO recommends that USDA and

FWS include mechanisms for 

monitoring and reporting on

coordination efforts in the final 

version of the agencies’ 

memorandum of understanding.

USDA and the Department of the 

Interior commented that they

generally concurred with the 

findings and recommendations.

As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently identified 

receiving payments as the primary incentive for landowners to participate in 

USDA conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered 

species or their habitats. The other most frequently identified incentives 

were program evaluation criteria that give projects directly addressing

threatened or endangered species greater chances of being funded by USDA 

and landowners’ personal interest in conservation. Relatedly, limited funding 

for programs overall and for the amount available to individual landowners 

was the most frequently identified disincentive to participation in USDA’s 

programs. Fears about federal government regulations, paperwork 

requirements, participation and eligibility requirements, and the potential for 

participation to hinder current or future agricultural production were the 

next most frequently identified factors limiting participation. Survey 

respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding, improving 

education and outreach, streamlining paperwork requirements, and allowing

more flexibility in program participation and eligibility requirements as ways 

to address program disincentives to participating in USDA’s programs for 

the benefit of threatened and endangered species. Respondents indicated 

that educating and reaching out to more landowners may address a number 

of identified disincentives, including the fear of government regulations. For

some disincentives, however, respondents noted that, while addressing them 

might entice more people to participate in the programs, it would not 

necessarily benefit threatened and endangered species. For example, some 

respondents suggested loosening requirements on the size of buffer strips in 

riparian areas, but others noted that doing so might harm certain species 

that are dependent on riparian areas for habitat. 

Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of 

threatened and endangered species occurs at their state and local offices, 

and is largely driven by the personal motivation of the staff involved. The 

types of coordination efforts that occur include sharing technical and 

financial assistance for implementing conservation projects, simplifying 

regulatory compliance procedures, assisting with special conservation 

projects, and participating on agency advisory groups. Agency officials 

noted that successful coordination is largely driven by individuals who have 

a strong commitment to coordinate, good interpersonal skills, and a 

willingness to work with others. Officials also recognized, however, that the

quality of working relationships and the frequency of coordination between 

USDA and FWS staff varies considerably by location. To help improve 

working relationships and coordination, USDA and FWS have developed a 

draft memorandum of understanding that includes actions such as sharing 

information on imperiled species and streamlining regulatory processes. 

While the draft memorandum is a positive step toward strengthening 

coordination, it does not clearly articulate how these efforts are to be 

monitored and reported on to ensure that the intended goals are achieved 

and that coordination is sustained. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-35.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8

Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA 

Conservation Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered 

Species, and Suggestions for Addressing Disincentives 12 

Agency Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered 

Species Occurs Primarily at State and Local Levels and Agency

Officials Cited Staff Motivation as Key to Successful 

Coordination 27

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of the Interior 40 

Appendix III Conservation Reserve Program 42 

Appendix IV Conservation Security Program 47 

Appendix V Environmental Quality Incentives Program 52 

Appendix VI Grassland Reserve Program 55 

Appendix VII Wetlands Reserve Program 58 

Appendix VIII Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 61 

Page i GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection
Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64 

Table 

Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs 11 

Abbreviations 

AFWA Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CSP Conservation Security Program 

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

FSA Farm Service Agency

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GRP Grassland Reserve Program 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 15, 2006 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Endangered Species Act protects about 1,300 plant and animal species 

facing extinction or likely to face extinction (referred to as endangered 

and threatened species, respectively). As one of the federal agencies 

responsible for administering and implementing the act, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) identifies species that are threatened or

endangered, and is generally required to identify habitat that is critical to 

these species’ survival.1

 Many threatened and endangered species occur on 

private lands. Farmers and ranchers own or manage a good portion of this 

land—about one-half of the land area of the continental United States—

thus, they are among the most important stewards of the nation’s soil, 

water, and wildlife habitat. Because of this important responsibility, 

private land—and specifically agricultural land—is increasingly 

recognized as vital to conserving the nation’s environment and natural 

resources. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA), both agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), administer a number of programs that provide technical and

financial assistance to landowners who wish to practice conservation on 

agricultural lands. A number of these conservation programs were 

established in 1985. Every 5 or 6 years since then, Congress has expanded

the range of conservation topics that can be addressed by revising existing 

programs, adding new ones, and increasing funding. For example, 

conservation goals such as addressing water quality problems and 

protecting wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, have

 1

The Department of the Interior is responsible for freshwater and land species while the 

Department of Commerce is responsible for anadromous fish and most marine species; the

departments have delegated implementation responsibility to FWS and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, respectively. In addition, the act directs all federal agencies to utilize 

their authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species. 

Page 1 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
been added to some of these programs. Recognizing the need for more 

conservation on private lands as well as attempting to reduce a large and 

growing backlog of applications for many of the programs, Congress 

authorized a significant increase in funding in 2002 for an array of new and 

existing conservation programs through fiscal year 2007, amounting to an 

approximately 80 percent increase over prior funding levels.2

Six of USDA’s voluntary conservation programs have received substantial 

funding and have incorporated provisions to address wildlife—which can 

include threatened and endangered species—and their habitats. Of these 

programs, FSA implements the Conservation Reserve Program and NRCS 

implements the Conservation Security Program, Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program. Both agencies share responsibility for implementing 

the Grassland Reserve Program.3

• The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was established in 1985 and 

obligated $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2005. It aims to conserve and improve 

soil, water, air, and wildlife resources by providing financial assistance to 

landowners who convert land in agricultural production to less intensive 

uses, such as establishing grasses and other vegetative covers.

• The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was established in 2002 and 

obligated $202 million in fiscal year 2005. This program is intended to 

secure existing conservation actions being implemented by agricultural 

producers by providing financial assistance to help them meet and sustain 

a certain level of conservation. 

• The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was established in 

1996 and obligated $950 million in fiscal year 2005. EQIP funds 

conservation practices on working agricultural land to achieve the 

following national priorities—reduce nonpoint source pollution such as 

nutrient and pesticide runoff, protect and conserve ground water 

resources, reduce air pollutants, reduce soil erosion, and promote habitat

conservation for species whose populations are declining—which can

 2

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Congressional Budget Office 

estimated that the 2002 law increased mandatory spending by a total of $9.2 billion over 6

years, to a total of $20.8 billion. 

3

Funding amounts provided for each program are actual obligations for fiscal year 2005. 

Additional information on these conservation programs is provided in appendices IV

through IX of this report. 

Page 2 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
include species that are threatened or endangered. 

• The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) was established in 2002 and 

obligated $71 million in fiscal year 2005. It aims to assist landowners in 

protecting, conserving, and restoring grassland resources on private lands 

through short- and long-term rental agreements and easements. Program 

objectives include maintaining and improving plant and animal 

biodiversity.

• The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was established in 1990 and 

obligated $267 million in fiscal year 2005. It provides payments to 

landowners to restore farmed or converted wetlands and retain such lands 

as functioning wetlands through a combination of 30-year and permanent 

easements. 

• The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was authorized in 1996 

and obligated $46 million in fiscal year 2005. The purpose of the WHIP is to 

help participants develop habitat for upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, 

threatened and endangered species, fish, and other types of wildlife. 

Given the multitude of entities involved in managing the nation’s natural 

resources—federal and state agencies, local soil and water conservation 

districts, private landowners, and others—federal agencies have been 

focusing on initiatives to coordinate and promote cooperative 

conservation among these entities.4

 Specifically, in August 2004, the

President signed Executive Order 13352 to facilitate cooperative 

conservation in the United States. The order addresses actions relating to

the use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural resources, and that 

involve collaborative activity among federal, state, local, and tribal 

governments, private institutions, and other nongovernmental entities and

individuals. GAO has also addressed the issue of collaboration in an 

October 2005 report that recognized that when agencies act together—for 

example, by pooling resources—they can more effectively achieve 

beneficial outcomes for the public than could be produced when they act

alone.5

 In the 2005 report, we identified practices that can help federal 

 4

Soil and water conservation districts are units of state government that operate at the local 

level and are charged with identifying natural resource problems within their boundaries 

and offering assistance in resolving them. Throughout this report, we refer to individuals 

who own, manage, lease, or rent land that may be used for agricultural production or 

ranching as “landowners.” 

5

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

Page 3 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
agencies enhance and sustain collaboration such as establishing mutually 

reinforcing or joint strategies, agreeing on roles and responsibilities, 

developing mechanisms to measure and report results, and establishing 

accountability measures for individuals and agencies. 

Authorization for several significant USDA conservation programs expires 

in 2007, and debates have begun over how these programs may be 

modified, including how they can better support species conservation. 

Recognizing the need to improve progress in recovering threatened and

endangered species as well as protecting other declining species 

(collectively referred to as “at-risk” species), federal agencies and 

members of Congress are looking for more tools to assist in this process. 

Because USDA’s programs are voluntary, understanding the motivations of 

eligible landowners to participate in them for the benefit of imperiled 

species as well as reasons for nonparticipation is important to the debate. 

You asked us to obtain stakeholder views on the incentives and 

disincentives to participating in these programs for the benefit of 

threatened and endangered species as well as stakeholders’ suggestions 

for addressing identified disincentives. You also asked that we examine 

how USDA and FWS are coordinating their efforts to benefit threatened 

and endangered species and the factors that have contributed to 

successful collaborative efforts. 

We selected six USDA conservation programs for our review based on 

expenditures, the extent to which they might offer benefits to threatened 

and endangered species, and USDA’s confirmation that they were 

appropriate given our objectives. We selected a nonprobability sample of 

19 states, each of which had high levels of USDA conservation program 

expenditures for the six conservation programs, high or moderate 

numbers of threatened and endangered species relative to other states, 

and represented a variety of geographic locations.

6

 We conducted a 

telephone survey with a nonprobability sample of 157 FSA and NRCS state 

and local officials, soil and water conservation district officials, and 

landowners—including program participants and eligible 

nonparticipants—within the 19 states to identify the incentives, 

disincentives, and suggestions for addressing disincentives to participating 

in the programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and 

 6

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a

population because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population being

studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

Page 4 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
their habitats. We also used telephone surveys with USDA officials to 

solicit information about the nature of coordination that occurs between 

USDA and FWS to benefit threatened and endangered species and their 

habitats. Moreover, we surveyed national, regional, and field officials with 

FWS to discuss coordination as well as the status of species in the 19

states in our sample. A more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology is presented in appendix I. We conducted our work between 

December 2005 and October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently identified 

financial benefits as the primary incentive for landowners to participate in

the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of 

threatened and endangered species or their habitats. The types of financial 

benefits respondents identified as encouraging participation include 

easement payments that compensate landowners for the loss of discretion 

in how their land may be used into the future and cost-share payments that 

compensate landowners for a certain percentage of the costs necessary to

implement specific conservation practices. The next most frequently 

identified incentives were program evaluation criteria that give projects 

directly addressing threatened or endangered species greater chances of 

being funded under USDA’s multi-purpose programs and landowners’ 

personal interest in conservation. Regarding evaluation criteria, 

respondents explained that landowners have an incentive to include 

activities that directly address threatened, endangered, or other at-risk 

species in their applications in order to receive extra ranking points, 

thereby increasing the likelihood of their application being accepted and 

funded by a USDA conservation program. For example, program 

applicants in Oklahoma can receive higher ranking points to help qualify 

for WHIP funding if their proposed project addresses certain at-risk 

species such as the threatened Arkansas River shiner or the lesser prairiechicken. Survey respondents also explained that a landowner’s personal 

commitment to conservation in general is an important reason for 

participating in these programs. Many landowners explained that they 

were interested in providing habitat that could support wildlife for both 

their own personal enjoyment as well as for the welfare of species in 

general. Some respondents also cited a desire to provide safe habitat for 

threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species specifically. 

Relatedly, limited funding was the most frequently identified disincentive 

to participation in the six USDA programs we reviewed. Fears about 

federal government regulations, paperwork requirements, participation 

Results in Brief 

Page 5 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
and eligibility requirements, and the potential for participation to hinder 

current or future agricultural production were the other most frequently 

identified factors limiting participation. Respondents frequently reported 

that, in general, there was not enough money available in the programs to 

provide contracts to all eligible landowners, and that the financial 

incentives offered by the programs to individual landowners were often 

not competitive with other ways of making use of agricultural land, such 

as planting a commodity crop or selling to a developer. Respondents also 

reported that landowners share a general reluctance to enroll in these 

federal conservation programs, believing that participation would expose 

their operations to greater scrutiny and potential regulation. For example, 

some respondents expressed a fear of having their operations restricted 

under the Endangered Species Act should they provide habitat for 

threatened or endangered species on their land. Further, respondents 

indicated that the sheer volume of paperwork, as well as the degree of 

personal information required, can overwhelm people and discourage 

them from even applying to the programs. Moreover, respondents cited a 

number of different ways in which participation is restricted because of 

the programs’ eligibility requirements, such as limits on a landowner’s 

adjusted gross income, even though they may be willing to implement 

projects that would be beneficial to threatened and endangered species. 

And lastly, some survey respondents noted that participation in the 

programs could limit or harm current and future agricultural uses. For 

example, if conservation practices implemented on lands enrolled in the 

programs attract wildlife such as deer or geese that can be destructive to 

enrolled or nearby lands or both, then the landowner’s operation could be 

jeopardized. 

Increasing funding, improving education and outreach, streamlining 

paperwork requirements, and allowing more flexibility in program 

participation and eligibility requirements were the most frequently 

suggested solutions to encourage greater participation in USDA 

conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered 

species in the six programs we reviewed. Respondents frequently 

suggested increasing the amount of funding in a particular program’s 

budget—thus allowing more landowners to have their applications 

accepted and funded—and increasing the amount of the payments 

awarded to individual landowners for participating in programs. Survey 

respondents also indicated that educating and reaching out to more 

landowners may address a number of disincentives identified by 

respondents, including the fear of government regulations. For example, 

educating landowners about the regulatory impacts of providing habitat

for threatened and endangered species and the regulatory assurances that

Page 6 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
can be provided is one way to assuage the fear of the regulatory burden 

associated with the Endangered Species Act. With respect to streamlining 

paperwork requirements, respondents offered a number of suggestions, 

primarily focused on reducing both the volume of paperwork and the time 

required to complete and process program applications. When

recommending more flexibility in program participation and eligibility 

requirements, respondents frequently suggested making the rules less 

prescriptive or strict, such as loosening grazing limits under CRP or 

allowing for variable widths of buffers along streams. For some 

disincentives, respondents noted that while addressing them might entice 

more people to participate in the programs, it would not necessarily 

benefit threatened and endangered species. For example, while some 

respondents suggested relaxing requirements on the size of buffer strips in 

riparian areas, others noted that doing so might harm certain species that 

are dependent on riparian areas for habitat. 

Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of 

threatened and endangered species occurs at their field offices at the state

and local level, and is largely driven by the personal motivation of the staff 

involved. The types of coordination efforts that occur include sharing 

technical and financial assistance, simplifying regulatory compliance 

procedures, assisting with special conservation projects, and participating 

on agency advisory groups. For example, FWS biologists assist USDA staff 

in evaluating applications to WRP by providing input on the level of 

restoration required to benefit threatened, endangered, or other at-risk 

species. Agency officials we interviewed most often cited personal 

motivation of individual staff as a leading factor contributing to successful 

coordination. Officials noted that coordination is largely driven by 

individuals who have a strong commitment to coordinate, good 

interpersonal skills, and a willingness to work with others. Agency 

officials also recognized, however, that the quality of working 

relationships and the frequency of coordination between USDA and FWS 

staff varies considerably by location—ranging from extremely good to not

good at all. To help work more efficiently and effectively with others to 

benefit threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species, NRCS initiated 

the development of a draft memorandum of understanding that, among 

other things, establishes a formal framework for coordination between 

NRCS, FWS, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 

The draft memorandum specifies actions to be taken such as sharing 

information on imperiled species, providing greater outreach to 

landowners about the availability of incentive programs, and streamlining 

regulatory processes. While the draft memorandum is an important step 

toward potentially strengthening coordination between the agencies to 

Page 7 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
help species, it could be improved by articulating how these efforts are to 

be monitored and reported on to ensure that the intended goals are 

achieved and that coordination is sustained. In a previous report, GAO has 

recognized that such measures are important to enhancing and sustaining 

successful collaborative working relationships between agencies.7

Furthermore, the draft memorandum of understanding does not include 

FSA, which manages the largest conservation program in USDA. To 

address these gaps, we are recommending that USDA and FWS include 

monitoring and reporting mechanisms in the final version of the 

memorandum of understanding, and add FSA as a party to the 

memorandum or develop a separate memorandum to address 

coordination with FSA. 

USDA and the Department of the Interior provided comments on a draft of 

this report and generally concurred with our findings and 

recommendations. However, Interior suggested that the recommendations 

be directed only at NRCS since it is the lead agency for the memorandum. 

We did not modify the recommendation as suggested because, while NRCS 

initiated development of the draft memorandum, it is not identified as the 

lead agency in the memorandum; instead, as currently drafted, the 

agencies appear as equal partners. In addition, Interior suggested that we 

allow developing a separate memorandum with FSA as an option for 

addressing coordination between FSA, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA. We 

modified our recommendation to reflect this option. The agencies also 

provided technical clarifications, which we have addressed where 

appropriate. The Department of the Interior’s letter is presented in 

appendix II; USDA provided oral comments. 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.8

Currently, there are about 1,300 threatened and endangered species 

protected under the act and approximately 280 candidate species that may 

Background 

 7

GAO-06-15. 

8

According to the act, conserve means to use all methods and procedures which are

necessary to bring any threatened or endangered species to the point at which the

measures provided pursuant to the act are no longer necessary. 

Page 8 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
eventually warrant future protection under the act.9

 The Endangered 

Species Act generally requires that the Secretary of the Interior (or the 

Secretary of Commerce for species under its jurisdiction) designate 

critical habitat for protected species—that is, habitat essential to a 

species’ conservation—and to develop recovery plans that include actions 

necessary to bring species to the point that they no longer need the act’s 

protection.10 The act requires all federal agencies to utilize their 

authorities, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior or 

Commerce, to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and 

endangered species. In addition, where a federal agency action may affect

a listed species or its critical habitat, the act requires the agency to consult 

with the relevant secretary to ensure that the action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any protected species or adversely

modify critical habitat. Federal agencies assess the potential effects 

proposed projects may have on protected species and may modify projects 

to avoid harmful effects. We have previously reported that these 

consultations often take longer than the allotted timeframes and frustrate 

federal agency officials and private parties involved in this process.11

Protecting habitat is an important component to recovering many 

threatened and endangered species, as habitat loss is a leading cause of

species decline. Habitat destruction and degradation is caused by many 

factors, and sometimes is the result of land conversion (e.g., for home and 

road building or commercial development), and logging activities 

including logging roads and other forest management practices. In some 

situations, agricultural activities such as diverting water for irrigation 

purposes, livestock grazing, and applying pesticides and fertilizers, can 

contribute to habitat destruction or degradation. However, the extent to

 9

Candidate species are plants and animals for which FWS has sufficient information on 

their biological status and the threats they face to propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which higher priority listing 

activities are precluding their listing under the act. 

10Critical habitat refers to habitat that has features that are essential to the conservation of 

the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The 

act includes provisions for excluding areas from designation as critical habitat if the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the

critical habitat. 

11GAO, Endangered Species: More Federal Management Attention Is Needed to Improve 

the Consultation Process, GAO-04-93 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004). By law, regulation, 

and policy, consultations should take between 30 and 135 days, depending on the level of 

review required. 

Page 9 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
which such activities impact species and their habitats is a function of 

many factors, including the nature of the agricultural activity and its 

proximity to the species. Despite its impact on habitat, agricultural land is 

nonetheless widely recognized as vital to the protection of the nation’s 

environment and natural resources. As such, USDA operates 

approximately 20 conservation programs designed to address a range of 

environmental concerns—such as soil erosion, surface and ground water 

quality, loss of wildlife habitat and native species, air quality, and urban 

sprawl—by compensating landowners for taking certain lands out of 

agricultural production or employing conservation practices on land in 

production.12 USDA has established regulations governing these programs, 

including eligibility requirements pursuant to authorizing statutes. 

Depending on the program, decisions about the projects to fund occur at 

the national, state, or local levels. 

Table 1 summarizes the six USDA programs included in our review.13

While the authorizing statutes for each of these programs include 

measures designed to benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat, WHIP is the 

only program where authorizing legislation specifically mentions the 

development of habitat for threatened and endangered species. However, 

USDA includes protecting habitat for threatened, endangered, and other 

at-risk species in the national priorities it developed for EQIP and WHIP in

2006.

14

 12The total number of conservation-related programs can be defined in several ways. As

described by the Congressional Research Service, some programs have subprogram

components, while others were created by administrative action. Above and beyond these

20 programs, Congress has authorized a large number of other small discretionary

programs (in terms of spending levels), usually with a specific geographic focus; some of 

these programs have never been funded or implemented. The programs referred to in this

report are only those created by Congress.

13Additional information on these conservation programs is provided in appendixes III 

through VIII of this report. 

14As of August 2006, USDA had not developed national priorities for the other four 

programs. 

Page 10 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs 

Program 

Original 

Authorizing 

Legislation Principal Purpose 

Fiscal Year 

2005 

Obligations Payment Type Contract Period

Conservation

Reserve Program 

(CRP) 

Food Security Act 

of 1985 

To take highly erodible and 

other qualified lands out of 

agricultural production and to 

establish vegetative cover on

such lands to conserve soil. 

$1.9 billion Annual rental

payments 

Cost-share 

payments 

10 to 15 year 

contracts 

Conservation

Security Program 

(CSP) 

Farm Security and 

Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 

To reward farmers and 

landowners for past 

conservation work, provide 

technical and financial 

assistance to help develop 

conservation plans that 

address specific natural 

resource concerns, and 

complete additional 

conservation projects. 

$202 million Annual payments 

Enhancement 

payments 

Cost-share 

payments 

5 to 10 year 

contracts 

Environmental

Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP) 

Federal Agriculture 

Improvement and 

Reform Act of 1996 

Promote agricultural 

production and environmental

quality as compatible national

goals, and to optimize 

environmental benefits. 

$950 million Cost-share 

payments 

Incentive 

payments 

2 to 10 year 

contracts 

Grassland Reserve 

Program (GRP) 

Farm Security and 

Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 

To protect virgin grassland 

and former grassland capable

of restoration and providing 

wildlife habitat value. 

$71 million Easement 

payments 

Annual rental

payments 

Cost-share 

payments 

10 to 30 year 

contracts 

30-year and 

permanent 

easements 

Wetlands Reserve 

Program (WRP) 

Food, Agriculture, 

Conservation and 

Trade Act of 1990 

To restore farmed or 

converted wetlands and then

retain such lands as functional

wetlands through easement 

agreements. 

$267 million Easement 

payments 

Cost-share 

payments 

30-year and 

permanent 

easements 

10-year 

restoration 

agreements 

Wildlife Habitat

Incentives Program 

(WHIP) 

Federal Agriculture 

Improvement and 

Reform Act of 1996 

To develop fish and wildlife 

habitat on private land such as

restoring native vegetation or

stabilizing stream banks. 

$46 million Cost-share 

payments 

5 to 15 year 

contracts 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA information and laws and regulations. 

While billions of dollars have been invested in conservation practices 

through these USDA programs over the years, including actions to benefit

wildlife, clear data on the effects of these programs has been relatively 

limited and many questions remain regarding the conservation impacts of 

these practices. As a result, USDA is currently engaged in an effort to 

Page 11 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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. 

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. 

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 

Incentives and 

Disincentives to 

Participating in USDA 

Conservation 

Programs to Benefit 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species, 

and Suggestions for 

Addressing 

Disincentives 

Incentives for Participating 

in USDA Conservation 

Programs to Benefit 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Page 12 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
interest in conservation were the next most frequently identified 

incentives.15

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. 

Financial Benefits 

• 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.16 While EQIP may provide cost-share percentages of as 

much as 75 percent, each NRCS state office may determine its own 

percentage per conservation practice, within statutory limits. For example, 

an agency official from Hawaii explained that EQIP participants may 

receive the 75 percent maximum cost-share allowed in the program for 12 

of 51 accepted conservation practices that have been determined to 

provide the greatest environmental benefits; these 12 practices include 

 15Some of the other incentives identified less frequently by survey respondents included 

being recognized for good stewardship and the ability to receive technical assistance from 

USDA; a total of 16 types of incentives were identified by respondents.

16For beginning farmers and ranchers and limited resource producers, USDA’s cost-share 

percentage may be up to 90 percent. 

Page 13 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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.17 Compared to the temporary duration of the 

other financial incentives offered by USDA programs, what is most 

distinctive about easements is the long-term or permanent character of the 

restriction on future development of enrolled land. Two easement options 

are available under GRP and WRP—30 years or permanent. According to 

one respondent, the incentive to pursuing an easement is the long-term 

 17An easement is an interest in another person’s land entitling the easement owner to a 

limited use of the land, or a right to preclude specified uses in the easement area by others. 

The easement becomes a part of the property deed and remains in effect for the life of the

agreement. 

Page 14 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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. 

Another most frequently identified incentive for landowner participation 

for the benefit of threatened and endangered species or their habitat—in 

all but one of the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed, CSP—

was program evaluation criteria that give projects directly addressing 

threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species greater chances of being 

approved.18 These criteria are one of several factors used to evaluate and 

rank applications for program participation and funding. Respondents 

explained that there is an incentive to include activities that directly 

address threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species in applicants’ 

projects if these activities receive extra ranking points, thereby increasing

their likelihood of being accepted and funded by a USDA conservation 

program. 

Including criteria for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species in 

the ranking process is done primarily by giving more points to projects 

that address specific species, geographic areas, or habitat types. For 

example, according to an Oklahoma agency official, the state-level WHIP 

application ranking process in Oklahoma includes criteria that give more 

points to projects that develop or restore habitat for the threatened 

Arkansas River shiner and the lesser prairie-chicken (a candidate species). 

In Colorado, between 5 and 25 percent of EQIP funds, per a specific 

watershed area, are spent for projects that address wildlife or enhance 

riparian and wetland habitat. Such funding has been used to target a state 

species of concern, the sage grouse, and federally-listed threatened and 

Program Criteria That Give 

Greater Consideration to 

Projects that Directly Address 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

 18For most of the six USDA programs we reviewed, it was agency officials, rather than 

landowners or local soil and water conservation district officials, who mentioned this as a 

primary incentive. 

Page 15 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
endangered species such as the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. In 

Montana, in addition to providing greater ranking points to WHIP projects 

that directly benefit threatened and endangered species, NRCS offers 

EQIP special initiatives that are designed to address natural resource 

concerns that may not be addressed through traditional EQIP practices or

that are determined to be such a critical need that a separate funding 

opportunity is warranted. Approximately 20 percent of Montana’s EQIP 

funding is directed toward these special initiatives, some of which directly 

target creating benefits for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk 

species, such as the gray wolf and grizzly bear.19 Eligible applicants who 

reside in areas that are the focus of the special initiatives, and who are 

willing to implement specific practices, are likely to receive funding. 

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. 

Landowners’ Personal Interest 

in Conservation 

 19According to an agency official in Montana, the goal is to spend 20 percent of EQIP

funding on special initiatives. The percentage may vary from year to year depending on

program interest and actual program expenditures.

Page 16 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Survey respondents most frequently identified limited funding as a primary 

disincentive to participating for the benefit of threatened and endangered 

species or their habitat in the six USDA conservation programs we 

reviewed. Fears about federal government regulations, administrative and 

paperwork requirements, participation and eligibility requirements, and 

the potential for current or future agricultural uses to be harmed or 

restricted were the other most frequently identified factors limiting 

participation.20

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, 

Disincentives to 

Participating in USDA 

Conservation Programs to 

Benefit Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Limited Funding for Programs 

and Participants 

 20Survey respondents identified a total of 21 types of disincentives. Some of the other 

disincentives that were identified less frequently included a limited awareness of the 

available USDA conservation programs and excessive contract lengths. 

Page 17 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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 was among the most frequently cited 

factors limiting participation in USDA conservation programs for all six of 

the programs we reviewed.21 Respondents indicated that landowners fear 

that participating in a conservation program would expose their 

operations to greater scrutiny, including potential restrictions under the 

Endangered Species Act, should they adopt conservation measures that 

result in creating habitat for a threatened or endangered species on their

land. For example, a respondent from Florida noted that landowners 

considering enrolling in a program may be deterred by the prospect of 

surveys and assessments for threatened and endangered species on their 

land. Similarly, landowners are hesitant to take actions that would help the 

threatened Chiricahua leopard frog, which has adopted livestock watering 

tanks as a safe habitat because of loss of native habitat, because of 

concern about potential regulatory impacts under the Endangered Species 

Act. According to one respondent in Minnesota, some farmers in the state 

do not take conservation actions under USDA programs that may benefit 

the prairie fringed orchid—a threatened species—fearing that enrolled 

lands supporting the orchid may cause the species to grow in adjacent, 

non-enrolled lands.22 Respondents also explained that some landowners 

are generally averse to any government intervention and seek to avoid 

governmental monitoring, even if they could receive financial or technical

assistance in return. 

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, 

Fears About Government 

Regulations 

Administrative and Paperwork 

Requirements 

 21This disincentive was reported by all types of respondents—officials from NRCS, FSA,

and soil and water conservation districts, and landowners. 

22Plants occurring on nonfederal lands, however, are not protected under the Endangered 

Species Act, unless they are protected under state law. 

Page 18 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
adopting a conservation practice, and receiving payment. For example, 

one respondent from Ohio said that it can take almost a year from 

submitting an application to starting work on the ground. Respondents 

explained that the timing of the application process is also a concern for 

landowners. For example, a respondent from Arkansas noted that the 

EQIP application process starts in the spring when farmers are often busy,

typically preparing their lands for planting. If the process started in the 

winter, it would allow farmers more time to devote to the application 

process. 

Respondents also indicated that the sheer volume of paperwork, as well as 

the degree of personal information required to participate, can overwhelm 

people and discourage them from applying for the programs. Several 

respondents indicated that when landowners examine a conservation 

program’s lengthy contract and its stipulations, they find the process 

intimidating and do not apply. In addition, some respondents said that they 

feel that the relatively small amount of money available in the programs is 

not enough to justify the large amount of paperwork required to apply. 

One respondent said that filling out all of the forms is particularly 

burdensome for landowners with smaller farms, and that such landowners 

cannot afford to spend time tracking down the information for the forms 

when they instead need to be working on their land. Furthermore, CSP 

encourages participants to perform self-certification and develop 

conservation plans. These additional recordkeeping responsibilities can 

deter potential participants. Some respondents stated that landowners 

may not have adequate records to prove that they meet the extensive 

eligibility requirements for a program. Furthermore, some respondents 

told us that some potential applicants avoid participating because of 

application requirements to divulge personal information, such as their 

adjusted gross income, work history, and backgrounds. 

Finally, according to some survey respondents, obtaining necessary 

permits to implement conservation practices can slow down an already 

long process.23 For instance, one respondent from Washington told us that 

the permitting process for implementing in-stream projects for threatened

and endangered fish is lengthy and inefficient, and may require the 

involvement of multiple stakeholders, including USDA, FWS, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, state departments of fish and wildlife and 

 23Permits may be needed, for example, to meet local zoning regulations or Clean Water Act

requirements. 

Page 19 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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. 

Also among the most frequently cited disincentives to participating in all

of the six programs was that some of the programs’ participation 

requirements were too restrictive and inflexible. A number of respondents 

told us that program requirements about what can and cannot be 

performed in a conservation project are too rigid, and often do not include 

the very components that are necessary for achieving the intended 

conservation benefit. For example, limitations on grazing under CRP and 

GRP were cited by numerous respondents as inflexible. While grazing 

restrictions were established, in part, to improve ground cover for species 

such as ground-nesting birds like the lesser prairie-chicken, some 

respondents contend that the restrictions may actually provide less benefit 

to some species. An agency official from Oregon explained that the 

inability to disturb grass stands under 10-year CRP contracts could be 

counter-productive, because while the undisturbed grass is viable and

beneficial for wildlife in the first 5 to 6 years, it will then begin to die out, 

and could present a fire hazard for the landowner; it is possible that a fire 

could also result in the destruction of important habitat.24 This respondent 

further explained that while ground-nesting species may use the 

undisturbed grass for protection, allowing grass to grow too tall deters 

insects and ungulates from using the area and breaking up the sod. 

Breaking up the sod is critical to maintain healthy grasses. 

Respondents also told us that landowner eligibility requirements can serve 

to restrict participation by landowners interested in benefiting threatened 

and endangered species. For instance, the adjusted gross income 

requirement for participation renders a number of landowners ineligible,

and according to some respondents, these ineligible landowners might 

Participation and Eligibility 

Requirements 

 24As specified in its regulations, CRP does allow for some managed haying and grazing and 

thus there is not a complete inability to disturb grass stands. For example, under new CRP 

contracts mid-contract management is required. 

Page 20 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
have applied if permitted.25 Respondents noted that the income restriction 

was a particular problem in areas such as Hawaii, where property income 

is relatively high, but where many threatened and endangered species 

could benefit from conservation actions. Several respondents from Hawaii 

explained that the income requirement excludes potential participants 

who own a majority of the threatened and endangered species habitat on 

private property relative to the rest of Hawaii. One respondent told us that

he was willing to consider establishing conservation practices that would 

help protect an endangered plant and other species, but he is ineligible to 

receive financial assistance to do so because of the adjusted gross income 

limit. 

Similarly, respondents expressed concern about CSP’s eligibility 

requirements that limit participation to selected watersheds. According to

one respondent, the number of new watersheds expected to be funded 

through CSP for fiscal year 2006 was 110, but the number actually funded

was 60. This reduction was a result of a lack of available funding. 

Therefore, some landowners who might be interested in implementing 

CSP conservation practices may not reside in a watershed eligible for 

funding. Even when in an eligible watershed, a respondent from 

Washington said that some landowners may still not be eligible to receive 

funds because the program uses an inappropriate soil conditioning index

criteria to select projects. The criteria used are based on Midwest soil 

types rather than desert soils such as those found in Washington and other

states in the West.26 A respondent in Illinois noted that CSP also prevents 

farmers that rent lands for production for short periods of time from 

participating. The program requires farmers to control enrolled land for 

the life of the contract. 

 25The adjusted gross income provision of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 affects eligibility for the six programs that are the focus of this report. Individuals or 

entities that have an average adjusted gross income exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax 

years immediately prior to the year the contract is approved are generally not eligible to 

receive program benefits or payments. However, the individual or entity may be eligible 

when at least 75 percent of the adjusted gross income is derived from farming, ranching, or

forestry operations. 

26According to NRCS, the soil conditioning index can predict the consequences of cropping 

systems and tillage practices on the status of soil organic matter, which is a primary 

indicator of soil quality and an important factor in carbon sequestration and global climate 

change. The index provides a means to evaluate and design conservation systems that 

maintain or improve soil condition, and gives an overall rating, taking into consideration

biomass production, field operations, and erosion rates.

Page 21 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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. 

Survey respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding, 

improving education and outreach to landowners, streamlining paperwork 

requirements, and allowing greater flexibility in program participation and 

eligibility requirements to address disincentives and encourage greater 

participation in the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed for the 

benefit of threatened and endangered species and their habitats.27

Respondents, however, also noted that while some of these suggestions 

might increase participation in the programs, they would not necessarily 

benefit threatened and endangered species. 

Increasing funding—for 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 highestranking applicants and, in Iowa, these tend not to be those landowners 

Potential for Participation to 

Hinder Current or Future 

Agricultural Production 

Suggestions for Addressing 

Disincentives to 

Participating in Programs 

to Benefit Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Increasing Funding for 

Programs and Landowners 

 27Survey respondents identified a total of 21 suggestions to address disincentives to 

participating in these programs. 

Page 22 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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 speciesfriendly 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 atrisk 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. 

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 

Improving Education and 

Outreach to Landowners 

Page 23 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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 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. 

Streamlining Paperwork 

Requirements 

Page 24 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Respondents suggested simplifying the application process by reducing 

both the volume of paperwork and the processing time for each 

application. Specifically, a landowner in Missouri suggested creating only 

one set of paperwork to apply for multiple programs, while a soil and 

water conservation district official in Washington proposed linking forms 

so information needs to be entered only once and can be carried forward 

automatically where needed.28 Respondents also suggested making the 

permitting process less time consuming by, for example, allowing 

Endangered Species Act consultations and other environmental 

assessments to be performed jointly for more than one project, eliminating 

the need to do separate assessments for each individual project. Reducing

the programs’ paperwork requirements, according to a USDA official in 

California, would allow NRCS staff to spend more time in the field with 

landowners instead of processing paperwork in the office. 

More flexibility in participation and eligibility requirements was also 

among the most frequently mentioned suggestions for encouraging 

participation in USDA conservation programs under CRP, EQIP, and WRP.

For CRP and WRP specifically, respondents frequently mentioned making

the programs’ rules governing participation less prescriptive or strict. 

Respondents indicated that these programs contain restrictions on the 

amount of agricultural production that can take place on enrolled lands, 

and that allowing more production could entice landowners to participate, 

while not significantly detracting from the conservation purposes of the 

programs. For example, a USDA official in Montana suggested that 

allowing for some limited grazing in CRP might help persuade landowners

who otherwise were turned off by the 10-year minimum length of the 

required contract. In addition, respondents suggested allowing variable 

widths for buffers along streams under CRP rather than setting a standard

width, and allowing a producer to implement additional management 

practices beyond what is allowed in their program contract. For example, 

according to one USDA official, the enhancement program under CRP in 

Pennsylvania only allows mowing to control weeds during the first three 

years of a 10-year contract, and that allowing additional mowing each year 

before or after the mating season for ground-nesting birds would better 

help these species.29

Allowing Greater Flexibility in 

Participation and Eligibility 

Requirements 

 28According to USDA officials, NRCS will implement a single application form in fiscal year 

2007 for several programs, including CSP, EQIP, and WHIP. 

29FWS and USDA officials noted in commenting on a draft of this report that CRP contracts

can allow for management actions in some cases. 

Page 25 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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.

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 

Implementing Suggestions Has 

Potential Limitations for 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

Page 26 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
USDA spending to specific geographic areas that have high priority 

species and habitat needs.30

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. 

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

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 

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 

 30While some FWS officials said that conservation program investments should be targeted

to specific geographic areas, about three-quarters of the officials we interviewed did not

believe designated critical habitat should be used to target conservation program 

investments because few species have designated critical habitat, designations have

sometimes excluded private lands, and of the negative perceptions associated with 

designated critical habitat. 

Page 27 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
applications.

31 FWS biologists assist USDA staff with ranking the biological 

value of WRP applications and, for those applications that are approved, 

commenting on the types of vegetation and level of restoration that should 

be implemented to benefit at-risk species. 

In some cases, USDA and FWS may also jointly fund projects, although 

there are some restrictions on how funds from different federal programs 

may be combined.32 Officials told us that working together to secure funds 

from multiple programs across agencies can be particularly helpful to 

landowners who otherwise would not have been able to undertake a 

conservation project if they received funds from just one program. For 

example, NRCS and FWS jointly funded a riparian restoration project to 

improve habitat for the endangered shiner minnow in Calhoun County, 

Iowa. NRCS provided funds through WHIP for excavation work along the 

stream bank, as well as the purchasing of stone for stream bank 

stabilization. FWS funds covered all structural costs associated with the 

project, including the installation of stone barriers within the stream. The 

joint financial contributions by both agencies helped to significantly lower 

the total project cost to the landowner. 

The agencies have also worked together to help streamline the 

consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Under the act 

and its implementing regulations, NRCS must consult with FWS on each 

conservation project it funds that may affect a threatened or endangered 

species to ensure the projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

We have previously reported that agency officials and private entities that 

must go through this process complain that it is time consuming and 

frustrating; some agency officials reiterated those concerns during this 

review. To address such concerns, FWS works with agencies to develop

programmatic consultations that set forth parameters or guidelines for 

how specific actions might be conducted in order to avoid adverse effects

to species and their habitats. If such guidance is followed, the subsequent 

 31Regulations for WRP require that NRCS consult with FWS on implementation of the

program and in establishing program policies, although all final decisions regarding WRP

are made by NRCS. 

32In general, funds from most of USDA’s conservation programs cannot be combined with 

each other for implementation of the same conservation practice on the same land, 

although they can be combined with funds from other federal sources such as FWS 

programs. In no case, however, can combined funding exceed 100 percent of the actual 

cost of implementing a conservation practice. 

Page 28 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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.33 Their actions, 

according to a NRCS official, also contributed to improving water quality, 

educating the local public on the importance of protecting wetlands, and 

helping the county’s forestry division identify potential lands for public 

ownership. 

• NRCS State Technical Committees. NRCS established these committees in 

every state to assist in making technical recommendations on issues 

relating to the implementation of natural resource conservation activities 

and programs. Committee members include representatives from NRCS, 

FSA, FWS, and other federal agencies; state agriculture and wildlife 

agencies; nongovernmental organizations; and private landowners.34

Recommendations are made by the committee for consideration by the 

implementing USDA program agency. Survey respondents and other 

 33A recharge area is an area of land that allows rainwater to soak into the earth’s surface to

replenish groundwater resources.

34NRCS is required to invite FWS representatives to participate on state technical 

committees, and it is FWS policy to have representatives serve as members of these 

committees. 

Page 29 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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.35 The training is ultimately expected to be offered 

to local USDA staff in an effort to help them better understand and 

navigate the consultation process. Officials noted that such sessions also 

help FWS staff to better understand USDA’s programs and become more 

familiar with USDA staff. Additionally, the agencies have worked together 

at the national level to develop the criteria used in evaluating and ranking 

proposed CRP projects. These projects are assessed, among other things,

on their expected environmental benefits to soil resources, water quality, 

and wildlife habitat. Officials in headquarters offices have also worked 

together in developing conservation practices and standards for USDA and 

FWS conservation programs. 

 35According to NRCS and FWS officials, this training was initiated by the agencies to 

implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which has instigated more coordination

between USDA and FWS. 

Page 30 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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. 

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

Survey Respondents and 

Other Agency Officials 

Cited Staff Motivation as a 

Leading Factor in

Successful Coordination 

Page 31 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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. 

NRCS has drafted a memorandum of understanding with FWS and AFWA 

to establish and maintain a framework of cooperation to proactively 

conserve at-risk plant and animal species and their habitats.36 Initial efforts 

on the memorandum began in January 2005, under the direction of the 

chief of the NRCS, with the aim of developing a mechanism that would 

allow the agency to better utilize its programs to address the needs of 

declining species. Currently, the draft memorandum states that its purpose 

is to strengthen cooperation among NRCS, FWS, and AFWA to proactively 

conserve at-risk plant and animal species and their habitats. The 

memorandum also states that it is the intent of NRCS, FWS, and AFWA to 

identify and create more opportunities to work together to preempt the 

need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act, foster 

the recovery of species already listed, and address similar needs for 

species that are of conservation concern to states. 

Under the draft memorandum, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA would be 

responsible for taking individual and joint actions to more effectively meet 

their obligations and priorities for conserving at-risk species and their 

habitats. The draft memorandum stresses the importance of federal and

state fish and wildlife agencies participating on USDA’s state technical 

committees. Additionally, the draft memorandum directs NRCS to provide 

information to FWS and state fish and wildlife agencies about NRCSadministered programs that could assist them in meeting species’ needs. 

USDA and FWS Are 

Working to Improve 

Coordination Efforts 

through a Memorandum of 

Understanding for At-Risk 

Species; however, the 

Memorandum Lacks Key 

Elements 

 36AFWA represents state fish and wildlife agencies’ interests in fish and wildlife 

management for the 56 states and territories in the United States. 

Page 32 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
These actions and others in the draft memorandum focus on sharing 

information about species and habitat needs and where conservation 

program funds might be available to address these needs. Moreover, the 

draft memorandum addresses actions between NRCS and FWS to 

streamline regulatory processes, such as the Endangered Species Act 

consultation process. To help evaluate the effectiveness of the 

memorandum of understanding, the draft document states that NRCS, 

FWS, and AFWA will develop protocols for gathering data for reporting 

and assessing the effectiveness of conservation efforts for at-risk species 

and their habitats; however, the memorandum does not include any 

specific monitoring or reporting responsibilities. In addition, the draft 

memorandum does not include FSA even though CRP enrolls nearly 36

million acres of land each year. NRCS officials told us that FSA was not 

included in the drafting of the memorandum because adding another 

entity would have slowed down the development and review process. 

NRCS and FSA officials said they saw no reason why FSA could not be 

added to the agreement in the future. 

While intrinsically valuable, interagency coordination is not always easy.

Each agency has its own unique mission and program priorities, 

regulations, and organizational culture. Sometimes coordinating within an 

individual agency can be challenging as well. Based on literature reviews, 

expert interviews, and reviews of numerous coordination efforts among 

agencies, in an October 2005 report, we identified eight practices that help

enhance and sustain collaboration.37 Among the practices highlighted in 

the report were the need to define and articulate a common outcome; 

identify and address needs by leveraging resources; agree on roles and 

responsibilities; and develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report 

on the results of collaborative efforts. In the report, we pointed out that 

federal agencies engaging in collaborative efforts need to create the means

to monitor and evaluate their efforts to enable them to identify areas for 

improvement. We found that reporting on these activities can provide key 

decision makers within the agencies, as well as clients and stakeholders, 

important feedback that they can use to improve both policy and 

operational effectiveness. 

We recognize that the memorandum of understanding is still in draft form 

and believe that once finalized, it could contribute to better coordination 

for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species. In fact, the draft 

 37GAO-06-15. 

Page 33 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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. 

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

Conclusions 

Page 34 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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.

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.

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 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 35 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
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.

Sincerely yours, 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Page 36 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Page 37 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

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. 

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. 

We conducted telephone surveys with a nonprobability sample of 157 

USDA officials, soil and water conservation district officials, and 

landowners from 19 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

and Washington).1

 We selected these states based on three criteria: (1) 

high levels of USDA conservation program allocations for the programs 

we reviewed, (2) high or moderate numbers of threatened and endangered 

species relative to other states, and (3) diversity of geographic location.

Within these states, we selected at least two counties—in some cases as 

many as four—that had high levels of USDA conservation program 

obligations and had significant threatened and endangered species 

Incentives, Disincentives, 

and Suggestions 

Telephone Surveys 

 1

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a

population because, in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population being

studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

occurrences and diversity in comparison with other counties in the state. 

We surveyed officials in 49 counties across the 19 states. 

In the different states, we surveyed (1) the state biologist or the state 

conservationist in USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS), who are responsible for helping to implement or administer many 

of the department’s conservation programs and (2) the executive director

or another state-level official in USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), 

which administers USDA’s largest conservation program. In the different

counties we selected, we surveyed (1) the NRCS district conservationist, 

the lead official for administering the agency’s programs at the county 

level; (2) soil and water conservation district officials, who work with 

USDA to increase voluntary conservation practices among landowners; 

and (3) private landowners.2

 The NRCS district conservationists identified 

an initial list of landowners. We selected a nonprobability sample of 

landowners from this list using criteria to include landowners who 

participate in the USDA conservation programs as well as those who were 

eligible to participate but chose not to do so, and to reflect geographic 

diversity across the 19 states. In total, we interviewed 71 NRCS officials, 

18 FSA officials, 44 soil and water conservation district officials, and 24 

landowners. In some cases, soil and water conservation district officials 

were also landowners, and they responded to our questions from both 

perspectives. 

We conducted seven pretests with officials in headquarters and the field 

and one landowner. After each pretest, we conducted an interview to 

determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used 

were precise, (3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the 

respondents, and (4) the questions were unbiased. On the basis of the 

pretests, we made appropriate revisions to the survey. 

Through our telephone survey, we gathered participants’ opinions about 

the primary incentives, disincentives, and suggestions to address the 

disincentives for landowners to participate in seven USDA conservation 

programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species. We asked 

interviewees to identify the USDA conservation programs they had 

knowledge of, and only asked them questions relevant to those programs. 

The survey also included questions specifically for landowners regarding 

 2

The respondents we identify as “landowners” also included people who rent or lease land 

for agricultural or livestock production. 

Page 38 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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. 

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. 

Coordination 

Page 39 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 

Page 40 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 

Page 41 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program 

Page 42 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

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 2006.1

 Administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), CRP 

was established by the Food Security Act of 1985 and currently operates in

all 50 states.2

 The purpose of CRP is to provide financial incentives to 

landowners to conserve and improve soil, water, air, and wildlife 

resources by converting land in agricultural production to less intensive 

uses. Program participants agree to adopt a variety of approved 

conservation practices such as installing structures, planting vegetation, or 

implementing management techniques. 

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a

subprogram of CRP that is implemented on a state-by-state basis. 

Governors request that CREP be implemented in their state to address 

specific state and nationally significant agriculture-related environmental 

problems, and commit to providing a portion of the funds necessary to do

so. Of foremost concern to CREP are issues relating to water supplies and 

areas around wells, wildlife species endangered by the loss of essential 

habitat, soil erosion, and reduced habitat for fish such as salmon. 

In order to be eligible for CRP and CREP, a producer must have owned 

and operated the eligible land for at least 12 months prior to close of the 

CRP sign-up period; however, this requirement can be waived under 

certain conditions.3

 In addition, the land must meet one of several criteria 

in order to achieve overall program goals, such as having a weighted 

average erosion index of eight or higher, or being located in a national or 

state CRP conservation priority area.

4

Introduction 

Eligibility 

 1

Limits on enrolled CRP acreage have varied since the program’s inception, from 45 million 

acres in 1985, to 36.4 million acres in 1996, to the most recent limit of 39.2 million acres. 

2

Pub. L. No. 99-198 § 1231, 99 Stat. 1509. CRP also operates in Puerto Rico. 

3

7 C.F.R. § 1410.5 defines eligible program participants, and 7 C.F.R. § 1410.6 defines land

eligible for enrollment in the CRP.

4

The erosion index is a numerical expression of the potential of a soil to erode, considering

the physical and chemical properties of the soil and climatic conditions where it is located. 

The higher the index, the greater the investment needed to maintain the sustainability of 

the soil resource base if intensively cropped. Scores above eight are equated to highly

erodible land. 
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program 

Eligible lands include: 

• 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;5

or 

• currently enrolled CRP land nearing expiration of its contract. 

Farm owners and operators can apply and eventually enroll their land in 

CRP in two ways, through general or continuous sign-up. General sign-up 

generally occurs for a few weeks each year.6

 For both general and 

continuous sign-up, applicants must appear at one of FSA’s 2,351 offices 

and formally enter into a CRP contract. The contract contains information 

on the participant (e.g., name, address, Social Security number, and phone 

number) and information on the conservation practices agreed to, the 

acreage enrolled, and the acreage committed to each practice.

Continuous CRP sign-up, in contrast to general sign-up, is available at any 

time of year for owners who agree to adopt certain high-priority 

conservation practices. These practices include installation of filter strips, 

riparian buffers, grass waterways, shelterbelts, field windbreaks, living 

snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation, shallow water areas for wildlife, 

and wetland restoration. Continuous sign-up participants, like general 

sign-up participants, sign contracts and agree to certain stipulations in 

return for payments. 

Enrollment in CREP occurs on a continuous basis, permitting farmers and 

ranchers to join the program at any time rather than waiting for specific 

sign-up periods. Enrollment in each state is limited to specific geographic 

areas and practices. A CREP project begins when a state, Indian tribe, 

Application Process 

 5

The original purpose of the Water Bank Program was to conserve water, preserve and

improve the condition of migratory waterfowl habitat and other wildlife resources, and 

secure other wildlife benefits through 10-year land use agreements with landowners and

operators in important migratory waterfowl nesting and breeding areas. 

6

The most recent sign-up, sign-up 33, took place between March 27th and April 14th, 2006. 

Page 43 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program 

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. 

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 benefits7

; (5) air-quality 

benefits from reduced wind erosion; and (6) cost. FSA officials at the 

national level identify an environmental benefit index score cutoff value to

determine which applications to accept after analyzing and ranking all 

eligible offers. FSA strives to ensure that, by using the index, only the most 

environmentally sensitive lands are selected and that all offers are 

considered fairly and equitably. CRP is a competitive program, therefore 

producers who may have met previous signup index cutoffs are not 

guaranteed a contract under future sign-ups. As previously noted, under 

continuous sign-up, all applicants that meet eligibility requirements are 

accepted, provided acreage limits are not exceeded. 

CREP applications are selected based on the extent to which they improve 

water quality, erosion control, and wildlife habitat related to agricultural 

use in specific geographic areas, where specific environmental concerns 

are of a high priority.8

 CREP applications are submitted to USDA by the 

governor of a state that is involved in the application, after which USDA 

will convene an interagency panel to review the proposal. The comments 

of the panel are forwarded to the state for consideration in the 

development of a final proposal that is set forth in a memorandum of 

Selection Process 

 7

The enduring environmental benefits factor is an evaluation of the likelihood for certain

conservation practices to remain in place beyond the CRP contract period. 

8

In particular, CREP supports particular conservation initiatives such as installing filter 

strips and forested buffers to protect streams, lakes, and rivers from sedimentation and 

agricultural runoff. CREP also encourages landowners to develop and restore wetlands by

planting appropriate ground cover. 

Page 44 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program 

agreement between the governor and the Secretary of Agriculture. As of 

June 2006, there were 37 CREP agreements in effect in 29 states. 

CRP contracts generally require a 10- to 15-year commitment. By signing a 

contract, participants agree to apply specific conservation practices on 

their land, to file forms needed to determine limits on payments, and to 

perform certain management work. USDA and the participant agree on a 

conservation plan that describes the vegetative or water cover to be 

established, completion dates, and estimated environmental benefits. 

Agency officials primarily rely on data provided by participants to 

determine compliance with the agreement, but will also make occasional 

spot checks of the land. 

In return for implementing conservation practices, general CRP 

participants receive annual rental payments that average about $48 an acre 

(payments vary with prevailing local rental rates, not exceeding local

dryland or non-irrigated rates). In addition, participants receive cost-share

payments for up to one-half the cost of implementing approved 

conservation practices. Furthermore, maintenance incentive payments are 

available where an additional amount up to $5 per acre may be included 

with the annual rental payment to perform certain maintenance 

obligations. Additional incentives of up to 20 percent of the annual 

payment are available for certain continuous sign-up practices (defined 

below). Participants may also receive technical assistance from a handful 

of entities, including USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), which provides technical land-eligibility determinations and 

advice on conservation planning and implementation techniques. 

Under continuous CRP, FSA will offer annual rental payments as well as 

financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the soil rental rate for specific 

conservation practices,9

 and an additional 10 percent can be added for 

land located with EPA-designated wellhead protection areas. Continuous 

sign-up enrollees may also receive added up-front and annual financial 

incentives for participation. Incentive payments to encourage practices 

supported by continuous sign-up can include $100 to $150 an acre for 

selected practices (depending on contract length) and single payments of 

Payments and 

Conditions 

 9

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. 

Page 45 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program 

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. 

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. 

Summary of Selected 

Survey Responses 

• 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. 

Page 46 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program

Page 47 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program 

The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was first authorized in the Farm

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and is administered by the 

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).1

 CSP is generally 

regarded as the most comprehensive green payments program developed 

in the United States, primarily because CSP promotes integrated, wholefarm planning for conservation. Similar to other USDA conservation 

programs, CSP provides financial and technical assistance to producers to 

promote conservation and the improvement of soil, water, air, energy, and 

plant and animal life on private and tribal agricultural lands. In contrast to 

the other programs, CSP provides assistance to farmers and ranchers who 

already meet specified standards of conservation and environmental 

management in their operations. CSP rewards three levels, or tiers, of 

conservation treatment for qualified producers who enter into CSP 

contracts with NRCS, and provides higher payments as landowners 

increase the level of conservation implemented on their lands. Although 

CSP is available only in selected watersheds in all 50 states, the intent is to

implement the program in all watersheds by 2011.2

 NRCS held the first CSP 

sign-up in fiscal year 2004, which led to contracts covering nearly 1.9

million acres in 18 watersheds across 22 states, and about $34.6 million in

payments to landowners. In fiscal year 2005, over 9 million acres in 220 

watersheds across all 50 states and Puerto Rico were covered, with 

payments totaling about $171.4 million (including payments for contracts 

approved in 2004).3

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)

Introduction 

Eligibility 

 1

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the Food Security Act of 

1985 and required the Secretary of Agriculture to establish CSP. 

2

CSP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas. 

3

NRCS plans to accept CSP contract applications from eligible producers in each of the

nation’s 2,119 watersheds. NRCS anticipates it will take 8 years—fiscal years 2004 through 

2011—to implement the program to all watersheds. 
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program

the applicant must share in the risk of producing any crop or livestock and

be entitled to a share in the crop or livestock available for marketing from 

the operation. Lands that are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve 

Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, or the Grasslands Reserve 

Program are not eligible for CSP.4

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.

In determining which eligible CSP contract applications to accept, NRCS 

first determines whether an application meets the minimum requirements 

for one of three levels, or tiers, of conservation treatment. Once an 

applicant’s tier level is established, NRCS uses enrollment categories to 

establish an applicant’s eligibility for funding through CSP. To qualify for a 

given tier, each participant must have addressed the specified resource 

concerns in accordance with program regulations on part or all of their 

operation. For instance, tier I participants must have addressed soil and 

water quality resource concerns to a specified minimum level of treatment 

on at least part of the participant’s operation prior to acceptance into the 

program.5,6

 Tier II participants must meet tier I requirements on the 

Application Process 

Selection Process 

 4

The following land is not eligible for any payment component in CSP: land that is used for

crop production after May 13, 2002 that had not been planted, considered to be planted, or 

devoted to crop production, as determined by NRCS, for at least 4 of the 6 years preceding 

May 13, 2002. 

5

Although the law required producers to address at least one resource of concern under

CSP, NRCS program regulations require producers to treat at least two resources—soil and 

water—to be eligible for the program. 

6

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. 

Page 48 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program

participant’s entire operation and must generally treat an additional 

resource concern by the end of the contract period. Tier III participants 

must have addressed all other applicable resource concerns, including 

wildlife habitat, to a minimum level on their entire agricultural operation 

prior to acceptance.7

 Some state NRCS offices used targeted species 

assessment criteria, while others used general wildlife assessment criteria. 

According to an NRCS official, because habitat needs differ across the 

nation, it is not possible to develop one set of criteria that would work for 

the whole country and apply to all situations in determining which 

producers would qualify for a given tier level. Because of these 

differences, national guidance instructs each state to define its own 

minimum criteria for each of the listed wildlife resource components in 

the national guidance based upon the state’s own set of conditions. For 

example, for cropland, the national guidance identifies the amount of 

noncrop vegetative cover such as woodlots, wetlands, or riparian areas 

managed for wildlife as a component that must be addressed and instructs 

NRCS state offices to define the minimum percentage of noncrop 

vegetative cover. 

In addition to these tiers, NRCS establishes enrollment categories and 

subcategories. For the fiscal year 2005 sign-up, five enrollment categories 

were used for cropland, pasture, and rangeland. For example, for 

cropland, the enrollment categories were defined by various levels of soil

conditioning index scores and the number of stewardship practices and 

activities in place on the farm for at least 2 years. If an enrollment category 

could not be fully funded, subcategories were used to determine 

application funding order within a category. For the fiscal year 2005 signup, 12 subcategories were used, including the factor of whether the 

agricultural operation is in a designated area for threatened and 

endangered species habitat. 

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 

Payments and 

Conditions 

 7

Wildlife habitat could also be a factor in determining applicant eligibility for tier II. For 

example, to be eligible for Tier II under NRCS’s fiscal year 2005 sign-up notice, an applicant 

must address a third applicable resource concern—in addition to soil and water quality—

by the end of the contract period. For some watersheds, NRCS identified wildlife habitat as 

this third resource concern. 

Page 49 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program

to 10 years, but can provide annual payments of up to $45,000. These 

payments may be comprised of four components: (1) an annual 

stewardship component for the base level of conservation treatment 

required for program eligibility (a payment that is calculated separately for 

each land use based on eligible acres, the stewardship payment rate, and 

other factors), (2) an annual existing practice component for the 

maintenance of existing conservation practices (these are calculated as a 

flat rate of 25 percent of the stewardship payment), (3) a one-time new 

practice component for additional approved practices, and (4) an annual

enhancement component for additional activities that provide increased 

resource benefits beyond the base level and conservation treatment that is

required for program eligibility.8

 Currently under CSP, annual 

enhancement payments may be made for five types of activities: (1) the 

improvement of a significant resource concern to a condition that exceeds

the requirement for the participant’s tier of participation and contract 

requirements; (2) an improvement in a priority local resource condition, as 

determined by NRCS, such as water quality or wildlife; (3) participation in

an on-farm conservation research, demonstration, or pilot project; (4) 

cooperation with other producers to implement watershed or regional 

resource conservation plans that involve at least 75 percent of the 

producers in the targeted area; and (5) implementation of assessment and 

evaluation activities relating to practices included in the conservation 

security plan, such as gathering plant samples for specific analysis. 

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. 

Summary of Selected 

Survey Responses 

• The most frequently identified incentives for participation in CSP 

included: (1) financial, (2) recognition for good stewardship, and (3) a 

personal interest in conservation. 

 8

At a minimum, all CSP contract payments include some amount for the stewardship and 

existing practice components. The enhancement payment and new practice component 

amounts may be zero in some cases.

Page 50 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program

• 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. 

Page 51 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

Page 52 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

Appendix V: Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

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. 

EQIP is available in all 50 states.1

 To be eligible, applicants must be 

engaged in livestock or agricultural production. State and local 

governments are not eligible for EQIP payments. Applicants must be in 

compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland conservation 

provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, which aim to discourage 

farmers from producing crops on wetlands or highly erodible land without 

erosion protection, and their average adjusted gross income for the 

preceding three years must not exceed $2.5 million, in accordance with the 

Introduction 

Eligibility 

 1

EQIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas. 
Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.2 Lands that are eligible 

include those where agricultural commodities or livestock are produced, 

including cropland; rangeland; grassland; pasture land; private, nonindustrial 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. 

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. 

NRCS allocates funds from the national level to NRCS state offices based 

on national priorities.3

 NRCS’s state and local offices then identify their 

own priority resource concerns and determine the funding allocation to be 

made from the state offices to local offices in each state. State and local 

NRCS offices select eligible conservation practices and create lists of their 

costs to address priority resource concerns, and then develop a ranking 

process to guide the selection and prioritization of applications. This 

locally-led process is guided by advice from the NRCS state technical 

committee and associated local working groups in each state. The NRCS 

state conservationist, or designated local conservationist, ranks each 

application using the locally-developed ranking process. When funds are 

allocated, the state conservationist or designated conservationist makes 

offers to those landowners whose applications ranked the highest. 

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 

Application Process 

Selection Process 

Payments and 

Conditions 

 2

An exemption to this provision is provided in cases where 75 percent of the adjusted gross

income is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations. 

3

GAO, Agricultural Conservation: USDA Should Improve Its Process for Allocating Funds 

to States for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, GAO-06-969 (Washington,

D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006) provides and evaluation of this process. 

Page 53 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

up to 90 percent for limited-resource and beginning farmers and ranchers.

The specific cost-share rate for each practice is determined by NRCS with 

advice from state technical committees and local work groups. Incentive 

payments may be made to encourage a participant to perform certain land

management practices that they might not otherwise implement, such as 

wildlife habitat or irrigation water management. Incentive payment rates 

and amounts are set by NRCS with advice from state technical committees 

and local work groups and may be provided for up to three years. 

The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions for 

addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation programs 

for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their habitats are 

those that were most frequently identified for EQIP by the officials and 

landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ slightly than those 

identified in the body of this report because, in the report, we only include 

the responses that were identified most frequently across the majority of 

the six programs we reviewed. 

Summary of Selected 

Survey Responses 

• 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. 

Page 54 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program 

Page 55 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

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. 

To be eligible for easement agreements under GRP, landowners must 

show clear title to the land, while both titled landowners and other 

operators, such as those who rent land for agricultural production, are 

eligible for rental and restoration agreements. However, other operators 

must provide evidence that they will have control of the property for the 

length of a contracted agreement and have landowner concurrence. 

Individuals or entities that have an average adjusted gross income 

exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax years immediately preceding the 

year the contract is approved are not eligible to receive program benefits 

or payments, except when 75 percent of the adjusted gross income is 

derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations. To be eligible for a 

restoration agreement, NRCS, in consultation with the program 

participant, must determine if the proposed land needs restoration actions

and meets program requirements. 

GRP is available only for privately owned or tribal lands, and participants

generally must enroll at least 40 contiguous acres under an agreement. The 

types of land that are eligible for enrollment include grasslands; land that

contains forbs (including improved rangeland and pastureland or shrub 

land); or land that is located in an area that historically has been 

dominated by grassland, forbs, or shrubs that has the potential to serve as 

wildlife habitat of significant ecological value. 

Eligible landowners and operators may provide applications to either 

NRCS or FSA on a continuous sign-up basis. GRP offers several 

enrollment options: 30-year and permanent easements; 10, 15, 20, or 30-

year rental agreements; and cost-share restoration agreements, which may 

be used in conjunction with an easement or rental agreement. 

Introduction 

Eligibility 

Application Process 
Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program 

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. 

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. 

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 

Selection Process 

Payments and 

Conditions 

Summary of Selected 

Survey Responses 

Page 56 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program 

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.

Page 57 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program 

Page 58 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program 

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is administered by USDA’s NRCS 

and authorizes the agency to provide technical and financial assistance to 

eligible landowners to restore, enhance, and protect wetlands. WRP was 

first authorized under the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act 

of 1990, and was later reauthorized and amended in the Farm Security and

Rural Investment Act of 2002. The program has an acreage enrollment 

limit rather than a funding limit. The 2002 act authorized up to 2,275,000 

acres to be covered under WRP and, as of September 2004, over 7,800 

projects on nearly 1.5 million acres were enrolled in the program. WRP is 

available in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.1

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. 

Landowners may file an application for a conservation easement or a costshare 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 

Introduction 

Eligibility 

Application Process 

 1

WRP is also available in 6 trust territories. 
Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Selection Process 

Payment and 

Conditions 

Page 59 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program 

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. 

Summary of Selected 

Survey Responses 

• 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. 

Page 60 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

Page 61 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

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).1

Through WHIP contracts, NRCS provides technical advice and financial 

assistance—through cost sharing on conservation projects—to 

landowners and others to develop upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic 

habitat areas on their property. Although the primary purpose of WHIP is 

wildlife habitat development and enhancement, practices installed as a

result of WHIP funding are often beneficial to farming and ranching such 

as actions to control invasive species, stabilize streambanks, and reestablish 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. 

WHIP is available in all 50 states.2

 To be eligible, an entity must own or 

have control of the land that is to be enrolled in the program for the 

duration of the contract. Lands may be privately owned; federally owned, 

if the primary benefit of the proposed project will be to private or tribal 

land; tribal land; or, in some cases, state and locally owned land. Lands 

that are already enrolled in some of the other USDA conservation 

programs are generally not eligible for WHIP. 

Applicants may apply for WHIP at any time, through a continuous sign-up 

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. 

Introduction 

Eligibility 

Application Process 

Selection Process 

 1

WHIP was reauthorized in 2002 by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. 

2

WHIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas. 
Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

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. 

NRCS provides cost-share payments to landowners that are generally

between 5 and 10 years in length depending on the practices installed.3

NRCS provides these payments to landowners who agree to adopt certain

conservation practices, including land management practices (e.g., timber 

stand improvement to improve forest health); vegetation practices (e.g.,

planting native grasses to provide wildlife habitat); and structural 

practices (e.g., fencing to keep livestock out of streams). NRCS may 

provide up to 75 percent of the cost of installing practices. NRCS will 

provide greater cost-share payments for landowners that sign 15-year 

contracts and undertake habitat development practices on essential plant

and animal habitat. Partners, including public agencies, nonprofit 

organizations and others, may also assist through providing cost-share 

dollars, supplying equipment, or installing practices for the participants. 

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. 

Payments and 

Conditions 

Summary of Selected 

Survey Responses 

• 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 

 3

Shorter-term agreements are available for installing practices needed in situations where

wildlife habitat is threatened as a result of a disaster and emergency measures are 

necessary to address the potential for dramatic declines in one or more wildlife 

populations. 

Page 62 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

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.

Page 63 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Page 64 GAO-07-35 Conservation Programs and Species Protection 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Trish McClure, (202) 512-6318 

In addition to the individual named above, Ulana Bihun, John Delicath, 

John Johnson, Richard Johnson, Jean McSween, Leslie Pollock, and Aaron 

Shiffrin made key contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360649) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER