USDA Conservation Programs
Stakeholder Views on Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats Gao ID: GAO-07-35 November 15, 2006Authorization 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-35, USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-35
entitled 'USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views on
Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered
Species and Their Habitats' which was released on December 13, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2006:
USDA Conservation Programs:
Stakeholder Views on Participation and Coordination to Benefit
Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats:
GAO-07-35:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-35, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Authorization for several conservation programs administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) expires in 2007, raising
questions about how these programs may be modified, including how they
can better support conservation of threatened and endangered species.
Private landowners receive funding under these programs to implement
conservation projects directed at several resource concerns, including
threatened and endangered species. In this report, GAO discusses (1)
stakeholder views on the incentives and disincentives to participating
in USDA programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species
and their suggestions for addressing identified disincentives and (2)
coordination efforts by USDA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) to benefit threatened and endangered species. In performing this
work, GAO conducted telephone surveys with a nonprobability sample of
over 150 federal and nonfederal officials and landowners.
What GAO Found:
As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently identified
receiving payments as the primary incentive for landowners to
participate in USDA conservation programs for the benefit of threatened
and endangered species or their habitats. The other most frequently
identified incentives were program evaluation criteria that give
projects directly addressing threatened or endangered species greater
chances of being funded by USDA and landowners‘ personal interest in
conservation. Relatedly, limited funding for programs overall and for
the amount available to individual landowners was the most frequently
identified disincentive to participation in USDA‘s programs. Fears
about federal government regulations, paperwork requirements,
participation and eligibility requirements, and the potential for
participation to hinder current or future agricultural production were
the next most frequently identified factors limiting participation.
Survey respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding,
improving education and outreach, streamlining paperwork requirements,
and allowing more flexibility in program participation and eligibility
requirements as ways to address program disincentives to participating
in USDA‘s programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species. Respondents indicated that educating and reaching out to more
landowners may address a number of identified disincentives, including
the fear of government regulations. For some disincentives, however,
respondents noted that, while addressing them might entice more people
to participate in the programs, it would not necessarily benefit
threatened and endangered species. For example, some respondents
suggested loosening requirements on the size of buffer strips in
riparian areas, but others noted that doing so might harm certain
species that are dependent on riparian areas for habitat.
Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species occurs at their state and local
offices, and is largely driven by the personal motivation of the staff
involved. The types of coordination efforts that occur include sharing
technical and financial assistance for implementing conservation
projects, simplifying regulatory compliance procedures, assisting with
special conservation projects, and participating on agency advisory
groups. Agency officials noted that successful coordination is largely
driven by individuals who have a strong commitment to coordinate, good
interpersonal skills, and a willingness to work with others. Officials
also recognized, however, that the quality of working relationships and
the frequency of coordination between USDA and FWS staff varies
considerably by location. To help improve working relationships and
coordination, USDA and FWS have developed a draft memorandum of
understanding that includes actions such as sharing information on
imperiled species and streamlining regulatory processes. While the
draft memorandum is a positive step toward strengthening coordination,
it does not clearly articulate how these efforts are to be monitored
and reported on to ensure that the intended goals are achieved and that
coordination is sustained.
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.
[Hyperlink, http://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.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation
Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species, and Suggestions
for Addressing Disincentives:
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:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program:
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program:
Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program:
Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program:
Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program:
Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program:
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs:
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:
GAOU.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:
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.[Footnote 1] Many
threatened and endangered species occur on private lands. Farmers and
ranchers own or manage a good portion of this land--about one-half of
the land area of the continental United States--thus, they are among
the most important stewards of the nation's soil, water, and wildlife
habitat. Because of this important responsibility, private land--and
specifically agricultural land--is increasingly recognized as vital to
conserving the nation's environment and natural resources.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service
Agency (FSA), both agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), administer a number of programs that provide technical and
financial assistance to landowners who wish to practice conservation on
agricultural lands. A number of these conservation programs were
established in 1985. Every 5 or 6 years since then, Congress has
expanded the range of conservation topics that can be addressed by
revising existing programs, adding new ones, and increasing funding.
For example, conservation goals such as addressing water quality
problems and protecting wildlife, including threatened and endangered
species, have been added to some of these programs. Recognizing the
need for more conservation on private lands as well as attempting to
reduce a large and growing backlog of applications for many of the
programs, Congress authorized a significant increase in funding in 2002
for an array of new and existing conservation programs through fiscal
year 2007, amounting to an approximately 80 percent increase over prior
funding levels.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 5] In
the 2005 report, we identified practices that can help federal agencies
enhance and sustain collaboration such as establishing mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies, agreeing on roles and
responsibilities, developing mechanisms to measure and report results,
and establishing accountability measures for individuals and agencies.
Authorization for several significant USDA conservation programs
expires in 2007, and debates have begun over how these programs may be
modified, including how they can better support species conservation.
Recognizing the need to improve progress in recovering threatened and
endangered species as well as protecting other declining species
(collectively referred to as "at-risk" species), federal agencies and
members of Congress are looking for more tools to assist in this
process. Because USDA's programs are voluntary, understanding the
motivations of eligible landowners to participate in them for the
benefit of imperiled species as well as reasons for nonparticipation is
important to the debate. You asked us to obtain stakeholder views on
the incentives and disincentives to participating in these programs for
the benefit of threatened and endangered species as well as
stakeholders' suggestions for addressing identified disincentives. You
also asked that we examine how USDA and FWS are coordinating their
efforts to benefit threatened and endangered species and the factors
that have contributed to successful collaborative efforts.
We selected six USDA conservation programs for our review based on
expenditures, the extent to which they might offer benefits to
threatened and endangered species, and USDA's confirmation that they
were appropriate given our objectives. We selected a nonprobability
sample of 19 states, each of which had high levels of USDA conservation
program expenditures for the six conservation programs, high or
moderate numbers of threatened and endangered species relative to other
states, and represented a variety of geographic locations.[Footnote 6]
We conducted a telephone survey with a nonprobability sample of 157 FSA
and NRCS state and local officials, soil and water conservation
district officials, and landowners--including program participants and
eligible nonparticipants--within the 19 states to identify the
incentives, disincentives, and suggestions for addressing disincentives
to participating in the programs for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species and their habitats. We also used telephone surveys
with USDA officials to solicit information about the nature of
coordination that occurs between USDA and FWS to benefit threatened and
endangered species and their habitats. Moreover, we surveyed national,
regional, and field officials with FWS to discuss coordination as well
as the status of species in the 19 states in our sample. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix I. We conducted our work between December 2005 and October
2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
As might be expected, survey respondents most frequently identified
financial benefits as the primary incentive for landowners to
participate in the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed for the
benefit of threatened and endangered species or their habitats. The
types of financial benefits respondents identified as encouraging
participation include easement payments that compensate landowners for
the loss of discretion in how their land may be used into the future
and cost-share payments that compensate landowners for a certain
percentage of the costs necessary to implement specific conservation
practices. The next most frequently identified incentives were program
evaluation criteria that give projects directly addressing threatened
or endangered species greater chances of being funded under USDA's
multi-purpose programs and landowners' personal interest in
conservation. Regarding evaluation criteria, respondents explained that
landowners have an incentive to include activities that directly
address threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species in their
applications in order to receive extra ranking points, thereby
increasing the likelihood of their application being accepted and
funded by a USDA conservation program. For example, program applicants
in Oklahoma can receive higher ranking points to help qualify for WHIP
funding if their proposed project addresses certain at-risk species
such as the threatened Arkansas River shiner or the lesser prairie-
chicken. Survey respondents also explained that a landowner's personal
commitment to conservation in general is an important reason for
participating in these programs. Many landowners explained that they
were interested in providing habitat that could support wildlife for
both their own personal enjoyment as well as for the welfare of species
in general. Some respondents also cited a desire to provide safe
habitat for threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species
specifically.
Relatedly, limited funding was the most frequently identified
disincentive to participation in the six USDA programs we reviewed.
Fears about federal government regulations, paperwork requirements,
participation and eligibility requirements, and the potential for
participation to hinder current or future agricultural production were
the other most frequently identified factors limiting participation.
Respondents frequently reported that, in general, there was not enough
money available in the programs to provide contracts to all eligible
landowners, and that the financial incentives offered by the programs
to individual landowners were often not competitive with other ways of
making use of agricultural land, such as planting a commodity crop or
selling to a developer. Respondents also reported that landowners share
a general reluctance to enroll in these federal conservation programs,
believing that participation would expose their operations to greater
scrutiny and potential regulation. For example, some respondents
expressed a fear of having their operations restricted under the
Endangered Species Act should they provide habitat for threatened or
endangered species on their land. Further, respondents indicated that
the sheer volume of paperwork, as well as the degree of personal
information required, can overwhelm people and discourage them from
even applying to the programs. Moreover, respondents cited a number of
different ways in which participation is restricted because of the
programs' eligibility requirements, such as limits on a landowner's
adjusted gross income, even though they may be willing to implement
projects that would be beneficial to threatened and endangered species.
And lastly, some survey respondents noted that participation in the
programs could limit or harm current and future agricultural uses. For
example, if conservation practices implemented on lands enrolled in the
programs attract wildlife such as deer or geese that can be destructive
to enrolled or nearby lands or both, then the landowner's operation
could be jeopardized.
Increasing funding, improving education and outreach, streamlining
paperwork requirements, and allowing more flexibility in program
participation and eligibility requirements were the most frequently
suggested solutions to encourage greater participation in USDA
conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered
species in the six programs we reviewed. Respondents frequently
suggested increasing the amount of funding in a particular program's
budget--thus allowing more landowners to have their applications
accepted and funded--and increasing the amount of the payments awarded
to individual landowners for participating in programs. Survey
respondents also indicated that educating and reaching out to more
landowners may address a number of disincentives identified by
respondents, including the fear of government regulations. For example,
educating landowners about the regulatory impacts of providing habitat
for threatened and endangered species and the regulatory assurances
that can be provided is one way to assuage the fear of the regulatory
burden associated with the Endangered Species Act. With respect to
streamlining paperwork requirements, respondents offered a number of
suggestions, primarily focused on reducing both the volume of paperwork
and the time required to complete and process program applications.
When recommending more flexibility in program participation and
eligibility requirements, respondents frequently suggested making the
rules less prescriptive or strict, such as loosening grazing limits
under CRP or allowing for variable widths of buffers along streams. For
some disincentives, respondents noted that while addressing them might
entice more people to participate in the programs, it would not
necessarily benefit threatened and endangered species. For example,
while some respondents suggested relaxing requirements on the size of
buffer strips in riparian areas, others noted that doing so might harm
certain species that are dependent on riparian areas for habitat.
Much of the coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species occurs at their field offices at the
state and local level, and is largely driven by the personal motivation
of the staff involved. The types of coordination efforts that occur
include sharing technical and financial assistance, simplifying
regulatory compliance procedures, assisting with special conservation
projects, and participating on agency advisory groups. For example, FWS
biologists assist USDA staff in evaluating applications to WRP by
providing input on the level of restoration required to benefit
threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species. Agency officials we
interviewed most often cited personal motivation of individual staff as
a leading factor contributing to successful coordination. Officials
noted that coordination is largely driven by individuals who have a
strong commitment to coordinate, good interpersonal skills, and a
willingness to work with others. Agency officials also recognized,
however, that the quality of working relationships and the frequency of
coordination between USDA and FWS staff varies considerably by
location--ranging from extremely good to not good at all. To help work
more efficiently and effectively with others to benefit threatened,
endangered, and other at-risk species, NRCS initiated the development
of a draft memorandum of understanding that, among other things,
establishes a formal framework for coordination between NRCS, FWS, and
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). The draft
memorandum specifies actions to be taken such as sharing information on
imperiled species, providing greater outreach to landowners about the
availability of incentive programs, and streamlining regulatory
processes. While the draft memorandum is an important step toward
potentially strengthening coordination between the agencies to help
species, it could be improved by articulating how these efforts are to
be monitored and reported on to ensure that the intended goals are
achieved and that coordination is sustained. In a previous report, GAO
has recognized that such measures are important to enhancing and
sustaining successful collaborative working relationships between
agencies.[Footnote 7] Furthermore, the draft memorandum of
understanding does not include FSA, which manages the largest
conservation program in USDA. To address these gaps, we are
recommending that USDA and FWS include monitoring and reporting
mechanisms in the final version of the memorandum of understanding, and
add FSA as a party to the memorandum or develop a separate memorandum
to address coordination with FSA.
USDA and the Department of the Interior provided comments on a draft of
this report and generally concurred with our findings and
recommendations. However, Interior suggested that the recommendations
be directed only at NRCS since it is the lead agency for the
memorandum. We did not modify the recommendation as suggested because,
while NRCS initiated development of the draft memorandum, it is not
identified as the lead agency in the memorandum; instead, as currently
drafted, the agencies appear as equal partners. In addition, Interior
suggested that we allow developing a separate memorandum with FSA as an
option for addressing coordination between FSA, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA. We
modified our recommendation to reflect this option. The agencies also
provided technical clarifications, which we have addressed where
appropriate. The Department of the Interior's letter is presented in
appendix II; USDA provided oral comments.
Background:
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.[Footnote
8] Currently, there are about 1,300 threatened and endangered species
protected under the act and approximately 280 candidate species that
may eventually warrant future protection under the act.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 11]
Protecting habitat is an important component to recovering many
threatened and endangered species, as habitat loss is a leading cause
of species decline. Habitat destruction and degradation is caused by
many factors, and sometimes is the result of land conversion (e.g., for
home and road building or commercial development), and logging
activities including logging roads and other forest management
practices. In some situations, agricultural activities such as
diverting water for irrigation purposes, livestock grazing, and
applying pesticides and fertilizers, can contribute to habitat
destruction or degradation. However, the extent to which such
activities impact species and their habitats is a function of many
factors, including the nature of the agricultural activity and its
proximity to the species. Despite its impact on habitat, agricultural
land is nonetheless widely recognized as vital to the protection of the
nation's environment and natural resources. As such, USDA operates
approximately 20 conservation programs designed to address a range of
environmental concerns--such as soil erosion, surface and ground water
quality, loss of wildlife habitat and native species, air quality, and
urban sprawl--by compensating landowners for taking certain lands out
of agricultural production or employing conservation practices on land
in production.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 14]
Table 1: Summary of Selected USDA Conservation Programs:
Program: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP);
Original Authorizing Legislation: Food Security Act of 1985;
Principal Purpose: To take highly erodible and other qualified lands
out of agricultural production and to establish vegetative cover on
such lands to conserve soil;
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $1.9 billion;
Payment Type: Annual rental payments; Cost-share payments;
Contract Period: 10 to 15 year contracts.
Program: Conservation Security Program (CSP);
Original Authorizing Legislation: Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002;
Principal Purpose: 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;
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $202 million;
Payment Type: Annual payments; Enhancement payments; Cost- share
payments;
Contract Period: 5 to 10 year contracts.
Program: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP);
Original Authorizing Legislation: Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996;
Principal Purpose: Promote agricultural production and environmental
quality as compatible national goals, and to optimize environmental
benefits;
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $950 million;
Payment Type: Cost-share payments; Incentive payments;
Contract Period: 2 to 10 year contracts.
Program: Grassland Reserve Program (GRP);
Original Authorizing Legislation: Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002;
Principal Purpose: To protect virgin grassland and former grassland
capable of restoration and providing wildlife habitat value;
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $71 million;
Payment Type: Easement payments; Annual rental payments; Cost-share
payments;
Contract Period: 10 to 30 year contracts; 30-year and permanent
easements.
Program: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP);
Original Authorizing Legislation: Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act of 1990;
Principal Purpose: To restore farmed or converted wetlands and then
retain such lands as functional wetlands through easement agreements;
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $267 million;
Payment Type: Easement payments; Cost-share payments;
Contract Period: 30-year and permanent easements; 10-year restoration
agreements.
Program: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP);
Original Authorizing Legislation: Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996;
Principal Purpose: To develop fish and wildlife habitat on private land
such as restoring native vegetation or stabilizing stream banks;
Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations: $46 million;
Payment Type: Cost- share payments;
Contract Period: 5 to 15 year contracts.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA information and laws and regulations.
[End of table]
While billions of dollars have been invested in conservation practices
through these USDA programs over the years, including actions to
benefit wildlife, clear data on the effects of these programs has been
relatively limited and many questions remain regarding the conservation
impacts of these practices. As a result, USDA is currently engaged in
an effort to quantify the environmental benefits of its conservation
program practices. This effort, known as the Conservation Effects
Assessment Project, began in 2003 and has three primary components: an
assessment of national summary estimates of conservation practice
benefits and the potential for USDA conservation programs to meet the
nation's environmental and conservation goals, watershed assessments
involving basic research on conservation practices in selected
watersheds to provide a framework for evaluating and improving
performance of national assessment models, and development of
bibliographies and literature reviews on conservation programs to
document what is known and not known about the environmental benefits
of conservation practices and programs for cropland and fish and
wildlife.
Incentives and Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation
Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species, and Suggestions
for Addressing Disincentives:
Survey respondents identified various incentives and disincentives, as
well as suggestions to address disincentives, to participating in the
six conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species. The most frequently identified incentives were
financial benefits, program evaluation criteria that give projects
directly addressing threatened and endangered species greater chances
of being funded, and landowners' personal interest in conservation.
Financial issues were also identified as a disincentive to
participating in these programs, with limited funding available to the
programs overall and for individuals specifically, most frequently
identified by survey respondents. The other most frequently identified
factors limiting participation were fears about federal government
regulations, administrative and paperwork requirements, participation
and eligibility requirements, and potential limits on current and
future uses of the enrolled land. The most frequently identified
suggestions for encouraging greater participation were increasing
funding, improving education and outreach to landowners, streamlining
paperwork requirements, and allowing greater flexibility in program
participation and eligibility requirements. Respondents noted that
while some of these suggestions may serve to increase participation in
the programs, they may not necessarily benefit threatened and
endangered species.
Incentives for Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to Benefit
Threatened and Endangered Species:
As might be expected, respondents most frequently identified financial
benefits as the primary incentive to participating in the six USDA
conservation programs we reviewed for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species or their habitat. Program evaluation criteria that
give projects directly addressing threatened, endangered, or other at-
risk species greater chances of being accepted and landowners' personal
interest in conservation were the next most frequently identified
incentives.[Footnote 15]
Financial Benefits:
Survey respondents most frequently identified financial benefits as a
primary incentive for a landowner to participate in the conservation
programs we reviewed. Several types of financial benefits were
identified as encouraging participation, including annual rental
payments, cost-share assistance, enhancement and incentive payments,
and conservation easement payments.
* 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.[Footnote 16] While EQIP may
provide cost-share percentages of as much as 75 percent, each NRCS
state office may determine its own percentage per conservation
practice, within statutory limits. For example, an agency official from
Hawaii explained that EQIP participants may receive the 75 percent
maximum cost-share allowed in the program for 12 of 51 accepted
conservation practices that have been determined to provide the
greatest environmental benefits; these 12 practices include some that
benefit threatened and endangered species such as fencing out feral
animals and planting native trees. The remaining 39 practices are
eligible for a 50 percent cost share. WHIP also provides cost-share
payments and provides a higher level of cost-share assistance for those
participants who enter into 15-year agreements and undertake projects
in areas that NRCS has identified as essential habitat for certain
species. A respondent from Ohio explained that sharing the cost of
implementing conservation practices through WHIP has allowed producers
to convert land that was unsuitable for farming to woodlands, which has
helped wildlife by reducing land fragmentation in the state.
* 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.[Footnote 17] Compared to the temporary
duration of the other financial incentives offered by USDA programs,
what is most distinctive about easements is the long-term or permanent
character of the restriction on future development of enrolled land.
Two easement options are available under GRP and WRP--30 years or
permanent. According to one respondent, the incentive to pursuing an
easement is the long-term certainty that they will be adequately
compensated for making habitat improvements. Under WRP, a participant
agreeing to a permanent easement may also receive a higher cost-share
percentage. Specifically, these participants may receive up to 100
percent of the cost needed to implement projects to enhance or restore
wetlands. For these landowners, this combined financial incentive
available under WRP--the permanent easement payment and higher than
typical cost-share payments--can be helpful for giving them a return on
land that is marginally productive. For example, according to an agency
official, participating in WRP in Washington allows landowners to be
compensated for creating wetlands to benefit salmon species, including
some that are threatened and endangered, on agricultural lands where
production is limited by high water tables and flooding.
Program Criteria That Give Greater Consideration to Projects that
Directly Address Threatened and Endangered Species:
Another most frequently identified incentive for landowner
participation for the benefit of threatened and endangered species or
their habitat--in all but one of the six USDA conservation programs we
reviewed, CSP--was program evaluation criteria that give projects
directly addressing threatened, endangered, or other at-risk species
greater chances of being approved.[Footnote 18] These criteria are one
of several factors used to evaluate and rank applications for program
participation and funding. Respondents explained that there is an
incentive to include activities that directly address threatened,
endangered, or other at-risk species in applicants' projects if these
activities receive extra ranking points, thereby increasing their
likelihood of being accepted and funded by a USDA conservation program.
Including criteria for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk
species in the ranking process is done primarily by giving more points
to projects that address specific species, geographic areas, or habitat
types. For example, according to an Oklahoma agency official, the state-
level WHIP application ranking process in Oklahoma includes criteria
that give more points to projects that develop or restore habitat for
the threatened Arkansas River shiner and the lesser prairie-chicken (a
candidate species). In Colorado, between 5 and 25 percent of EQIP
funds, per a specific watershed area, are spent for projects that
address wildlife or enhance riparian and wetland habitat. Such funding
has been used to target a state species of concern, the sage grouse,
and federally-listed threatened and endangered species such as the
Preble's meadow jumping mouse. In Montana, in addition to providing
greater ranking points to WHIP projects that directly benefit
threatened and endangered species, NRCS offers EQIP special initiatives
that are designed to address natural resource concerns that may not be
addressed through traditional EQIP practices or that are determined to
be such a critical need that a separate funding opportunity is
warranted. Approximately 20 percent of Montana's EQIP funding is
directed toward these special initiatives, some of which directly
target creating benefits for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk
species, such as the gray wolf and grizzly bear.[Footnote 19] Eligible
applicants who reside in areas that are the focus of the special
initiatives, and who are willing to implement specific practices, are
likely to receive funding.
Landowners' Personal Interest in Conservation:
A landowner's personal interest in conservation was also among the most
frequently identified incentives to participate in USDA conservation
programs for each of the six programs we reviewed. Many respondents
explained that landowners were interested in providing habitat that
could support wildlife for both their own personal enjoyment as well as
for the general welfare of species, while others articulated a desire
to provide safe habitat for threatened and endangered species
specifically. This incentive was frequently identified for programs
that are specifically geared toward benefiting wildlife, such as WRP
and WHIP. Many respondents explained that, for people who are concerned
about wildlife, the goals for these two programs themselves were the
incentive to participate. Respondents explained that individuals have
their own personal or ethical motivations to establish habitat and that
according to one respondent, some landowners would do it regardless of
program funding. However, as noted by another respondent, with the
financial support offered by these programs, the landowner has more
resources with which to better establish such habitat and benefit
species. Many respondents also identified benefiting wildlife as an
important incentive for participating in CRP. For example, one
respondent from Georgia explained that while receiving financial
assistance was the most important incentive for participating in CRP,
the indirect benefit of helping to re-establish an ecosystem that
provides a safe environment for certain species was an incentive.
Disincentives to Participating in USDA Conservation Programs to Benefit
Threatened and Endangered Species:
Survey respondents most frequently identified limited funding as a
primary disincentive to participating for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species or their habitat in the six USDA conservation
programs we reviewed. Fears about federal government regulations,
administrative and paperwork requirements, participation and
eligibility requirements, and the potential for current or future
agricultural uses to be harmed or restricted were the other most
frequently identified factors limiting participation.[Footnote 20]
Limited Funding for Programs and Participants:
Survey respondents identified limited funding and funding uncertainty
for the programs in general, and for the individual payments offered to
program participants specifically, most frequently as disincentives for
participating in four of the six programs reviewed--CRP, EQIP, GRP, and
WHIP. Respondents frequently stated that there was not enough funding
available for the programs to accept all eligible applications. Several
respondents explained that a lack of program funding can deter
applicants, particularly when those with credible, highly-ranked
applications do not receive funding. According to one respondent,
continuous rejection may result in some landowners choosing to sell
their property. The choice to sell portions of property can help make
retaining land economically feasible, rather than repeatedly attempting
to apply for conservation program funds. Uncertainty about program
funding levels can also discourage participation. For example, a
respondent from Florida said that it is hard for landowners to plan for
conservation if program funding levels are not known from year to year,
or if there is uncertainty about whether the program and its objectives
will change.
In addition to limited funding in general, many respondents identified
limited or insufficient financial payments to program participants as a
disincentive. According to many respondents, landowners may be hesitant
to participate in a conservation program because the cost share
provided by the programs is insufficient. For example, one respondent
said that funding amounts available for certain conservation practices
do not cover the costs associated with implementing the conservation
practices, particularly for EQIP and WHIP. Respondents also reported
that the financial benefits to implement conservation practices were
often not competitive with the financial gain a landowner could
realize, for example, by planting a commodity crop or selling their
land to a developer. One respondent from Washington said that the
profit margins for farmers are so low that having to cover a 50-percent
share of a project's costs is too high, especially if there are no
other economic benefits from implementing the conservation practice.
Others stated that even a 75-percent cost share may not be enough for
some landowners.
Fears About Government Regulations:
Fears about government regulations was among the most frequently cited
factors limiting participation in USDA conservation programs for all
six of the programs we reviewed.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 22] Respondents also explained that some landowners are
generally averse to any government intervention and seek to avoid
governmental monitoring, even if they could receive financial or
technical assistance in return.
Administrative and Paperwork Requirements:
Burdensome administrative and paperwork requirements was also among the
most frequently mentioned factors limiting participation in all six of
the programs we reviewed. According to several respondents, the length
of time needed to go through the entire process of receiving funds from
these conservation programs is long and acts as a disincentive to
participating. This process generally includes applying to the program,
adopting a conservation practice, and receiving payment. For example,
one respondent from Ohio said that it can take almost a year from
submitting an application to starting work on the ground. Respondents
explained that the timing of the application process is also a concern
for landowners. For example, a respondent from Arkansas noted that the
EQIP application process starts in the spring when farmers are often
busy, typically preparing their lands for planting. If the process
started in the winter, it would allow farmers more time to devote to
the application process.
Respondents also indicated that the sheer volume of paperwork, as well
as the degree of personal information required to participate, can
overwhelm people and discourage them from applying for the programs.
Several respondents indicated that when landowners examine a
conservation program's lengthy contract and its stipulations, they find
the process intimidating and do not apply. In addition, some
respondents said that they feel that the relatively small amount of
money available in the programs is not enough to justify the large
amount of paperwork required to apply. One respondent said that filling
out all of the forms is particularly burdensome for landowners with
smaller farms, and that such landowners cannot afford to spend time
tracking down the information for the forms when they instead need to
be working on their land. Furthermore, CSP encourages participants to
perform self-certification and develop conservation plans. These
additional recordkeeping responsibilities can deter potential
participants. Some respondents stated that landowners may not have
adequate records to prove that they meet the extensive eligibility
requirements for a program. Furthermore, some respondents told us that
some potential applicants avoid participating because of application
requirements to divulge personal information, such as their adjusted
gross income, work history, and backgrounds.
Finally, according to some survey respondents, obtaining necessary
permits to implement conservation practices can slow down an already
long process.[Footnote 23] For instance, one respondent from Washington
told us that the permitting process for implementing in-stream projects
for threatened and endangered fish is lengthy and inefficient, and may
require the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including USDA, FWS,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, state departments of fish and
wildlife and ecology, as well as county and local permitting agencies.
While the issuance and approval of the permits are not the
responsibility of USDA, from the applicant's perspective, these permits
add to the burdensome nature of applying for USDA funds.
Participation and Eligibility Requirements:
Also among the most frequently cited disincentives to participating in
all of the six programs was that some of the programs' participation
requirements were too restrictive and inflexible. A number of
respondents told us that program requirements about what can and cannot
be performed in a conservation project are too rigid, and often do not
include the very components that are necessary for achieving the
intended conservation benefit. For example, limitations on grazing
under CRP and GRP were cited by numerous respondents as inflexible.
While grazing restrictions were established, in part, to improve ground
cover for species such as ground-nesting birds like the lesser prairie-
chicken, some respondents contend that the restrictions may actually
provide less benefit to some species. An agency official from Oregon
explained that the inability to disturb grass stands under 10-year CRP
contracts could be counter-productive, because while the undisturbed
grass is viable and beneficial for wildlife in the first 5 to 6 years,
it will then begin to die out, and could present a fire hazard for the
landowner; it is possible that a fire could also result in the
destruction of important habitat.[Footnote 24] This respondent further
explained that while ground-nesting species may use the undisturbed
grass for protection, allowing grass to grow too tall deters insects
and ungulates from using the area and breaking up the sod. Breaking up
the sod is critical to maintain healthy grasses.
Respondents also told us that landowner eligibility requirements can
serve to restrict participation by landowners interested in benefiting
threatened and endangered species. For instance, the adjusted gross
income requirement for participation renders a number of landowners
ineligible, and according to some respondents, these ineligible
landowners might have applied if permitted.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 26] A
respondent in Illinois noted that CSP also prevents farmers that rent
lands for production for short periods of time from participating. The
program requires farmers to control enrolled land for the life of the
contract.
Potential for Participation to Hinder Current or Future Agricultural
Production:
The potential for participation in USDA programs to limit current or
future agricultural production was among the most frequently cited
disincentives for three of the six programs we reviewed--CRP, EQIP, and
WRP. For example, some respondents said that promoting wildlife may
result in crop damage, as some animals such as deer or geese may eat
crops. Because of this crop damage, some respondents may view such
wildlife as pests. Furthermore, a respondent from Pennsylvania
described how taking lands out of production can result in noxious
weeds invading the area. These weeds are difficult to eradicate and can
also spread to and infest other productive lands.
Suggestions for Addressing Disincentives to Participating in Programs
to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species:
Survey respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding,
improving education and outreach to landowners, streamlining paperwork
requirements, and allowing greater flexibility in program participation
and eligibility requirements to address disincentives and encourage
greater participation in the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed
for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats.[Footnote 27] Respondents, however, also noted that while some
of these suggestions might increase participation in the programs, they
would not necessarily benefit threatened and endangered species.
Increasing Funding for Programs and Landowners:
Increasing funding--for both programs in general and the amounts paid
to individual landowners specifically--was the most frequently
mentioned suggestion for encouraging participation in USDA's
conservation programs for four of the programs we reviewed--CRP, EQIP,
GRP, and WRP; it was the second most frequently identified suggestion
for CSP and WHIP. A majority of respondents agreed that increasing the
overall investment in the programs could greatly or very greatly help
threatened and endangered species. For example, increasing GRP's budget
was mentioned by some respondents as a way to include more applicants
in the program, thereby increasing the number of acres enrolled and
thus increasing benefits to species that depend on grassland
ecosystems. One USDA official explained that if he could pick one
program to put additional money into, it would be GRP, in part because
of its untapped potential. Similarly, a USDA official in Iowa suggested
the need to increase CSP's overall budget because the program generally
only has enough money to fund the highest-ranking applicants and, in
Iowa, these tend not to be those landowners who include practices to
benefit threatened and endangered species in their applications.
According to this official, most of the highest ranking applications
are for projects proposed on cropped farmlands, where there is less
opportunity to benefit threatened or endangered species. Likewise,
respondents suggested increasing WHIP's budget to allow more high
quality applications to receive funding, particularly given that the
program's primary purpose is to benefit wildlife.
Respondents also frequently recommended increasing the amount of
payments offered to individual program participants. For CRP,
respondents specifically suggested increasing the rates of annual
rental payments associated with the program since this, in part, would
help make setting land aside competitive with other agricultural uses
of the land. Further, one USDA official in Massachusetts suggested
tailoring the amount of rental payments to specific areas within states
and counties in order to better match the payments with local land
values. Under EQIP, respondents frequently suggested increasing the
cost-share percentage available for projects. Respondents explained
that raising the cost-share amount borne by the federal government
could help encourage landowners to implement projects that benefit
threatened and endangered species since those typically do not provide
long-term financial returns. Some respondents recommended putting
additional funding into practices that provide direct benefits to
threatened and endangered species, such as providing a greater cost-
share percentage under EQIP for certain species-friendly practices--as
is done, for example, in Hawaii--or raising the rental rate for CRP for
those acres that will directly benefit imperiled species. A similar
suggestion, made by a respondent in Minnesota, was to provide more
funding under GRP to those landowners whose land includes habitat that
is essential for threatened and endangered species. Some of the FWS
officials we interviewed suggested that USDA could target its funding
allocations within programs based on geographic areas determined to be
of high priority for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species.
As one soil and water conservation district official in Iowa explained,
people would look into helping threatened and endangered species more
if they knew they could get money for doing so.
Improving Education and Outreach to Landowners:
Respondents identified improving education and outreach to landowners
as a way to encourage greater participation for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species most frequently for CSP and WHIP; it
was the second most frequently mentioned solution for the other four
programs we reviewed. Respondents recommended actions including
building trust and developing personal relationships between landowners
and agency staff, doing more to advertise the programs, and focusing
education on the benefits of helping threatened and endangered species
and other wildlife and the specifics on how to accomplish this. One
soil and water conservation district official suggested targeting
outreach efforts to younger farmers. Some USDA officials we interviewed
in Texas noted that, in some areas, agricultural land is starting to
change hands to younger farmers and, in particular, to owners who do
not depend on agricultural production for income. These officials said
that some of these new landowners are more oriented to using their land
for recreational purposes and are more amenable to taking steps to help
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species.
Respondents indicated that improving education and conducting more
outreach to landowners could address a number of different
disincentives. First, educating landowners about the regulatory
consequences of providing habitat for threatened and endangered species
is one way to assuage fears about regulation under the Endangered
Species Act. One soil and water conservation district official in
Colorado said he reassures people that providing habitat "is a good
thing" and that they will not be punished for it; a USDA official in
Ohio said the majority of landowners with fears about the act are
reassured after learning more about how the law is implemented. A USDA
official in Oklahoma explained that NRCS needs to educate landowners so
they see at-risk species, like black-tailed prairie dogs, not just as
pests, but instead as opportunities for them to benefit from
participating in WHIP. Second, one respondent explained that educating
people during the application process as to their chances of receiving
funding for a competitive program like EQIP can help adjust their
expectations and reduce the frustration of not receiving funding.
Third, taking the time to educate people about the necessities of some
of the paperwork requirements may help them better understand, even
though they may still dislike, the bureaucratic process, according to
some respondents. For example, a soil and water conservation district
official in Oregon suggested the need to explain that paperwork
requirements related to threatened and endangered species are often
part of a system of checks and balances that are in place for a reason.
Finally, one USDA official explained that telling people the reasons
why certain conservation practices were developed under WHIP may help
overcome some landowners' perception that the strict requirements
regarding how practices are to be installed are a disincentive to
participating.
Streamlining Paperwork Requirements:
Streamlining the amount of paperwork associated with the programs was
one of the most frequently suggested ways of encouraging greater
landowner participation in CSP, EQIP and WRP. Respondents' suggestions
focused on the need to simplify the application and permitting
processes. Respondents suggested simplifying the application process by
reducing both the volume of paperwork and the processing time for each
application. Specifically, a landowner in Missouri suggested creating
only one set of paperwork to apply for multiple programs, while a soil
and water conservation district official in Washington proposed linking
forms so information needs to be entered only once and can be carried
forward automatically where needed.[Footnote 28] Respondents also
suggested making the permitting process less time consuming by, for
example, allowing Endangered Species Act consultations and other
environmental assessments to be performed jointly for more than one
project, eliminating the need to do separate assessments for each
individual project. Reducing the programs' paperwork requirements,
according to a USDA official in California, would allow NRCS staff to
spend more time in the field with landowners instead of processing
paperwork in the office.
Allowing Greater Flexibility in Participation and Eligibility
Requirements:
More flexibility in participation and eligibility requirements was also
among the most frequently mentioned suggestions for encouraging
participation in USDA conservation programs under CRP, EQIP, and WRP.
For CRP and WRP specifically, respondents frequently mentioned making
the programs' rules governing participation less prescriptive or
strict. Respondents indicated that these programs contain restrictions
on the amount of agricultural production that can take place on
enrolled lands, and that allowing more production could entice
landowners to participate, while not significantly detracting from the
conservation purposes of the programs. For example, a USDA official in
Montana suggested that allowing for some limited grazing in CRP might
help persuade landowners who otherwise were turned off by the 10-year
minimum length of the required contract. In addition, respondents
suggested allowing variable widths for buffers along streams under CRP
rather than setting a standard width, and allowing a producer to
implement additional management practices beyond what is allowed in
their program contract. For example, according to one USDA official,
the enhancement program under CRP in Pennsylvania only allows mowing to
control weeds during the first three years of a 10-year contract, and
that allowing additional mowing each year before or after the mating
season for ground-nesting birds would better help these
species.[Footnote 29]
For EQIP, respondents frequently suggested allowing greater flexibility
in eligibility requirements for potential participants. Respondents
recommended allowing landowners who are not agricultural producers--
such as hobby farmers or people living on large parcels of land--to
qualify for participation in the program; such landowners can receive
funds under WHIP. As one soil and water conservation district official
explained, it should not matter who owns the land, if the goal is to
install projects that benefit threatened and endangered species. Other
suggestions included allowing multiple landowners to apply together on
one EQIP application, thereby ensuring coordinated management of
adjacent lands--an action that would ultimately protect the threatened
and endangered species in the area--and creating an exemption to the
adjusted gross income requirement for landowners in Hawaii. This
potential exemption was suggested because there are so many lands in
the state with valuable habitat that are part of large ranches that do
not meet the income eligibility requirement. According to one
respondent in Hawaii, allowing the large landowners on Maui to
participate in USDA conservation programs, for example, would greatly
benefit threatened and endangered species. He said that the two largest
private landowners alone could help protect several thousand acres of
habitat for these species as their land is adjacent to already-
protected habitat, including Haleakala National Park.
Implementing Suggestions Has Potential Limitations for Threatened and
Endangered Species:
Some respondents noted that while implementing the suggestions might
entice more people to participate in the programs and address
disincentives that were identified, doing so would not necessarily
benefit threatened and endangered species in all cases. For example,
according to some respondents, allowing for more management or variable
buffer widths under CRP may increase participation in that program
because it would address landowner resistance to the current rules;
however, according to other respondents, such an action may ultimately
be to the detriment of any threatened, endangered, or other at-risk
species that depend on certain conditions in these areas. Similarly, a
few respondents noted that reducing the paperwork requirements for CSP
may result in the loss of exactly the kind of information NRCS needs to
document good conservation--including benefits to threatened and
endangered species--for participation in the program. While only 5 of
the 18 FWS officials we interviewed felt that USDA programs in their
current forms provide great to very great benefits to threatened and
endangered species, many stated that the programs have a lot of
potential to benefit these species. FWS officials offered some specific
suggestions to orient USDA's programs more toward protecting threatened
and endangered species. Some FWS officials suggested committing a
certain percentage of programs' budgets to projects benefiting these
species, while others recommended targeting USDA spending to specific
geographic areas that have high priority species and habitat
needs.[Footnote 30]
Agency Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species Occurs
Primarily at State and Local Levels and Agency Officials Cited Staff
Motivation as Key to Successful Coordination:
USDA and FWS officials stated that coordination of their conservation
efforts to benefit threatened and endangered species most often occurs
at their field offices at the state and local level and cited personal
motivation as a key factor in successful collaborative efforts.
However, agency officials acknowledged that the quality of working
relationships and the frequency of coordination between USDA and FWS
staff varies by location. To improve working relationships and
coordination, USDA initiated work on a memorandum of understanding
that, among other things, establishes a formal framework for
coordination. Although the draft memorandum is a positive step in
improving coordination, it currently lacks mechanisms to monitor and
report on implementation efforts to help ensure that coordination
occurs and is sustained. It also does not include FSA, even though the
agency runs the conservation program in USDA that can affect the most
agricultural land--the Conservation Reserve Program.
Agency Survey Respondents and Other USDA and FWS Officials Stated That
Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species Occurs
Primarily at Their Field Offices at the State and Local Level:
USDA and FWS officials told us that while coordination between agencies
occurs at all levels--headquarters, regional, state, and local--the
majority of the work takes place at their field offices at the state
and local level in the day-to-day implementation of their programs.
Coordination generally involves FWS field office officials providing
USDA staff in state and local offices with information about species
and habitat needs relevant to conservation program decisions, while
NRCS officials, who are often soil scientists and civil engineers,
provide surveying and engineering expertise to FWS staff on the design
and construction of specific conservation projects. Some NRCS officials
told us that they routinely include FWS biologists in the onsite
evaluations they conduct of WRP applications. For example, in Oklahoma,
a FWS biologist serves on NRCS's wetland review team with NRCS and
state agency officials, making site visits and ranking
applications.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 32] Officials told us that working
together to secure funds from multiple programs across agencies can be
particularly helpful to landowners who otherwise would not have been
able to undertake a conservation project if they received funds from
just one program. For example, NRCS and FWS jointly funded a riparian
restoration project to improve habitat for the endangered shiner minnow
in Calhoun County, Iowa. NRCS provided funds through WHIP for
excavation work along the stream bank, as well as the purchasing of
stone for stream bank stabilization. FWS funds covered all structural
costs associated with the project, including the installation of stone
barriers within the stream. The joint financial contributions by both
agencies helped to significantly lower the total project cost to the
landowner.
The agencies have also worked together to help streamline the
consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Under the act
and its implementing regulations, NRCS must consult with FWS on each
conservation project it funds that may affect a threatened or
endangered species to ensure the projects are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the species or adversely modify designated
critical habitat. We have previously reported that agency officials and
private entities that must go through this process complain that it is
time consuming and frustrating; some agency officials reiterated those
concerns during this review. To address such concerns, FWS works with
agencies to develop programmatic consultations that set forth
parameters or guidelines for how specific actions might be conducted in
order to avoid adverse effects to species and their habitats. If such
guidance is followed, the subsequent consultation should presumably go
more quickly. In Florida, for example, the FWS field office developed a
programmatic consultation for conservation actions that NRCS commonly
uses, such as controlled burning and mowing, activities that might harm
the threatened eastern indigo snake. In developing the programmatic
consultation, FWS and NRCS reached agreement on the best management
practices to be used when implementing the conservation actions in
order to avoid adversely harming the snake or its habitat. According to
NRCS and FWS officials, programmatic consultations can dramatically
reduce the amount of time spent consulting with FWS on projects.
USDA and FWS also collaborate on broader conservation projects
involving other government agencies and nongovernmental organizations.
These collaborations include:
* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 34] Recommendations are made by the committee for
consideration by the implementing USDA program agency. Survey
respondents and other officials told us that committee work and
discussions among members can identify opportunities to coordinate on
specific projects to benefit threatened and endangered species. For
example, discussions among committee members in Ohio led to FWS working
on a CRP project--and making recommendations to modify the
implementation of the project--that improved the possibility of
providing habitat for the threatened copperbelly water snake. FWS and
FSA officials worked together with the landowners to incorporate the
modifications into the project.
* 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.[Footnote 35] The training is
ultimately expected to be offered to local USDA staff in an effort to
help them better understand and navigate the consultation process.
Officials noted that such sessions also help FWS staff to better
understand USDA's programs and become more familiar with USDA staff.
Additionally, the agencies have worked together at the national level
to develop the criteria used in evaluating and ranking proposed CRP
projects. These projects are assessed, among other things, on their
expected environmental benefits to soil resources, water quality, and
wildlife habitat. Officials in headquarters offices have also worked
together in developing conservation practices and standards for USDA
and FWS conservation programs.
While survey respondents provided many examples of successful
coordination between USDA and FWS for the benefit of threatened,
endangered, and other at-risk species, they also indicated that the
level of coordination that occurs at the local office level varies
considerably--ranging from extremely good to not good at all. We also
found this to be the case during interviews with agency officials. For
example, several USDA officials stated that they work closely with FWS
in implementing conservation programs, such as WRP and CRP, and often
share information concerning threatened and endangered species.
However, other officials we interviewed said that coordination between
USDA and FWS was limited or generally poor and only occurs in limited
situations, such as when construction is involved on a project.
Similarly, several USDA officials stated that they coordinate with FWS
principally on state conservation plans or through e-mail when
necessary. Still, some agency officials we interviewed noted that
despite past problems between USDA and FWS, coordination is improving.
Survey Respondents and Other Agency Officials Cited Staff Motivation as
a Leading Factor in Successful Coordination:
USDA survey respondents and FWS officials we interviewed most often
stated that the personal motivation of staff was a leading factor in
successful collaboration between USDA and FWS. Specifically, officials
noted that individuals who possessed a strong commitment to coordinate,
had good interpersonal skills, and demonstrated a willingness to work
with others were often the driving force behind successful
collaborative efforts. For example, one USDA survey respondent reported
that it was the personal attitude of the FWS official working with USDA
that made the difference in helping to establish habitat for the
threatened copperbelly water snake in Ohio. His positive attitude in
working with USDA staff, commitment in attending meetings, and
willingness to actively participate all contributed significantly to
the success of their collaboration. Similarly, a FWS respondent noted
that the people skills and collaborative attitude of NRCS and FWS staff
were linchpins in completing a watershed project on the upper Little
Red River in Arkansas, a project that improved habitat for a listed
species of mussel and a candidate species of fish.
Commonly-shared goals and management support and direction for
collaboration were other important factors that contribute to
successful collaboration highlighted in our survey and in interviews
with agency officials. For example, FWS officials reported that
successful coordination in Montana has resulted largely from direction
provided by the NRCS state conservationist who put an emphasis on
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species for EQIP and WHIP and
makes funding decisions for these programs at the state level (as
opposed to the county level as done in other states). Trust was another
important factor cited. Unfortunately, trust between agencies is not
something that can be dictated from management; it takes time to
develop. Learning about other agencies' programs and becoming familiar
with counterparts at other agencies are important components to this
process. In some cases, this process has been expedited by having staff
from one agency collocated at another agency's offices. For example, in
Colorado, two FWS officials are located at NRCS offices in the state to
help address threatened and endangered species and other wildlife
issues. Similarly, in Texas, an official from the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department is collocated with the NRCS state office. According
to Texas officials, this close contact has been very beneficial to
promoting a better understanding of each agency's respective programs
and how they can work together.
USDA and FWS Are Working to Improve Coordination Efforts through a
Memorandum of Understanding for At-Risk Species; however, the
Memorandum Lacks Key Elements:
NRCS has drafted a memorandum of understanding with FWS and AFWA to
establish and maintain a framework of cooperation to proactively
conserve at-risk plant and animal species and their habitats.[Footnote
36] Initial efforts on the memorandum began in January 2005, under the
direction of the chief of the NRCS, with the aim of developing a
mechanism that would allow the agency to better utilize its programs to
address the needs of declining species. Currently, the draft memorandum
states that its purpose is to strengthen cooperation among NRCS, FWS,
and AFWA to proactively conserve at-risk plant and animal species and
their habitats. The memorandum also states that it is the intent of
NRCS, FWS, and AFWA to identify and create more opportunities to work
together to preempt the need to list additional species under the
Endangered Species Act, foster the recovery of species already listed,
and address similar needs for species that are of conservation concern
to states.
Under the draft memorandum, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA would be responsible
for taking individual and joint actions to more effectively meet their
obligations and priorities for conserving at-risk species and their
habitats. The draft memorandum stresses the importance of federal and
state fish and wildlife agencies participating on USDA's state
technical committees. Additionally, the draft memorandum directs NRCS
to provide information to FWS and state fish and wildlife agencies
about NRCS-administered programs that could assist them in meeting
species' needs. These actions and others in the draft memorandum focus
on sharing information about species and habitat needs and where
conservation program funds might be available to address these needs.
Moreover, the draft memorandum addresses actions between NRCS and FWS
to streamline regulatory processes, such as the Endangered Species Act
consultation process. To help evaluate the effectiveness of the
memorandum of understanding, the draft document states that NRCS, FWS,
and AFWA will develop protocols for gathering data for reporting and
assessing the effectiveness of conservation efforts for at-risk species
and their habitats; however, the memorandum does not include any
specific monitoring or reporting responsibilities. In addition, the
draft memorandum does not include FSA even though CRP enrolls nearly 36
million acres of land each year. NRCS officials told us that FSA was
not included in the drafting of the memorandum because adding another
entity would have slowed down the development and review process. NRCS
and FSA officials said they saw no reason why FSA could not be added to
the agreement in the future.
While intrinsically valuable, interagency coordination is not always
easy. Each agency has its own unique mission and program priorities,
regulations, and organizational culture. Sometimes coordinating within
an individual agency can be challenging as well. Based on literature
reviews, expert interviews, and reviews of numerous coordination
efforts among agencies, in an October 2005 report, we identified eight
practices that help enhance and sustain collaboration.[Footnote 37]
Among the practices highlighted in the report were the need to define
and articulate a common outcome; identify and address needs by
leveraging resources; agree on roles and responsibilities; and develop
mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on the results of
collaborative efforts. In the report, we pointed out that federal
agencies engaging in collaborative efforts need to create the means to
monitor and evaluate their efforts to enable them to identify areas for
improvement. We found that reporting on these activities can provide
key decision makers within the agencies, as well as clients and
stakeholders, important feedback that they can use to improve both
policy and operational effectiveness.
We recognize that the memorandum of understanding is still in draft
form and believe that once finalized, it could contribute to better
coordination for threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species. In
fact, the draft memorandum embraces many of the actions that survey
respondents highlighted as examples of successful coordination, such as
using state technical committees to better implement on-the-ground
conservation, sharing information, and leveraging resources. The draft
memorandum also contains some of the elements that we have previously
identified as being important to successful collaborative efforts. For
example, the draft memorandum articulates a common outcome, defines
roles and responsibilities, and discusses the need to share information
in order to leverage resources as well as develop protocols to produce
comparable data for reporting and assessing on their efforts. However,
the draft document does not have monitoring and reporting mechanisms
for ensuring that coordination takes place, including who will be
responsible for monitoring and reporting, and the time frames for doing
so. Without such elements, NRCS, FWS, and AFWA cannot be assured that a
goal of the draft memorandum--improved coordination for the benefit of
threatened, endangered, and other at-risk species--will be achieved. In
particular, given that we found that successful coordination between
USDA and FWS is largely driven by staff motivation, without follow-up
to monitor and report on implementation status, efforts pursuant to the
draft memorandum may simply maintain the status quo--those who want to
coordinate will coordinate, and others will not. Furthermore, FSA is
not a partner to the draft memorandum. With nearly $1.9 billion in
conservation investments and about 36 million enrolled acres, CRP--
under FSA's administration--has the potential to provide significant
benefits to imperiled species.
Conclusions:
The extent to which viable habitat for threatened, endangered, and
other at-risk species can be established on private lands is certain to
be the subject of ongoing debate within the environmental and
agricultural communities and in the Congress. Because the majority of
land in the United States is privately-owned, programs that encourage
private landowners to implement conservation actions on their lands are
critical to protecting imperiled species. USDA's conservation programs
provide billions of dollars annually to agricultural producers and
others for taking steps to address a myriad of environmental and
natural resource concerns, including restoring wildlife habitat. As
Congress and federal agencies consider legislative and programmatic
alternatives to better address at-risk species, it is essential that we
understand the factors that might motivate a private landowner to
choose to participate in conservation programs to benefit imperiled
species. While financial incentives weigh heavy in a landowner's
decision, other factors such as fears about regulatory and paperwork
burdens also play a role. Taking steps to increase landowner
participation in USDA programs, however, must be complimented by
efforts to ensure that the intended benefits to species are meaningful.
Moreover, improving coordination between USDA and FWS--the nation's
experts on conserving natural resources and threatened and endangered
species--should help ensure that conservation program investment
decisions provide the most benefit to threatened, endangered, and other
at-risk species and their habitats as possible. While the draft
memorandum of understanding between the two agencies is an important
step toward improving coordination, without monitoring and reporting
mechanisms, NRCS and FWS lack important tools for ensuring the
effectiveness and sustainability of their collaborative efforts.
Furthermore, the draft memorandum omits FSA, a key agency that
administers CRP, the largest conservation program in the United States-
-and thus fails to capitalize on an opportunity to coordinate
investments from this $2 billion program to better address at-risk
species and their habitats.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance and sustain coordination at USDA's and FWS's field offices
at the state and local level for the benefit of threatened, endangered,
and other at-risk species, we recommend that the Secretaries of
Agriculture and of the Interior:
* direct the Chief of NRCS and the Director of FWS to work with AFWA to
incorporate monitoring and reporting mechanisms in their memorandum of
understanding prior to finalizing it for implementation; and:
* direct the Chief of NRCS, the Administrator of FSA, and the Director
of FWS, in cooperation with AFWA, to include FSA as an additional
partner to the memorandum or develop a separate memorandum of
understanding to address coordination.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture for review and comment. Interior provided written
comments (see app. II) and USDA provided oral comments. The departments
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. However, the
Department of the Interior suggested that we direct our recommendations
to NRCS instead of NRCS and FWS together, because our report
specifically addresses USDA conservation programs and that NRCS is the
lead agency in the memorandum of understanding. While we understand
Interior's position, the existing program management arrangement set
forth in the draft memorandum of understanding makes it necessary to
address our recommendations to both agencies. Specifically, although
NRCS initiated development of the draft memorandum, the document does
not specify that NRCS is the lead agency for preparing and implementing
it. Rather, USDA, FWS, and AFWA appear as co-equal parties to the
memorandum. The Department of the Interior also suggested that both
recommendations should recognize AFWA as a partner to the memorandum of
understanding. We agree and have modified the recommendations to direct
the federal agencies to work with AFWA to implement our
recommendations. With respect to our second recommendation, Interior
suggested allowing the agencies the option of developing a separate
memorandum for addressing coordination with FSA. We have modified our
recommendation to reflect this suggestion. The departments also
provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the report,
as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and other interested
parties. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at [Hyperlink, 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,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of our study were to identify (1) stakeholder views on
the incentives and disincentives for landowners to benefit threatened
and endangered species and their habitats through participation in U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation programs as well as
suggestions for addressing disincentives to program participation, and
(2) how USDA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are
coordinating their programs for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species and their habitats and the factors that agency
officials believe have contributed to successful coordination.
Incentives, Disincentives, and Suggestions:
To identify incentives, disincentives, and suggestions to address the
disincentives for participating in USDA conservation programs, we
reviewed the statutes, regulations, and policies for the programs as
well as other independent reviews of them. We also interviewed USDA
headquarters officials to obtain information on how these programs were
implemented at the national, state, and local levels. In addition, we
conducted site visits in California, including Yolo and Merced
counties, and Texas, including San Saba and Travis counties, to discuss
state and local level implementation of the programs and to observe on-
the-ground implementation of select conservation projects. We also
conducted telephone surveys with USDA and soil and water conservation
district officials, and private landowners.
Telephone Surveys:
We conducted telephone surveys with a nonprobability sample of 157 USDA
officials, soil and water conservation district officials, and
landowners from 19 states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
and Washington).[Footnote 38] We selected these states based on three
criteria: (1) high levels of USDA conservation program allocations for
the programs we reviewed, (2) high or moderate numbers of threatened
and endangered species relative to other states, and (3) diversity of
geographic location. Within these states, we selected at least two
counties--in some cases as many as four--that had high levels of USDA
conservation program obligations and had significant threatened and
endangered species occurrences and diversity in comparison with other
counties in the state. We surveyed officials in 49 counties across the
19 states.
In the different states, we surveyed (1) the state biologist or the
state conservationist in USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), who are responsible for helping to implement or administer many
of the department's conservation programs and (2) the executive
director or another state-level official in USDA's Farm Service Agency
(FSA), which administers USDA's largest conservation program. In the
different counties we selected, we surveyed (1) the NRCS district
conservationist, the lead official for administering the agency's
programs at the county level; (2) soil and water conservation district
officials, who work with USDA to increase voluntary conservation
practices among landowners; and (3) private landowners.[Footnote 39]
The NRCS district conservationists identified an initial list of
landowners. We selected a nonprobability sample of landowners from this
list using criteria to include landowners who participate in the USDA
conservation programs as well as those who were eligible to participate
but chose not to do so, and to reflect geographic diversity across the
19 states. In total, we interviewed 71 NRCS officials, 18 FSA
officials, 44 soil and water conservation district officials, and 24
landowners. In some cases, soil and water conservation district
officials were also landowners, and they responded to our questions
from both perspectives.
We conducted seven pretests with officials in headquarters and the
field and one landowner. After each pretest, we conducted an interview
to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms
used were precise, (3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the
respondents, and (4) the questions were unbiased. On the basis of the
pretests, we made appropriate revisions to the survey.
Through our telephone survey, we gathered participants' opinions about
the primary incentives, disincentives, and suggestions to address the
disincentives for landowners to participate in seven USDA conservation
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species. We asked
interviewees to identify the USDA conservation programs they had
knowledge of, and only asked them questions relevant to those programs.
The survey also included questions specifically for landowners
regarding their participation in the conservation programs. The survey
asked a combination of questions that allowed for open-ended and close-
ended responses. To analyze the open-ended material, we developed clear
protocols for coding the content into categories. The material was
independently coded by one individual and then verified by another
individual.
We initially selected seven conservation programs to include in our
review, based on the amount of dollars obligated to these programs and
the extent to which they might offer benefits to threatened and
endangered species. These were the Conservation Reserve Program,
Conservation Security Program, Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, Grassland Reserve
Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and Wetlands Reserve
Program. USDA confirmed that these programs were appropriate given our
objectives. We dropped the responses we collected with respect to the
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program from our analysis due to the
lack of familiarity by most respondents with the program.
Coordination:
To determine how USDA and FWS are coordinating for the benefit of
threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and the factors
that contributed to successful examples of such efforts, we included
questions in the survey with respect to coordination between the two
agencies that were posed to USDA officials as well as 18 FWS officials
in state and regional offices in our 19-state nonprobability sample. We
asked the USDA and FWS officials to comment on the quality of
coordination between the agencies at varying levels of government; to
provide examples of good coordination for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species in their area; and to identify the factors they
believed contributed to successful coordination. In addition, we also
interviewed FWS and USDA officials at each agency's headquarters in
Washington, D.C., about formal coordination efforts between the
agencies to benefit threatened and endangered species. We also used our
site visits in California and Texas to discuss these issues with USDA
and FWS officials as well as meet with officials from state fish and
wildlife agencies.
We performed our work between November 2005 and October 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, DC 20240:
Take Pride In America:
OCT 10 2006:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability
Office report entitled, "USDA Conservation Programs: Stakeholder Views
on Participation and Coordination to Benefit Threatened and Endangered
Species and Their Habitats," GAO-07-35, dated September 8, 2006. In
general, we agree with the findings that pertain to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) and the report's recommendations, as
discussed below.
As correctly described in the draft report, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Service and the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) regarding the
conservation of species at-risk. Since the GAO report specifically
addresses USDA Conservation Programs, and the USDA's NRCS is the lead
agency for the MOU, we believe it would be more appropriate for the
Recommendations for Executive Action to indicate USDA's lead role,
instead of including the U.S Department of the Interior as a lead. We
also believe it is important to recognize that the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) is a partner to the MOU and thus has a
role in determining its content. Further, the second recommendation
should be revised to include the option of developing a separate
memorandum of understanding involving the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
Therefore, we suggest that GAO modify the Recommendations for Executive
Action, as follows:
"* direct the Chief of NRCS to work with the Director of FWS and the
Executive Vice President of AFWA, to incorporate monitoring and
reporting mechanisms in their memorandum of understanding prior to
finalizing it for implementation, and:
"* direct the Chief of NRCS to work with the Administrator of FSA, the
Director of FWS, and the Executive Vice President of AFWA, to include
FSA as an additional partner to the memorandum or develop a separate
memorandum to specifically address coordination involving FSA
programs."
The Service is working with NRCS and AFWA to address these
recommendations.
The enclosure provides specific technical comments from the Service. We
hope these comments will assist you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Conservation Reserve Program:
Introduction:
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of the USDA's largest and
most ambitious conservation efforts, with approximately 36 million
acres enrolled and annual payments totaling nearly $1.8 billion through
June of 2006.[Footnote 40] 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.[Footnote 41] The purpose of CRP is
to provide financial incentives to landowners to conserve and improve
soil, water, air, and wildlife resources by converting land in
agricultural production to less intensive uses. Program participants
agree to adopt a variety of approved conservation practices such as
installing structures, planting vegetation, or implementing management
techniques.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a subprogram of
CRP that is implemented on a state-by-state basis. Governors request
that CREP be implemented in their state to address specific state and
nationally significant agriculture-related environmental problems, and
commit to providing a portion of the funds necessary to do so. Of
foremost concern to CREP are issues relating to water supplies and
areas around wells, wildlife species endangered by the loss of
essential habitat, soil erosion, and reduced habitat for fish such as
salmon.
Eligibility:
In order to be eligible for CRP and CREP, a producer must have owned
and operated the eligible land for at least 12 months prior to close of
the CRP sign-up period; however, this requirement can be waived under
certain conditions.[Footnote 42] 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.[Footnote
43]
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;[Footnote 44] or:
* currently enrolled CRP land nearing expiration of its contract.
Application Process:
Farm owners and operators can apply and eventually enroll their land in
CRP in two ways, through general or continuous sign-up. General sign-up
generally occurs for a few weeks each year.[Footnote 45] For both
general and continuous sign-up, applicants must appear at one of FSA's
2,351 offices and formally enter into a CRP contract. The contract
contains information on the participant (e.g., name, address, Social
Security number, and phone number) and information on the conservation
practices agreed to, the acreage enrolled, and the acreage committed to
each practice.
Continuous CRP sign-up, in contrast to general sign-up, is available at
any time of year for owners who agree to adopt certain high-priority
conservation practices. These practices include installation of filter
strips, riparian buffers, grass waterways, shelterbelts, field
windbreaks, living snow fences, salinity reducing vegetation, shallow
water areas for wildlife, and wetland restoration. Continuous sign-up
participants, like general sign-up participants, sign contracts and
agree to certain stipulations in return for payments.
Enrollment in CREP occurs on a continuous basis, permitting farmers and
ranchers to join the program at any time rather than waiting for
specific sign-up periods. Enrollment in each state is limited to
specific geographic areas and practices. A CREP project begins when a
state, Indian tribe, local government, or local nongovernmental entity
identifies an agriculture-related environmental issue of state or
national significance. These parties and FSA then develop a project
proposal to address particular environmental issues and goals. CREP,
therefore, is a partnership program among federal and state governments
and other program participants, and USDA expects non-federal partners
to provide commitments toward the overall cost of the program.
Selection Process:
After applications are screened against program eligibility criteria,
FSA program staff evaluates them using an environmental benefits index
that weighs six factors: (1) wildlife habitat benefits; (2) water
quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching; (3) on-
farm benefits of reduced soil erosion; (4) enduring environmental
benefits[Footnote 46]; (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.[Footnote 47] CREP
applications are submitted to USDA by the governor of a state that is
involved in the application, after which USDA will convene an
interagency panel to review the proposal. The comments of the panel are
forwarded to the state for consideration in the development of a final
proposal that is set forth in a memorandum of agreement between the
governor and the Secretary of Agriculture. As of June 2006, there were
37 CREP agreements in effect in 29 states.
Payments and Conditions:
CRP contracts generally require a 10-to 15-year commitment. By signing
a contract, participants agree to apply specific conservation practices
on their land, to file forms needed to determine limits on payments,
and to perform certain management work. USDA and the participant agree
on a conservation plan that describes the vegetative or water cover to
be established, completion dates, and estimated environmental benefits.
Agency officials primarily rely on data provided by participants to
determine compliance with the agreement, but will also make occasional
spot checks of the land.
In return for implementing conservation practices, general CRP
participants receive annual rental payments that average about $48 an
acre (payments vary with prevailing local rental rates, not exceeding
local dryland or non-irrigated rates). In addition, participants
receive cost-share payments for up to one-half the cost of implementing
approved conservation practices. Furthermore, maintenance incentive
payments are available where an additional amount up to $5 per acre may
be included with the annual rental payment to perform certain
maintenance obligations. Additional incentives of up to 20 percent of
the annual payment are available for certain continuous sign-up
practices (defined below). Participants may also receive technical
assistance from a handful of entities, including USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which provides technical land-
eligibility determinations and advice on conservation planning and
implementation techniques.
Under continuous CRP, FSA will offer annual rental payments as well as
financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the soil rental rate for
specific conservation practices,[Footnote 48] and an additional 10
percent can be added for land located with EPA-designated wellhead
protection areas. Continuous sign-up enrollees may also receive added
up-front and annual financial incentives for participation. Incentive
payments to encourage practices supported by continuous sign-up can
include $100 to $150 an acre for selected practices (depending on
contract length) and single payments of up to 40 percent for the cost
of installing the practice (known as a practice incentive payment).
Like CRP, CREP contracts require a 10-to 15-year commitment to keep
lands out of agricultural production. FSA uses CRP funding to pay a
percentage of the program's cost, while state, tribal governments or
other non-federal sources provide the balance of the funds. States and
private groups involved in the effort may also provide technical
support and other in-kind services. A federal annual rental rate,
including an FSA state committee-determined maintenance incentive
payment, is offered, plus a cost-share of up to 50 percent of the
eligible costs to install the practice. Participants may also obtain 20
percent annual bonus payments, above the rental payment, for installing
certain high priority practices such as certain types of filter strips
or riparian buffers. Furthermore, the program generally offers a sign-
up incentive for participants to install specific practices.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses:
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for CRP by the
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed.
* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in CRP
included: (1) financial; (2) a personal interest in conservation; and
(3) program criteria that give greater consideration to projects that
directly address threatened and endangered, and other at-risk species.
* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in CRP
included: (1) limited funding for both the program and participants,
(2) restrictive eligibility and participation requirements, and (3)
fears about government regulations.
* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for
CRP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2) providing
greater education and outreach, and (3) increasing flexibility in
program eligibility and participation.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Conservation Security Program:
Introduction:
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was first authorized in the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and is administered by
the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).[Footnote 49]
CSP is generally regarded as the most comprehensive green payments
program developed in the United States, primarily because CSP promotes
integrated, whole-farm planning for conservation. Similar to other USDA
conservation programs, CSP provides financial and technical assistance
to producers to promote conservation and the improvement of soil,
water, air, energy, and plant and animal life on private and tribal
agricultural lands. In contrast to the other programs, CSP provides
assistance to farmers and ranchers who already meet specified standards
of conservation and environmental management in their operations. CSP
rewards three levels, or tiers, of conservation treatment for qualified
producers who enter into CSP contracts with NRCS, and provides higher
payments as landowners increase the level of conservation implemented
on their lands. Although CSP is available only in selected watersheds
in all 50 states, the intent is to implement the program in all
watersheds by 2011.[Footnote 50] 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).[Footnote 51]
Eligibility:
CSP is available to farmers and ranchers who already meet specified
standards of conservation and environmental management in their
operations. To be eligible, landowners must meet several criteria
including: (1) land must be private agricultural land, forested land
that is an incidental part of an agricultural operation, or tribal
land, with the majority of the agricultural operation located within a
selected priority watershed; (2) the applicant must be in compliance
with highly erodible land and wetlands provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985 and generally must have control of the land for the life of
the contract; and (3) the applicant must share in the risk of producing
any crop or livestock and be entitled to a share in the crop or
livestock available for marketing from the operation. Lands that are
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve
Program, or the Grasslands Reserve Program are not eligible for
CSP.[Footnote 52]
Application Process:
NRCS offers periodic sign-ups in specific, priority watersheds. The
agency requires producers to complete a self-assessment, which includes
a description of the conservation activities on their operations, to
determine their eligibility for the program. Once NRCS determines
eligibility, landowners meet with local NRCS staff to discuss their
application. In addition to the self-assessment, applicants must submit
completed program applications, and two years of written documentation
on their implementation of certain conservation actions, including
fertilizer, nutrient, and pesticide application schedules, tillage, and
grazing schedules, as applicable.
Selection Process:
In determining which eligible CSP contract applications to accept, NRCS
first determines whether an application meets the minimum requirements
for one of three levels, or tiers, of conservation treatment. Once an
applicant's tier level is established, NRCS uses enrollment categories
to establish an applicant's eligibility for funding through CSP. To
qualify for a given tier, each participant must have addressed the
specified resource concerns in accordance with program regulations on
part or all of their operation. For instance, tier I participants must
have addressed soil and water quality resource concerns to a specified
minimum level of treatment on at least part of the participant's
operation prior to acceptance into the program.[Footnote 53],[Footnote
54] Tier II participants must meet tier I requirements on the
participant's entire operation and must generally treat an additional
resource concern by the end of the contract period. Tier III
participants must have addressed all other applicable resource
concerns, including wildlife habitat, to a minimum level on their
entire agricultural operation prior to acceptance.[Footnote 55] Some
state NRCS offices used targeted species assessment criteria, while
others used general wildlife assessment criteria. According to an NRCS
official, because habitat needs differ across the nation, it is not
possible to develop one set of criteria that would work for the whole
country and apply to all situations in determining which producers
would qualify for a given tier level. Because of these differences,
national guidance instructs each state to define its own minimum
criteria for each of the listed wildlife resource components in the
national guidance based upon the state's own set of conditions. For
example, for cropland, the national guidance identifies the amount of
noncrop vegetative cover such as woodlots, wetlands, or riparian areas
managed for wildlife as a component that must be addressed and
instructs NRCS state offices to define the minimum percentage of
noncrop vegetative cover.
In addition to these tiers, NRCS establishes enrollment categories and
subcategories. For the fiscal year 2005 sign-up, five enrollment
categories were used for cropland, pasture, and rangeland. For example,
for cropland, the enrollment categories were defined by various levels
of soil conditioning index scores and the number of stewardship
practices and activities in place on the farm for at least 2 years. If
an enrollment category could not be fully funded, subcategories were
used to determine application funding order within a category. For the
fiscal year 2005 sign-up, 12 subcategories were used, including the
factor of whether the agricultural operation is in a designated area
for threatened and endangered species habitat.
Payments and Conditions:
Each of the three CSP tiers has a specified annual payment limit and
contract period. Tier I contracts are for 5 years and provide annual
payments of up to $20,000. Tier II contracts are for 5 to 10 years and
provide annual payments of up to $35,000. Tier III contracts are also
for 5 to 10 years, but can provide annual payments of up to $45,000.
These payments may be comprised of four components: (1) an annual
stewardship component for the base level of conservation treatment
required for program eligibility (a payment that is calculated
separately for each land use based on eligible acres, the stewardship
payment rate, and other factors), (2) an annual existing practice
component for the maintenance of existing conservation practices (these
are calculated as a flat rate of 25 percent of the stewardship
payment), (3) a one-time new practice component for additional approved
practices, and (4) an annual enhancement component for additional
activities that provide increased resource benefits beyond the base
level and conservation treatment that is required for program
eligibility.[Footnote 56] Currently under CSP, annual enhancement
payments may be made for five types of activities: (1) the improvement
of a significant resource concern to a condition that exceeds the
requirement for the participant's tier of participation and contract
requirements; (2) an improvement in a priority local resource
condition, as determined by NRCS, such as water quality or wildlife;
(3) participation in an on-farm conservation research, demonstration,
or pilot project; (4) cooperation with other producers to implement
watershed or regional resource conservation plans that involve at least
75 percent of the producers in the targeted area; and (5)
implementation of assessment and evaluation activities relating to
practices included in the conservation security plan, such as gathering
plant samples for specific analysis.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses:
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for CSP by the
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed.
* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in CSP
included: (1) financial, (2) recognition for good stewardship, and (3)
a personal interest in conservation.
* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in CSP
included: (1) burdensome paperwork requirements, (2) restrictive
eligibility and implementation requirements, (3) fears about government
regulations, and (4) limited funding for both programs and
participants.
* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for
CSP participation included: (1) greater education and outreach, (2)
increasing funding, and (3) streamlining processes.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Environmental Quality Incentives Program:
Introduction:
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is administered by
USDA's NRCS and provides technical and financial assistance to farmers
and ranchers to address soil, water, air, and related natural resources
concerns, and encourages enhancements on lands to be made in an
environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. NRCS provides
assistance to agricultural producers in a manner that promotes
agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals,
and assists participants in complying with federal and state
environmental laws. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996 first authorized EQIP, which has been reauthorized and amended
in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. EQIP generally
focuses on five national priorities: promoting at-risk species habitat
conservation; reducing non-point source pollution; conserving ground
and surface water resources; reducing air emissions, such as
particulate matter and nitrogen oxides; and reducing soil erosion and
sedimentation.
A locally-led process adapts the national priorities to address local
resource concerns and identifies which conservation practices will be
eligible for financial assistance in each state. NRCS state
conservationists can delegate the authority to administer parts of the
program to the local level--because of this, EQIP implementation can
differ between states and even between counties. Participants receive
cost-share and incentive payments under contracts that last for at
least one year after the practices have been implemented, and at most,
for 10 years.
In fiscal year 2005, NRCS obligated more than $794 million in financial
assistance to enter into more than 49,000 EQIP contracts. Despite the
sizeable allocation, an additional 33,000 applications went unfunded
that year. In fiscal year 2006, NRCS obligated an estimated $1 billion
for EQIP.
Eligibility:
EQIP is available in all 50 states.[Footnote 57] To be eligible,
applicants must be engaged in livestock or agricultural production.
State and local governments are not eligible for EQIP payments.
Applicants must be in compliance with the highly erodible land and
wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, which
aim to discourage farmers from producing crops on wetlands or highly
erodible land without erosion protection, and their average adjusted
gross income for the preceding three years must not exceed $2.5
million, in accordance with the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002.[Footnote 58] Lands that are eligible include those where
agricultural commodities or livestock are produced, including cropland;
rangeland; grassland; pasture land; private, non-industrial forestland;
and other land determined to pose a serious threat to soil, air, water,
or related resources. Lands that are already under a Conservation
Reserve Program contract are not eligible for EQIP.
Application Process:
Applicants may apply for EQIP through a continuous sign-up process by
submitting applications to local USDA offices. The NRCS state
conservationist or designee then works with the applicant to develop an
EQIP plan of operations. Applications are evaluated periodically.
Selection Process:
NRCS allocates funds from the national level to NRCS state offices
based on national priorities.[Footnote 59] NRCS's state and local
offices then identify their own priority resource concerns and
determine the funding allocation to be made from the state offices to
local offices in each state. State and local NRCS offices select
eligible conservation practices and create lists of their costs to
address priority resource concerns, and then develop a ranking process
to guide the selection and prioritization of applications. This locally-
led process is guided by advice from the NRCS state technical committee
and associated local working groups in each state. The NRCS state
conservationist, or designated local conservationist, ranks each
application using the locally-developed ranking process. When funds are
allocated, the state conservationist or designated conservationist
makes offers to those landowners whose applications ranked the highest.
Payments and Conditions:
NRCS offers cost-share and incentive payments to participants in EQIP.
Conservation practices that are eligible for cost-sharing are
determined by NRCS with advice from state technical committees and
local work groups, and may include installing filter strips, manure
management facilities, caps on abandoned wells, and other activities.
NRCS may provide up to 75 percent of the cost of implementing practices
to program participants, and up to 90 percent for limited-resource and
beginning farmers and ranchers. The specific cost-share rate for each
practice is determined by NRCS with advice from state technical
committees and local work groups. Incentive payments may be made to
encourage a participant to perform certain land management practices
that they might not otherwise implement, such as wildlife habitat or
irrigation water management. Incentive payment rates and amounts are
set by NRCS with advice from state technical committees and local work
groups and may be provided for up to three years.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses:
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for EQIP by the
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed.
* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in EQIP
included: (1) financial benefits; (2) program criteria that give
greater consideration to projects that directly address threatened,
endangered, and other at-risk species; (3) a landowner's personal
interest in conservation; and (4) receiving technical assistance.
* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in
EQIP included: (1) limited funding for both the program and
participants, (2) burdensome paperwork requirements, (3) fears about
government regulations, (4) restrictive eligibility and participation
requirements, and (5) that program implementation can hinder current or
future agricultural production.
* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for
EQIP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2) providing
greater education and outreach, (3) streamlining paperwork
requirements, and (4) increasing flexibility in program eligibility and
participation.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Grassland Reserve Program:
Introduction:
The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) helps landowners and operators
restore and protect grassland, including rangeland, pastureland, shrub
land, and certain other lands, while maintaining some grazing uses by
using a combination of easement, rental, and restoration agreements.
GRP emphasizes support for working grazing operations; enhancing plant
and animal biodiversity; and protecting grassland and land containing
shrubs and forbs under threat of conversion to cropping, urban
development, and other activities. GRP is administered by USDA's NRCS
and FSA, in cooperation with the USDA's Forest Service. GRP was first
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 for up
to $254 million through fiscal year 2007, and enrollment is capped at 2
million acres.
Eligibility:
To be eligible for easement agreements under GRP, landowners must show
clear title to the land, while both titled landowners and other
operators, such as those who rent land for agricultural production, are
eligible for rental and restoration agreements. However, other
operators must provide evidence that they will have control of the
property for the length of a contracted agreement and have landowner
concurrence. Individuals or entities that have an average adjusted
gross income exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax years immediately
preceding the year the contract is approved are not eligible to receive
program benefits or payments, except when 75 percent of the adjusted
gross income is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry operations.
To be eligible for a restoration agreement, NRCS, in consultation with
the program participant, must determine if the proposed land needs
restoration actions and meets program requirements.
GRP is available only for privately owned or tribal lands, and
participants generally must enroll at least 40 contiguous acres under
an agreement. The types of land that are eligible for enrollment
include grasslands; land that contains forbs (including improved
rangeland and pastureland or shrub land); or land that is located in an
area that historically has been dominated by grassland, forbs, or
shrubs that has the potential to serve as wildlife habitat of
significant ecological value.
Application Process:
Eligible landowners and operators may provide applications to either
NRCS or FSA on a continuous sign-up basis. GRP offers several
enrollment options: 30-year and permanent easements; 10, 15, 20, or 30-
year rental agreements; and cost-share restoration agreements, which
may be used in conjunction with an easement or rental agreement.
Selection Process:
Each state establishes ranking criteria to prioritize the enrollment of
working grasslands. The ranking criteria consider threats of
conversion, including cropping, invasive species, urban development,
and other activities that threaten plant and animal diversity on
grazing land.
Payments and Conditions:
Under GRP contracts, participants voluntarily limit future use of
enrolled land while retaining the right to conduct common grazing
practices. Participants can produce hay, mow, or harvest for seed
production (subject to certain restrictions during the nesting season
of bird species that are in significant decline or those that are
protected under federal or state law); conduct fire rehabilitation; and
construct firebreaks and fences. GRP contracts and easements prohibit
the production of crops (other than hay), fruit trees, and vineyards
that require breaking the soil surface and any other activity that
would disturb the surface of the land, except for appropriate land
management activities included in a conservation plan. There are
several types of payment arrangements under the program.
* Permanent Easement. This easement applies to the enrolled land in
perpetuity. Easement payments for this option equal the fair market
value, less the grassland value of the land encumbered by the easement.
These values are determined using an appraisal.
* Thirty-year Easement. USDA provides an easement payment equal to 30
percent of the fair market value of the land, less the grassland value
of the land encumbered by the easement.
* Rental Agreement. Participants may choose a 10, 15, 20, or 30-year
contract. USDA provides annual payments in an amount that is not more
than 75 percent of the grazing value of the land covered by the
agreement for the life of the agreement.
* Restoration agreement. Restoration agreements are only authorized to
be used under GRP in conjunction with easements and rental agreements
provided under the program. Participants are paid upon certification of
the completion of the approved practice. The combined total cost-share
provided by federal or state governments may not exceed 100 percent of
the total actual cost of the restoration project.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses:
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for GRP by the
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed.
* The most frequently cited incentives for participation in GRP
included: (1) financial; (2) program criteria that give greater
consideration to projects that directly address threatened and
endangered, and other at-risk species; and (3) a personal interest in
conservation.
* The most frequently cited disincentives for participation in GRP
included: (1) limited funding for both the program and participants,
(2) fears about government regulations, (3) restrictive eligibility and
participation requirements, and (4) burdensome paperwork requirements.
* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for
GRP participation included: (1) increasing funding and (2) providing
greater education and outreach.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Wetlands Reserve Program:
Introduction:
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is administered by USDA's NRCS and
authorizes the agency to provide technical and financial assistance to
eligible landowners to restore, enhance, and protect wetlands. WRP was
first authorized under the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990, and was later reauthorized and amended in the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The program has an acreage
enrollment limit rather than a funding limit. The 2002 act authorized
up to 2,275,000 acres to be covered under WRP and, as of September
2004, over 7,800 projects on nearly 1.5 million acres were enrolled in
the program. WRP is available in all 50 States and the District of
Columbia.[Footnote 60]
Eligibility:
To be eligible for WRP, land must be capable of restoring wetland
functioning and be able to provide wildlife benefits. Eligible types of
lands include farmed wetlands, riparian areas, lands adjacent to
protected wetlands that contribute significantly to wetland functions
and values, and previously restored wetlands that need long-term
protection. Lands that are expressly ineligible for funding under WRP
include lands converted to wetlands after December 23, 1985; lands with
timber stands established under a Conservation Reserve Program
contract; federal lands; and lands where conditions make restoration
impossible.
In general, to be eligible for funding under GRP, landowners must have
owned the land for at least 12 months prior to enrolling it in the
program (unless the land was inherited), exercised the landowner's
right of redemption after foreclosure, or, if the land was purchased
within 12 months of a WRP application, must have proven that the land
was not obtained for the purpose of enrolling it in the program.
Individuals or entities that have an average adjusted gross income
exceeding $2.5 million for the three tax years immediately preceding
the year a WRP contract is approved are not eligible to receive program
benefits or payments under the program unless at least 75 percent of
the adjusted gross income is derived from farming, ranching, or
forestry operations.
Application Process:
Landowners may file an application for a conservation easement or a
cost-share restoration agreement with USDA under WRP at any time.
Applications can be filed in person at a USDA office or electronically,
and applicants must have a copy of the easement deed and other forms
necessary for the transfer of land rights. USDA carries out activities
associated with recording the easement in the local land records
office, including recording fees, charges for abstracts, survey and
appraisal fees, and title insurance.
Selection Process:
NRCS evaluates each application and makes site visits to assess a
proposed project's technical and biological merits. The applications
are ranked according to criteria based on broad national guidelines.
NRCS state offices make decisions about which applications to accept.
NRCS state conservationists have the authority to accept projects
outside of this ranking process if they occur in "special project"
areas, such as specific geographic areas that the state conservationist
has identified. This enables NRCS to fund wetlands projects in areas
that have been determined important for wetland restoration activities,
regardless of individual application ranking scores.
Payment and Conditions:
Under WRP contracts, participants voluntarily limit future use of
enrolled land while retaining ownership. There are several types of
payment arrangements under the program.
Permanent Easement. This is a conservation easement in perpetuity.
Payments for permanent easements are done annually and are equal to
whichever is lower--the agricultural value of the land, an established
payment cap, or an amount offered by the landowner. In addition to
paying for the easement, USDA pays 100 percent of the costs of
restoring wetland functioning.
30-Year Easement. Easement payments through this option are up to 75
percent of what would be paid for a permanent easement, including up to
75 percent of restoration costs.
Restoration Cost-Share Agreement. Under this type of agreement,
landowners commit to restoring degraded or lost wetland habitat,
generally for a minimum of 10 years, without signing an easement
agreement. USDA pays up to 75 percent of the cost of the restoration
activity.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses:
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for WRP by the
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed.
* The most frequently cited incentives for participation in WRP
included: (1) financial; (2) a personal interest in conservation; and
(3) program criteria that give greater consideration to projects that
directly address threatened and endangered, and other at-risk species.
* The most frequently cited disincentives for participation in WRP
included: (1) burdensome paperwork requirements, (2) fears about
government regulations, (3) limited funding for both the program and
participants, (4) restrictive eligibility and implementation
requirements, (5) potential for participation in the program to hinder
current and/or future agricultural production, and (6) length of the
required contract.
* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for
WRP participation included: (1) increasing funding, (2) providing
greater education and outreach, and (3) increasing flexibility in
program eligibility and participation.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program:
Introduction:
The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 authorized
USDA's NRCS to work with landowners to develop wildlife habitat on
their property through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP).[Footnote 61] Through WHIP contracts, NRCS provides technical
advice and financial assistance--through cost sharing on conservation
projects--to landowners and others to develop upland, wetland,
riparian, and aquatic habitat areas on their property. Although the
primary purpose of WHIP is wildlife habitat development and
enhancement, practices installed as a result of WHIP funding are often
beneficial to farming and ranching such as actions to control invasive
species, stabilize streambanks, and re-establish native vegetation. In
fiscal year 2005, USDA provided more than $34.3 million in financial
assistance, and enrolled approximately 458,000 acres in over 3,300 WHIP
agreements. WHIP participants may also receive financial and other
assistance from other entities such as state and local government
agencies, conservation districts, and private organizations. In fiscal
year 2005, partners contributed almost $10 million to help WHIP
participants establish wildlife practices on enrolled lands.
Eligibility:
WHIP is available in all 50 states.[Footnote 62] To be eligible, an
entity must own or have control of the land that is to be enrolled in
the program for the duration of the contract. Lands may be privately
owned; federally owned, if the primary benefit of the proposed project
will be to private or tribal land; tribal land; or, in some cases,
state and locally owned land. Lands that are already enrolled in some
of the other USDA conservation programs are generally not eligible for
WHIP.
Application Process:
Applicants may apply for WHIP at any time, through a continuous sign-up
process.
Selection Process:
NRCS selects applications based on criteria that are developed pursuant
to each state's WHIP implementation plan, which identifies wildlife
habitat needs, and national priorities. NRCS state offices develop
these plans with assistance from their respective state technical
committees. Ranking criteria give priority to projects that will
protect habitat or species of national or regional significance, or
address needs in a state's WHIP plan. If land is determined to be
eligible, NRCS also places an emphasis on enrolling land in habitat
areas where wildlife species are experiencing declines or have
significantly reduced populations, and where state and local partners
and Indian Tribes have identified important wildlife and fishery needs.
NRCS also emphasizes projects that include practices that are
beneficial to fish and wildlife, but may not otherwise be funded.
Payments and Conditions:
NRCS provides cost-share payments to landowners that are generally
between 5 and 10 years in length depending on the practices
installed.[Footnote 63] NRCS provides these payments to landowners who
agree to adopt certain conservation practices, including land
management practices (e.g., timber stand improvement to improve forest
health); vegetation practices (e.g., planting native grasses to provide
wildlife habitat); and structural practices (e.g., fencing to keep
livestock out of streams). NRCS may provide up to 75 percent of the
cost of installing practices. NRCS will provide greater cost-share
payments for landowners that sign 15-year contracts and undertake
habitat development practices on essential plant and animal habitat.
Partners, including public agencies, nonprofit organizations and
others, may also assist through providing cost-share dollars, supplying
equipment, or installing practices for the participants.
Summary of Selected Survey Responses:
The following responses for incentives, disincentives, and suggestions
for addressing disincentives to participating in USDA conservation
programs for the benefit of threatened and endangered species and their
habitats are those that were most frequently identified for WHIP by the
officials and landowners we surveyed. These responses may differ
slightly than those identified in the body of this report because, in
the report, we only include the responses that were identified most
frequently across the majority of the six programs we reviewed.
* The most frequently identified incentives for participation in WHIP
included: (1) financial, (2) a personal interest in conservation, (3)
program criteria that give greater consideration to projects that
directly address threatened and endangered species and other at-risk
species, and (4) the ability to receive technical assistance.
* The most frequently identified disincentives for participation in
WHIP included: (1) limited funding for both the program and
participants, (2) fears about government regulations, (3) burdensome
paperwork requirements, and (4) restrictive eligibility and
implementation requirements.
* Suggestions most frequently identified to address disincentives for
WHIP participation included: (1) increasing funding and (2) providing
greater education and outreach.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Trish McClure, (202) 512-6318:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Ulana Bihun, John Delicath,
John Johnson, Richard Johnson, Jean McSween, Leslie Pollock, and Aaron
Shiffrin made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[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.
[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.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[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.
[10] Critical 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.
[11] GAO, 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.
[12] The 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.
[13] Additional information on these conservation programs is provided
in appendixes III through VIII of this report.
[14] As of August 2006, USDA had not developed national priorities for
the other four programs.
[15] Some 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.
[16] For beginning farmers and ranchers and limited resource producers,
USDA's cost-share percentage may be up to 90 percent.
[17] An 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.
[18] For 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.
[19] According 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.
[20] Survey 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.
[21] This disincentive was reported by all types of respondents--
officials from NRCS, FSA, and soil and water conservation districts,
and landowners.
[22] Plants occurring on nonfederal lands, however, are not protected
under the Endangered Species Act, unless they are protected under state
law.
[23] Permits may be needed, for example, to meet local zoning
regulations or Clean Water Act requirements.
[24] As 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.
[25] The 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.
[26] According 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.
[27] Survey respondents identified a total of 21 suggestions to address
disincentives to participating in these programs.
[28] According to USDA officials, NRCS will implement a single
application form in fiscal year 2007 for several programs, including
CSP, EQIP, and WHIP.
[29] FWS and USDA officials noted in commenting on a draft of this
report that CRP contracts can allow for management actions in some
cases.
[30] While 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.
[31] Regulations 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.
[32] In 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.
[33] A recharge area is an area of land that allows rainwater to soak
into the earth's surface to replenish groundwater resources.
[34] NRCS 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.
[35] According 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.
[36] AFWA represents state fish and wildlife agencies' interests in
fish and wildlife management for the 56 states and territories in the
United States.
[37] GAO-06-15.
[38] 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.
[39] The respondents we identify as "landowners" also included people
who rent or lease land for agricultural or livestock production.
[40] 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.
[41] Pub. L. No. 99-198 § 1231, 99 Stat. 1509. CRP also operates in
Puerto Rico.
[42] 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.
[43] 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.
[44] 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.
[45] The most recent sign-up, sign-up 33, took place between March 27th
and April 14th, 2006.
[46] The enduring environmental benefits factor is an evaluation of the
likelihood for certain conservation practices to remain in place beyond
the CRP contract period.
[47] 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.
[48] 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.
[49] 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.
[50] CSP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas.
[51] 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.
[52] 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.
[53] 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.
[54] 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.
[55] 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.
[56] 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.
[57] EQIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas.
[58] 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.
[59] 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.
[60] WRP is also available in 6 trust territories.
[61] WHIP was reauthorized in 2002 by the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
[62] WHIP is also available in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin Areas.
[63] 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.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
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:
Public Affairs:
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:
