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. 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. Cost-share payments. 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. 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. Suggestions for Addressing Disincentives to Participating in Programs to Benefit Threatened and Endangered Species

Survey respondents most frequently suggested increasing funding,  improving education and outreach to landowners, streamlining paperwork  requirements, and allowing greater flexibility in program participation and  eligibility requirements to address disincentives and encourage greater  participation in the six USDA conservation programs we reviewed for the  benefit of threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Respondents indicated that improving education and conducting more  outreach to landowners could address a number of different disincentives. 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. However, agency  officials acknowledged that the quality of working relationships and the  frequency of coordination between USDA and FWS staff varies by  location. 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. Still, some agency  officials we interviewed noted that despite past problems between USDA  and FWS, coordination is improving. 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. 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. 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. We also conducted  telephone surveys with USDA and soil and water conservation district  officials, and private landowners. NRCS also emphasizes projects that include practices that  are beneficial to fish and wildlife, but may not otherwise be funded.
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.