Hidden Treasures - IATP · HIDDEN TREASURES 5 hen Congress enacted the Conservation Security Program as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, it culminated over two decades of discussions on

The Conservation Security Program and Wildlife

FUNDED BY

Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

National Wildlife Federation

Izaak Walton League of America

HiddenTreasures


Copyright © National Wildlife Federation, January 2007

This report was funded by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, National Wildlife Federation,

and Izaak Walton League of America, to gain information about the relative benefits of the

Conservation Security Program for fish and wildlife.

Our thanks to the United States Department of Agriculture for providing the state-specific

information used in our case studies, and to the many USDA field offices, state and federal

wildlife and natural resource agencies, and non-profit organizations who provided information,

assistance and advice in producing this report.

Special thanks to Tim McCoy, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission, and George Cunningham,

a fisheries biologist in Omaha, for their help in sorting out USDA enhancement practices and

their wildlife value.

The principle author, Duane Hovorka, is a public policy consultant who has experience in the

analysis of state and federal policies impacting agriculture and wildlife. Errors and omissions

are, of course, to be blamed on the author alone.

This report is printed on 100% post-consumer, processed chlorine free paper.


PART 1, OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Introduction: The Conservation Security Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Wildlife Benefits of Conservation Security

Program Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

PART 2, CASE STUDIES

California’s Feather River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Chesapeake Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Georgia’s Little Ocmulgee Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Minnesota’s Red Lakes Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Missouri’s Spring River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Nebraska’s Little Blue Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

North Texas Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Contents

Executive Summary

H I D D E N T R E A S U R E S 3

ongress enacted the Conservation Security Program (CSP) in the2002 Farm Bill to reward farmers and ranchers for natural resourceand environmental benefits provided to society, including the restora-

tion and maintenance of wildlife habitat. This report focuses on the relative ben-efits of the CSP for fish and wildlife in light of its subsequent funding byCongress and implementation by USDA’s Natural Resources ConservationService. The report provides a brief overview of the Conservation SecurityProgram’s structure and payments, and then examines the role of conservationmeasures funded by the program in meeting the needs of wildlife.

The report includes case studies of potential wildlife benefits provided bythe Conservation Security Program in six states and the Chesapeake Bay regionand a cursory review of wildlife benefits which may result from the 2006 CSPsign-up in other states.

According to the USDA data, 81 percent of CSP payments in 2005 were inthe form of “enhancement” payments, and on a national basis 7 percent ofenhancement payments in 2004 and 8 percent of enhancement payments in 2005were for USDA-designated Habitat Management practices. However, manyconservation practices address more than one resource concern. Based on ouranalysis of the data provided by USDA, it appears that roughly one-half ofConservation Security Program payments resulting from 2006 contracts will provideeither wildlife habitat benefits, or pesticide reduction practices that benefit somewildlife.

In some of the case studies, the percentage was much higher. In Missouriand Minnesota, for instance, 88 and 85 percent of CSP payments from 2006 contracts are for practices that either provide wildlife habitat benefits, or reducepesticide use in ways that benefit wildlife. On the other hand, some states scoredfar lower on wildlife benefits. For example, in Nebraska, 26 percent of pay-ments resulting from 2006 CSP contracts are for practices that provide wildlifehabitat, or reduce pesticide use in ways that should benefit some wildlife. Inother states not among our case studies, the percentage appeared to be lower still.

C

PART 1

4 N AT I O N A L W I L D L I F E F E D E R AT I O N / S U S TA I N A B L E A G R I C U LT U R E C O A L I T I O N / I Z A A K W A LT O N L E A G U E

The findings of the report include:

1) The Conservation Security Program pays for practices that provide substantial wildlife benefits;

2) Conservation Security Program wildlife benefits vary considerably fromstate to state; and

3) The Conservation Security Program could provide even greater wildlifebenefits.

The report recommends the following improvements to theConservation Security Program:

• Congress should substantially increase CSP funding so that farmers andranchers on a nationwide basis have timely enrollment opportunities;

• Congress should direct USDA to provide cost-share for new practices underthe CSP and to do so at the same rate as provided by other USDA programs;

• All CSP Tier II and Tier III contracts should address wildlife habitat as aresource of concern, and the emphasis on wildlife should be increased inTier I contracts;

• USDA should expand the number and variety of wildlife conservation prac-tices available in each watershed, and should continue to define newwildlife-related practices including practices that address high priority fishand wildlife species;

• USDA should provide for the involvement of wildlife agencies and organi-zations with landowners contemplating CSP enrollment early in the CSPapplication process;

• USDA should undertake ongoing review of CSP enhancement paymentrates to ensure both that farmers and ranchers are adequately rewarded for

their wildlife conservation efforts, and thattaxpayers are being asked to provide only faircompensation, not excessive payments; • USDA should ensure that all NRCS StateConservationists establish CSP standards andresource criteria for wildlife that provide aconsistently high level of wildlife benefits;and • USDA, working with organization andstate agency partners, should establish a sci-entifically valid and robust monitoring andevaluation initiative to measure actual out-comes of the conservation practices it funds.


hen Congress enacted theConservation SecurityProgram as part of the

2002 Farm Bill, it culminated over twodecades of discussions on the need tocreate a program that rewards farmersfor the natural resource and environ-mental benefits they can provide tosociety, including wildlife habitat. Itwas also designed to address a desireexpressed by farmers to have a single,comprehensive conservation plan fortheir farm.

As enacted, the ConservationSecurity Program was to be availablenationwide, open to every farmer andrancher in America willing to meetexceptional natural resource and environmental quality standards. Theprogram was to be made availablewithout a bidding or ranking processlike that used in many other USDAconservation programs. Instead, theprogram would enroll any farm opera-tor willing to implement and maintainconservation systems that achieve orsurpass the highest standards devel-oped by the Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) for eachresource concern. The program wasdesigned to be open to farmers andranchers, without regard to the partic-ular crops or livestock they produce.

Three tiers of payments providerewards that increase as participantsagree to provide higher levels of con-servation benefits. The first tier allowsfor partial farm enrollments, while tier

Introduction

The Conservation Security Program

two and three require the whole farmto be enrolled. The number ofresource concerns that must beaddressed to reach the sustainable or“non-degradation” level increases ateach tier.

Participants at the Tier III level(the highest level of contract pay-ments) must put in place plans toaddress every natural resource concernon their entire farm or ranch. Wildlifehabitat, nutrient management, pestmanagement, soil conservation, waterquality, air quality, grazing manage-ment, energy conservation and othernatural resource concerns all need tobe addressed to the highest NRCSstandard, on an entire farm or ranch,to earn a Tier III contract.

As passed, the ConservationSecurity Program (CSP) was projectedto become the second largest conserva-tion program at the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA),

behind the Conservation ReserveProgram ($2 billion per year), withmore than $1 billion per year in fund-ing. (The Environmental QualityIncentives Program (EQIP) also hasan annual funding level of more than$1 billion per year, but EQIP fundingcovers the full length of EQIP con-tracts signed in a given year, whereasCRP and CSP annual fundingamounts cover the contract paymentsfor a given year, not for the entirelength of the contract.)

Unfortunately, since passage ofthe 2002 Farm Bill, Congress hasenacted annual CSP funding capsthrough riders on the annual agricul-ture appropriations bill. In Fiscal Year2006, for instance, Congress limitedConservation Security Program fund-ing to $259 million, much less than theConservation Reserve Program ($2billion) or the Environmental QualityIncentives Program ($1 billion), and

W


slightly more than the WetlandsReserve Program ($246 million). Inaddition, Congress placed long termcaps on CSP funding, first as a budg-etary offset to emergency farm disasteraid, and then as part of budget recon-ciliation legislation. Combined withthe annual caps, Congress has reducedfunding for the CSP by $4.3 billioncompared to the funding originallymade available by the 2002 Farm Bill.

USDA has also been slow toimplement the program. The 2002Farm Bill funded ConservationSecurity Program (CSP) signups in2003, but the USDA’s first CSP signupwas not held until July, 2004. AsUSDA’s rule-making process draggedon and the Administration failed tospend CSP funding, Congress pro-ceeded to restrict funding for the pro-gram. With restricted funding, USDAopted to limit CSP enrollment to spec-ified watersheds. USDA offeredConservation Security Programsignups in 18 pilot watersheds in 2004,220 watersheds in 2005, and 60 water-sheds in 2006. Increasingly, USDAhas turned down eligible applicants tokeep program costs down.

Nonetheless, through the firstthree years of the program, USDA hasawarded almost 19,400 CSP contractson nearly 16 million acres of land in280 selected watersheds, or about 12percent of total US watersheds.

CONTRACT FLEXIBILITYThe Conservation Security Program isdesigned to allow contract holders toincrease their payments during theterm of their contract by putting inplace additional measures that benefitnatural resources. For instance, partic-ipants in Tier I can enroll additionalland in the program, add new conser-vation activities, increase the numberof resource concerns being addressed,or move from Tier I to II to III dur-ing the term of their contract. In June,2006, the USDA announced that par-ticipants who signed CSP contracts in2004 had offered to amend their con-tracts, by adding more enhancementpractices and bringing additional acresof land under the program. In return,USDA will add $12.7 million in pay-ments to their contracts, an increase ofnearly 50 percent. HabitatManagement enhancement paymentsincreased, from just under $1 millionin 2004 to $2.6 million in 2006, as aresult of the contract modifications.

The ability to modify contracts isparticularly important in light of thefact that USDA has not allowed cost-share payments to install new conser-vation when they first sign up for acontract, as provided for in the FarmBill. USDA has instead deferred sup-port for new practices to the contractmodification process. Some of the

most popular contract modificationshave been in habitat managementpractices. However, in July, 2006,USDA announced that upgrades forcontracts signed in 2005 would berestricted. These restrictions onupgrades could reduce the futurepotential to obtain similar increaseswildlife benefits on farms and ranchesalready in the program. Those con-tract modifications will not beannounced until later in 2007.

VIEW FROM THE FARMWhere the USDA has offered CSPsignups, the response has generallybeen strong. For example, in 2005, ofthe 2,724 farms located in the twowatersheds in Maryland (the Chester-Sassafras and Monocacy) eligible forConservation Program enrollment,1,002 farmers sought information onthe program, 700 attended workshops,398 actually applied, and 377 wereenrolled in the program. That repre-sents a very high response for a newconservation program, especially sincea substantial number of those notapplying or enrolling likely realizedtheir existing conservation efforts werenot strong enough to meet the CSPstandards and therefore did not try to

CSP Signup WatershedsEligible

2004 18 27,300 2,188 2,188 100%

2005 220 235,000 14,516 12,700 87%

2006 60 75,000 8,570 4,404 51%

Farmers inWatershed

EligibleApplications

ContractsApproved

PercentageApproved


enroll. An important long-term ques-tion for the program is whether a significant number of those farmersmight increase their conservationeffort in order to qualify the next timethe program is available to them.

In 2005, the USDA surveyedfarmers who had obtainedConservation Security Program con-tracts in the first (2004) signup.1 TheConservation Security Program scoredan 83 (out of 100) on how willing par-ticipants were to say positive things aboutthe program, which the survey report said “is a relatively high score for a newprogram.”

On a question of how likely it isthat the Conservation SecurityProgram will influence farmers andranchers to modify their agriculturaloperations in the future, the CSPscored a 77, and the report noted “this score should increase with thematurity of the program.”

The survey did note “the onlyarea of concern among the attributesmeasured relates to the staff’s knowl-edge about the CSP. NRCS may wishto provide additional training for theprogram to state and local staff sinceparticipants rely on local resources forthe majority of their information.”

CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM PAYMENT STRUCTURE

The Conservation Security Program as enacted provides for

four types of payments to participants. Base payments were

intended to give farmers incentives to sign up for the program.

Maintenance payments were designed to cost-share the annual

management and maintenance cost of maintaining beneficial

practices (e.g., implementing integrated pest management or

maintaining fences once installed). New practice cost-share

payments were intended to provide incentives for farmers to

adopt new practices, by paying for a portion of the

installation/adoption cost. Enhancement payments were

intended to reward innovative practices, like resource-

conserving crop rotations, managed grazing, and conservation

buffers.

In implementing the program, the USDA took a very different

approach than was envisioned in the legislation. Base payments

were set at a small fraction of the per-acre rates provided for in

the legislation. Instead of setting maintenance payments based

on a farmer’s cost of maintaining a specific practice, USDA used

25 percent of the base payment as a proxy for maintenance

rates rather than tying them to specific practices.

Cost-share payments for new practices were eventually set at

50 percent, a lower rate than for many of the same practices

in other USDA programs. Moreover, USDA officials said they

expected other USDA programs to provide cost-share for

farmers and ranchers to establish new practices and therefore

have not actively implemented even the reduced 50 percent

cost-share.

The USDA focused the bulk of Conservation Security

Program payments on enhancement payments. Using practices

from the USDA field office technical guide, and some new con-

servation practices and activities identified by NRCS State

Conservationists and State Technical Committees, USDA estab-

lished enhancement payment rates. In 2005, 81 percent of all

Conservation Security Program payments were for enhancement

payments.


lthough a landowner mustmeet resource concern quality standards and

conservation practice standards to geta Conservation Security Program contract, which for some Tier I, mostTier II, and all Tier III participantsincludes wildlife habitat, neither basepayments nor maintenance paymentsare based on specific practices thatcould be identified as either benefitingwildlife or not. This report thereforefocuses on an analysis of the wildlife-related benefits provided byConservation Security Programenhancement payments, in an attemptto assess the impact of the program asimplemented by USDA on fish andwildlife. Enhancement payments rep-resented 81% of Conservation SecurityProgram payments in 2005, and virtu-ally all the payments tied to particularconservation practices.

The USDA identified nearly 1,900enhancement practices forConservation Security Program pur-poses that were used in the 2006signup, including state-specific prac-tices. Those were divided into 11 cate-gories: Habitat Management, GrazingManagement, Pest Management,Nutrient Management, AirManagement, Drainage Management,Energy Management, PlantManagement, Salinity Management,Soil Management, and WaterManagement.

Wildlife Benefits of ConservationSecurity Program Contracts

Habitat Management practiceswere designed specifically to benefitwildlife. They include practices thatprovide habitat components, such asconverting introduced plant species tonative species to benefit wildlife, orproviding nest boxes or bat houses.They also include practices that directly benefit wildlife, like using fishscreens when withdrawing irrigationwater from streams, or using flusherbars when mowing to protect grass-land birds.

Habitat Management enhance-ment payments represented about 7% percent of all enhancement pay-ments in the USDA’s first (2004)signup, and 8% in 2005.2 However,using that percentage alone wouldsubstantially understate the level andkind of wildlife-related benefits pro-vided by the Conservation SecurityProgram.

Grazing Management practicescan provide wildlife benefits. Researchhas shown higher numbers and diversity of grassland birds on landsmanaged using a rotational grazingstrategy, where livestock are movedfrom paddock to paddock, versuswhole-field grazing. Stream and pondhabitat can be protected by restrictinglivestock access; brush managementcan improve habitat for grasslandbirds like prairie chickens; and restor-ing native plant species on nativeprairies can benefit bird and butterflyspecies.

A


Nutrient Management practicescan provide benefits to wildlife.Where vegetative buffer strips areinstalled between crop fields andstreams to protect streams from nutrient runoff, those buffers can alsoprovide cover for birds, and habitat forbutterflies and deer. Reducing the useof phosphorus can benefit stream habi-tat, because phosphorus tends to bindwith soil particles and get washed intostreams when it rains. Although nitro-gen runoff can be a problem in someplaces, in many cases nitrogen notused by crops either goes up into theair, or down into the groundwater. Tobe conservative, we did not count mostnitrogen reduction strategies as pro-viding wildlife habitat benefits in ouranalyses.

Some pest management practices,like using vegetative buffer stripsbetween crop fields and streams, canalso provide refuge areas for wildlife.We counted those practices as provid-ing wildlife habitat benefits.

Pest Management practices thatreduce (or eliminate) the use of pesti-cides can also provide benefits for fishand wildlife, by reducing harm tonon-target species. Commonly usedpesticides like atrazine have beenshown to harm aquatic species.Research has shown that organic cornproduction results in higher numbersand higher diversity of bird speciesthan conventional corn production.

Extensive use of pesticides can sub-stantially reduce insect populationsthat serve as a food base for pheasantsand other birds. Research has docu-mented the importance of insect availability for pheasant survival.3

In this report, we counted prac-tices like buffer strips that providehabitat areas as providing wildlifehabitat benefits. We provided separateinformation on practices that should

KEY CSP PRACTICES THAT BENEFIT WILDLIFE

Rotational Grazing

Remove Invasive Plants

Prescribed Burning

Wildlife Habitat Index

Quail Habitat Index

Buffer Strips Along Streams Border Strips and Filter Strips

Leave Crops Un-harvested

Leave Forage Un-harvested Plant Food Plots

Barrier-Free Antelope Habitat

No Haying in Nesting Season

Use Flush Bars When Haying

Avoid Bush-Hogging Residue

Plant Winter Cover Crops

Non-Chemical Pest Methods

Integrated Pest Management

Conservation Crop Rotations

Spot Spraying (v. Whole-field)

Manage Open Water for Birds

Limit Livestock Access to Streams and Wetlands

1 0 N AT I O N A L W I L D L I F E F E D E R AT I O N / S U S TA I N A B L E A G R I C U LT U R E C O A L I T I O N / I Z A A K W A LT O N L E A G U E

benefit some wildlife species by reduc-ing pesticide use (e.g., using organicmethods, or spot-spraying instead ofwhole-field spraying). We did notcount practices that do not appear tohave a substantial positive impact onwildlife, like precision agriculturemethods or planting insect-resistantvarieties.

Other categories of ConservationSecurity Program enhancementsappear to provide few or no substan-tial wildlife benefits. For example, AirManagement practices that reducedust or odors from concentrated live-stock facilities would appear to havelittle direct benefit for wildlife.Practices that reduce energy use maycontribute in some small way toreduced global warming, but wouldappear to have little direct impact onlocal wildlife. We generally did notcount no-till or reduced-till methodsas having direct wildlife benefits,although with some crops they canleave some additional winter cover forwildlife. A few grazing managementpractices, like over-seeding (non-native) cool-season grasses into a(native) warm-season pasture couldactually work against some nativegrassland species.

Overall, nearly all of the HabitatManagement enhancement practicesappear to have direct benefits forwildlife. About two-thirds of theNutrient Management practices, andhalf of the Grazing Managementpractices, appear to provide wildlifehabitat benefits. Some PestManagement practices providewildlife habitat benefits (e.g., bufferstrips), and about two-thirds of thePest Management practices appear toprovide reductions in pesticide use

that should benefit at least somewildlife species.

In general, it appears that few ofthe Air Management, PlantManagement, or Soil Managementenhancement practices provide directwildlife benefits. None of theDrainage Management, EnergyManagement, Salinity Management,or Water Management practicesappear to provide direct wildlife benefits.

TIER III CONTRACT REQUIREMENTSTo be eligible for a Tier IIIConservation Security Program con-tract, an applicant must show theyhave addressed all the relevant naturalresource concerns on their farm orranch, including wildlife. In a 2006report, the United States GovernmentAccountability Office said the wildlifehabitat criteria, used by NaturalResource Conservation Service stateoffices to decide which farmers are eligible for Tier III contracts, were notconsistent.4 The report said:

“For the fiscal year 2004 CSP sign-up,according to NRCS, state offices devel-oped wildlife habitat assessment criteriathat were extremely variable, contribut-ing significantly to differences in Tier IIIparticipation and payments among thevarious watersheds. For example, amongthe nine watersheds where cropland wasthe predominant type of land enrolled,the percentage of payments going to TierIII contracts ranged from 0 to 75 percent.In response, NRCS developed nationalguidance that its state offices were to follow in creating wildlife habitat assess-ment criteria. However, we found—andNRCS officials agreed--that some state

offices developed and applied criteria forthe fiscal year 2005 sign-up that wereinconsistent with the national guidance.For example, the criteria used in water-sheds under these states’ jurisdiction didnot require that a minimum percentage(as determined by the relevant stateoffice) of a producer's operation be non-crop vegetative cover, such as grassy orriparian areas managed for wildlife, asspecified in the national guidance. Thus,producers in these watersheds were eligi-ble for Tier III payments even thoughthey may not have satisfied criteria forone of the resource components that thenational guidance specifies is necessaryfor eligibility.…Finally, the use of crite-ria that are inconsistent with the nationalguidance not only weakens CSP costcontrol measures by making more TierIII payments possible, it also reducesNRCS's ability to ensure that CSP isachieving its intended wildlife habitatbenefits.”

In our discussions with statewildlife officials, they echoed this con-cern that applicants in some states in2004 were awarded Tier III contractswith only minimal effort to addresswildlife concerns. An internal USDAteam reviewed the GAO report andthe eligibility criteria being used byNRCS state offices, and in October,2006, issued guidance designed toensure that the wildlife eligibility criteria used at the state level meetsminimum national standards. Itappears improvements have beenmade in this area, but given the initial inconsistencies, it deservesannual evaluation and continuingimprovement.

H I D D E N T R E A S U R E S 1 1

QUANTIFYING WILDLIFEBENEFITSUsing information provided by theUSDA on the 2006 ConservationSecurity Program signup, we haveattempted to quantify the wildlifebenefits provided by the program. TheCase Study states were selected toobtain a diverse mix of watersheds.They represent different regions of theUnited States, areas with very differ-ent agricultural systems, and signupsthat were both relatively large andsmall in terms of dollars and contracts.

The Conservation SecurityProgram is a new program, so we arenot able to assess the actual impact ofimplemented contracts on habitat orwildlife. Of course, without carefulmonitoring and evaluation, we cannotmeasure the impact of theConservation Security Program or anyother program on wildlife, water qual-ity, or other resources. What we assessin this report is how ConservationSecurity Program funds will be spentbased on approved contracts, and whatreasonable expectations there can befor wildlife-related benefits resultingfrom those contracts.

In this report, we provide infor-mation on the total contract paymentsthat were made based on enhance-ments that appear to provide wildlifeor wildlife habitat benefits. We alsoprovide information on the paymentsmade for strategies that provide for areduction in pesticide use. The CaseStudies should provide readers with an idea of the kinds of wildlife-relatedenhancement practices fundedthrough the program. Where we hadaccess to local payment rates, we

also provided estimates of the acresimpacted by each practice, to provide asense of the reach of the programwithin the watershed.

We caution the reader thatConservation Security Program con-tracts are fluid over time. As notedabove, in June, 2006, the USDAannounced that participants whosigned CSP contracts in 2004 hadoffered to amend their contracts,adding more enhancement practicesand bringing additional acres of landunder the program. In return, USDAwould add $12.7 million in paymentsto their contracts. HabitatManagement enhancement paymentsincreased, from just under $1 millionin 2004 to $2.6 million in 2006, as aresult of the contract modifications.Therefore, it reasonable to expectwildlife benefits from each annualsignup to improve over time.

Some organizations have ques-tioned whether the ConservationSecurity Program produces substantialnet benefits for wildlife, because theprogram rewards some farmers whohave already adopted high levels ofresource conservation. Farmers andranchers who previously adoptedwildlife-friendly practices at their ownexpense might argue that it is unfair todeny them incentive payments thatothers will receive — accompanied bycost-share payments in many cases —for adopting those same practicestoday.

In implementing the ConservationSecurity Program, USDA largelyignored its authority to provide cost-share to encourage the installation ofnew practices, like planting bufferstrips or restoring wetlands. WereUSDA to use cost-share for new prac-tices more extensively, it would be fareasier to determine what new practicesare resulting from the program.

Some of the enhancement prac-tices funded through the ConservationSecurity Program do require theinstallation of new practices (for exam-ple, expanding the width of a riparianforest buffer, creating shallow wetareas for wildlife, fencing out livestockto protect streams, or converting areaswith introduced plants to nativespecies to benefit wildlife). CSPenhancement payments can also bemade for taking actions that foregoprofits and benefit wildlife, such asleaving un-harvested crops in the fieldto provide food and winter cover forwildlife (crops that would otherwisebe harvested).

In general, in our discussions withfarmers and USDA employees, theytold us that almost every person whogets a Conservation Security Programcontract will install some new suite ofpractices, or change some existingpractice, as a result of the contract.Clearly, the program is paying formore than just maintaining existingwildlife benefits.


FINDING 1: THE CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM PROVIDES SUBSTANTIALWILDLIFE BENEFITS

Based on our evaluation of the infor-mation provided by the USDA for the2006 signup, more than half of thepayments made under theConservation Security Program arefor practices that either provide habi-tat benefits for wildlife, or reduce pes-ticide use in ways that benefit wildlife.

It is also clear that HabitatManagement enhancements representonly a small share of the wildlife-relat-ed benefits that result from the pro-gram. Wildlife habitat benefits wereprovided through Habitat

Findings

Management, Grazing Management,and to a lesser extent NutrientManagement and Pest Managementenhancements.

The largest enhancement categoryin terms of dollars is PestManagement. Most of those fundswere for practices that reduce or |eliminate pesticide use in ways thatbenefit some fish or wildlife.

Our seven case studies represent a projected $102 million inConservation Security Program payments over the next 10 years, rep-resenting about 24 percent of the totalprojected payout in all states for CSPcontracts signed in 2006.

For every dollar USDA willspend on Conservation SecurityProgram contracts in our case studywatersheds, about 16 cents will pay forWildlife Management enhancements,and another 19 cents will pay forenhancements that provide otherwildlife habitat benefits (throughGrazing Management, NutrientManagement, or Pest Managementenhancements). Another 17 cents willpay for practices that will reduce pesti-cide use and benefit some fish andwildlife. 27 cents will pay for practicesthat address other resources (e.g., soilconservation), and 21 cents will go forbase payments and maintenance pay-ments. In other words, 35 percent oftotal payments provided wildlife habi-tat benefits, and including pesticide


reduction activities that should benefitsome wildlife, 52 percent of CSP pay-ments should benefit wildlife.

Based on our analysis and theUSDA’s publicly released nationwidedata, we believe that roughly one-halfof Conservation Security Programpayments provide either wildlife habi-tat benefits, or pesticide reductionpractices that benefit some wildlife.However, given the higher ratio ofpest management payments in allstates, compared to our case studywatersheds, we believe that nation-wide numbers would show relativelymore pesticide reduction, and relative-ly less wildlife habitat benefits, thanare indicated by totaling the data fromour case study watersheds, shownabove.

FINDING 2: WILDLIFE BENEFITS VARYCONSIDERABLY FROM STATETO STATEBased on our case studies, and on acursory review of the results of the2006 signup in other states, the per-centage of Conservation SecurityProgram spending that appears toprovide wildlife habitat and pesticidereduction benefits varies considerablyfrom state to state. At the top of ourcase study list is the 2006 MissouriConservation Security Programsignup in the Spring River watershed,where 73 percent of the totalConservation Security Programspending (through 2015) is for prac-tices that we believe have directwildlife habitat benefits, and another15 percent is for practices that benefitwildlife by reducing pesticide use.

At the bottom of our case studylist is Nebraska, where payments for

practices that provide wildlife habitatbenefits represent just 17 percent oftotal Conservation Security Programpayments, and payments for enhance-ment practices that reduce or elimi-nate pesticide use and thus benefitsome wildlife species totals 9 percentof payments. Several other states thatwere not chosen for case studiesappeared to have even lower percent-ages. However, without a closer exam-ination, we cannot determine whethersome of the Conservation SecurityProgram contracts in those statesmight have provided local fish orwildlife benefits that were not cap-tured in our categorization, or whatother types of natural resources werebeing addressed by the program.

The differences probably reflect,in part, the relative priority given ineach state NRCS office to wildlifehabitat and wildlife-related practicesversus other resource concerns. It

Case Study Wildlife Habitat Pesticide Reduction Total

Missouri 73 % 15 % 88 %

California 38 % 49 % 87 %

Minnesota 57 % 28 % 85 %

Texas 67 % 13 % 80 %

Georgia 16 % 42 % 58 %

Chesapeake Bay 32 % 15 % 47 %

Nebraska 17 % 9 % 26 %


appears other factors were also atwork. In Missouri, for example, therehas been a strong working relationshipbetween local USDA offices andMissouri Department of Conservationoffices, and the program was promot-ed locally as one that could helplandowners boost wildlife numbers. Inwatersheds with substantial grazingland, wildlife habitat can be improvedon those lands without a large changein land use. In watersheds dominatedby cropland, it is more difficult toimprove wildlife habitat withoutchanging land use.

Clearly, watersheds like those westudied in Missouri, Minnesota andTexas provide models for ways theConservation Security Program can beimplemented to provide substantialbenefits for wildlife habitat.

FINDING 3:THE CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM COULDBE EVEN BETTER FORWILDLIFEOur review of the information provid-ed, and our discussions with wildlifemanagers, farmers, and others con-vince us that while the ConservationSecurity Program currently benefitswildlife, the program could beimproved to provide much greaterbenefits. Full funding and nation-wideimplementation of the programwould, of course, provide wildlife ben-efits in areas not previously eligible forthe program. At the 2006 fundinglevel of 60 watersheds per year, it willtake USDA at least 25 years to reachevery watershed in America with justone chance to enroll in the program.

Even within the current programstructure, changes in the way the

USDA carries out the program couldincrease the value of wildlife benefitsprovided. One major barrier is a gen-eral lack of knowledge about wildlifehabitat practices among farmers,ranchers, and USDA field office per-sonnel. Although of necessity veryknowledgeable about cropping prac-tices and livestock management, mosthave never had a need for extensivetraining or education in wildlife man-agement. USDA could address thisbarrier and boost wildlife benefits sub-stantially by involving wildlife profes-sionals early in the process.

A second barrier is the shortage oflocally appropriate wildlife manage-ment practices offered by USDA tofarmers and ranchers under theConservation Security Program.USDA Field Office Technical Guideswere developed to provide best man-agement practices with respect tofarming and ranching. USDA offi-cials, along with federal and statewildlife agencies and other partners,have been working to developwildlife-related practices and tech-niques (like wildlife habitat indices)that could be used for theConservation Security Program andother USDA programs. However,much work remains to be done to pro-vide wildlife management practicesappropriate for specific localities,wildlife species, and habitat types --especially where those practices couldprovide benefits for rare and protectedspecies.

Those practices need to fit thecontext of the quality criteria devel-oped for wildlife for each state.USDA’s standards for Conservation

Security Program contracts are basedon reaching resource conservationstandards for each resource, includingwildlife. USDA needs to improvethose quality criteria for wildlife insome states.

USDA has made the situationworse by limiting farmers to a veryshort list of enhancement practices ineach watershed, and by refusing toprovide cost-share for new practices.USDA could boost wildlife benefits byproviding farmers and ranchers with awider variety of options for addressingthe needs of wildlife in their area.

Convincing farmers and ranchersto adopt new practices will be mucheasier if USDA offers cost-share forthe adoption of new practices, as wasprovided for in the legislation.

USDA requires applicants toaddress soil conservation and waterquality concerns to be eligible for aTier I contract. USDA requires appli-cants to address one additionalresource of concern to obtain a Tier IIcontract, but does not require that anapplicant address wildlife as a concernunless he or she is seeking a Tier IIIcontract. Although most applicantsalready select wildlife as a resource toaddress at Tier II, requiring thatwildlife be addressed in all Tier IIcontracts would boost overall wildlifebenefits.

Finally, as the GovernmentAccountability Office report noted,state-to-state differences in the mini-mum efforts needed to meet habitatmanagement standards for gettingTier III contracts may be underminingthe goal of obtaining wildlife benefitsthrough the program.


1. CONGRESS SHOULD BOOST FUNDING FOR THECONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAMBased on our research, theConservation Security Program pro-vides substantial benefits for wildlife,and it addresses other important conservation priorities. By limitingfunding for new signups under theprogram, Congress has restricted theability of USDA to deliver wildlifeand other benefits.

USDA’s plan to rotate the eligibil-ity for Conservation Security Programcontracts to about one-eighth of theNation’s farmers would leave manygaps. With Tier I contracts limited tojust five years, many farmers wouldhave had to wait for three years aftertheir contract expired to be eligible fora new contract. Farmers who did notget a contract the year they were eligi-ble would have to wait eight years tobe eligible again.

However, Congress and USDAhave fallen short of meeting even thatmodest goal. Annual funding mustfirst pay for existing program con-tracts and technical assistance, beforeproviding for new contracts. Fundinglevels for new contracts provided byCongress for 2006, which allowed forConservation Security Programsignups in just 60 watersheds, wouldallow USDA to get around to eachwatershed at best every 25 years or so.At that rate, the program is clearly not

Recommendations

viable. Addressing the funding issues,including removal of the multiyearfunding caps imposed on the programsince the last Farm Bill became law, istherefore paramount.

Congress should substantiallyincrease funding for the ConservationSecurity Program so that farmers andranchers on a nationwide basis havetimely enrollment opportunities, aswas intended by the 2002 Farm Bill.

2. CONGRESS AND USDASHOULD PROVIDE COST-SHARE UNDER THEPROGRAMUSDA has generally not funded cost-share for new practices through theConservation Security Program. It isclear that many new practices are


being installed and maintained underConservation Security Program con-tracts through payments for enhance-ments. However, USDA’s refusal toprovide cost-share under the CSP hasreduced the ability of the program todeliver additional wildlife and otherconservation benefits through theinstallation of new practices. The cur-rent practice of funding new conserva-tion practices and activities throughthe contract modification processdelays benefits, adds yet another layerof uncertainty to the program, andresults in an initial undercounting ofwildlife and conservation benefits.

Officially, USDA now offers 50percent cost-share under theConservation Security Program fornew practices, although in practice itdoes not fund them. That cost-sharerate remains well below the cost-sharerates provided for similar practicesunder other USDA programs.Further, Congressional restrictions onprogram funding would make it diffi-cult for USDA to provide cost-share infuture signups.

Congress should send a clear mes-sage to USDA that it should providecost-share for new practices under theConservation Security Program anddo so at the same rate as in otherUSDA programs. Congress shouldgive USDA adequate program fund-ing to allow for cost-share paymentsalong with other program payments.

3. CONGRESS OR USDASHOULD REQUIRE ALL TIERII CONTRACTS TO ADDRESSWILDLIFE USDA made an administrative deci-sion to adopt soil and water quality astwo national resource concerns that

must be addressed in all ConservationSecurity Program contracts. Like soilconservation and water quality,wildlife habitat is an importantresource of concern throughout thenation.

USDA should require that allTier II and Tier III contracts addresswildlife habitat as a resource of con-cern, and should increase the emphasison wildlife in Tier I contracts. IfUSDA fails to act, Congress shouldmake this a requirement in the nextFarm Bill.

4. USDA SHOULD PROVIDEMORE AND BETTER OPTIONSTHAT BENEFIT WILDLIFE Although USDA has identified nearly1,900 enhancement practices, it sentexplicit directions to USDA stateoffices that only a short list of practiceswould be available in any one water-shed. USDA State Conservationists,with input from state and local work-ing groups, decided which would bemade available in each watershed.The practices selected reflect local pri-orities, and in some cases wildlife wasa low priority. To boost wildlife bene-fits and provide additional choices forfarmers and ranchers, USDA shouldexpand the number and variety ofenhancement practices available ineach watershed.

USDA should also continue todevelop new wildlife-related practices,including practices that address highpriority fish and wildlife species, aspart of its effort to update the FieldOffice Technical Guide that serves asa comprehensive recipe book of con-servation practices for farmers andagency employees and is the basis forpayments under the Conservation

Security Program and other programs.USDA should accelerate its efforts towork with federal and state wildlifeagencies and organizations to developand describe wildlife-friendly practicesthat could then be offered under theConservation Security Program orother programs. That work is espe-cially important with respect to stateand federally protected species, andwildlife needs identified in stateWildlife Action Plans and FishHabitat Action Plans. USDA couldalso increase the benefits of the pro-gram by focusing program fundingmore strongly on practices that deliverbenefits for multiple resources, includ-ing wildlife. Wildlife-related practicesrelevant to the watershed should beamong the enhancement choicesoffered in every watershed.

5. USDA SHOULD INVOLVEWILDLIFE PROFESSIONALSEARLY IN THE PROCESS Wildlife management is unfamiliarterritory for many farmers and ranch-ers, and for most USDA field officestaff as well. State wildlife agenciesand organizations have stepped for-ward in many states to help farmersand ranchers weigh their alternativesand understand the benefits of differ-ent wildlife practices. However, in aneffort to streamline the signup processUSDA told field offices that no on-farm visits would occur before or dur-ing the 2006 Conservation SecurityProgram signup. That denied localwildlife agency staff the opportunity todiscuss wildlife practice options withfarmers before they submitted theirprogram application.


USDA should encourage wildlifeagencies and organizations to beinvolved with landowners contemplat-ing a Conservation Security Programapplication early in the process, whenkey decisions are made. That wouldgive farmers and ranchers access tothe knowledge of professional wildlifemanagers as they develop their plans,and should result in more wildlifebenefits under the program. Thiscould be done using staff from state orfederal wildlife agencies, non-profitorganizations, or technical serviceproviders to avoid any impact onNRCS staff workload.

6. USDA SHOULD REVIEWAND REVISE PAYMENTRATESIn our discussions with both sustain-able farming organizations andwildlife organizations and agencies,we heard concerns about some of thepayment rates established for enhance-ment practices. For example, delayinghay harvest until the end of the nest-ing season provides clear wildlife ben-efits, since nesting birds have a chanceto hatch and fledge undisturbed. Thefarmer foregoes some profit as aresult, by having fewer cuttings of hayor harvesting lower-quality hay. Thepayment rate for a practice like thisshould therefore fairly reflect the lostrevenue. In other cases, practices weredesigned to benefit particular wildlifespecies: leaving standing dead trees tobenefit woodpeckers, or branch pilesto benefit rabbits and other smallmammals. The concern we heard wasthat, in some states, the per-acre pay-ment for implementing theseenhancements far exceeded the cost to

the farmer or the benefits to wildlife.In most cases, as a result of this feed-back, NRCS adjusted the paymentrates to more appropriate levels in thesucceeding sign-up.

With several years of signupexperience under its belt, USDAshould continue to reviewConservation Security Programenhancement payment rates, to ensureboth farmers and taxpayers are gettinga fair deal under the program.

7. USDA SHOULD ENSUREHIGH STANDARDS FORWILDLIFE BENEFITSComments from wildlife professionalsfamiliar with the ConservationSecurity Program show a concern thatsome 2004 participants were gettingTier III contracts—under which theyare supposed to meet minimum non-degradation standards for every appli-cable resource of concern— with fairlyweak efforts with respect to wildlife.Those comments echoed the concernraised in the General AccountabilityOffice report cited above. For exam-ple, the GAO report noted that thenational criteria require a minimumpercentage of a producer’s operation tobe non-crop vegetative cover to benefitwildlife, but that criterion was notapplied consistently in every state.

USDA should continue to reviewTier III wildlife standards and wildliferesource criteria established by its stateoffices to ensure that a consistentlyhigh standard of wildlife benefits isobtained under the ConservationSecurity Program.

8. USDA SHOULD PROVIDEMONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROGRAMOUTCOMESThe only way USDA will be able toproperly assess actual outcomes of theprogram, for wildlife and otherresources, is to undertake a robustmonitoring and evaluation program.The legislation gives USDA authorityto fund on-farm monitoring and eval-uation as an enhancement practice,although USDA has funded very fewsuch contracts. The Land StewardshipProject has developed and tested anon-farm monitoring tool-kit that could serve as a model for on-farmmonitoring and evaluation.5 USDAshould encourage and fund on-farmmonitoring and evaluation enhance-ments as a high priority practice.

USDA also needs better program-level data on the actualimpact of various practices withrespect to wildlife and other resourcesto enable it to judge the relative bene-fits provided by various practices. Thatinformation would help USDA bettermanage the Conservation SecurityProgram, as well as other USDA con-servation programs that encourageconservation. USDA, working withorganizational and agency partners,should establish a robust monitoringand evaluation program that measuresactual outcomes of the conservationpractices it funds, using scientificallyvalid methods. Congress should recog-nize the long-term importance of thisendeavor and fund it adequately aspart of the total farm bill conservationprogram implementation cost, muchin the same way it currently does fortechnical assistance.


1 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, American Customer Satisfaction Index: Natural

Resources Conservation Service Conservation Security Program Participants Customer Satisfaction Study,

Final Report, October, 2005.

2 US Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2004 Conservation Security Program Contracts Modified,

news release, June 27, 2006.

3 D.A. Hill, The Feeding Ecology and Survival of Pheasant Chicks on Arable Farmland, The Journal of

Applied Ecology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Dec., 1985), pp. 645-654.

4 United States Government Accountability Office, Conservation Security Program: Despite Cost

Controls, Improved USDA Management is Needed to Ensure Proper Payments and Reduce Duplications

With Other Programs, April, 2006, Washington, DC.

5 A Guide to the Art & Science of On-Farm Monitoring: The Monitoring Tool Box, Land Stewardship

Project. See www.landstewardshipproject.org/resources-pubs.html.

End Notes /Part 1


he 2006 Conservation Security Program signup in California includedthe Lower Feather River watershed in Butte, Sutter, and Yuba counties in north-central California. The 369,150-acre watershed is

agriculturally diverse, including about 108,330 acres of orchard and vineyards(29% of the watershed), 103,850 acres of cropland, (28%), 90,450 acres of range-land (25%), and 26,400 acres of pasture (7%), with the remainder developed land,wetlands and open water.

The area features moderately deep to very deep soils, and generally levelground except in the Sutter Buttes area. Rice production is the primary use forcropland. The rangeland is typically oak woodland and/or annual grassland.Virtually all the orchard, vineyard, cropland and pasture in the watershed is irrigated1.

USDA identified water quality, water quantity, nutrients and sediments as key resource concerns in the watershed.

CONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAM CONTRACTS In June, 2006, the USDA announcedthat 60 California farmers in theLower Feather River watershed wereapproved for Conservation SecurityProgram contracts that would providejust under $1 million in FY 2006, and$6.4 million through 2015, in pay-ments. (In the much larger 2005signup, 393 farmers in five Californiawatersheds received CSP contractsthat will provide $6.2 million in 2005alone, covering 198,701 acres, mostlyirrigated cropland).

WILDLIFE HABITAT BENEFITSHabitat Management enhancementsare the second largest category ofConservation Security Program pay-ments in the watershed, representing atotal commitment of $2.4 million (and37% of total CSP payments). A total of

$769,373, representing about 12% ofCSP payments, will be used to managerice straw residues to provide winterwater for waterfowl on about 3,350acres ($25/acre/year). Another $150,600will be used to manage rice fields byleaving 2-5% of the field un-croppedfor wildlife food and cover on 75 acres($75/acre/year).

Maintenance of 130 acres of nativetrees and shrubs in riparian bufferzones will be supported through$475,120 ($400/acre/year), or about 7%of Conservation Security Programpayments. Other ConservationSecurity Program contracts will payfor maintaining upland water forwildlife on over 3,500 acres, managingnon-cropped areas with at least 80%native vegetation, and maintainingfield borders for wildlife cover.

Six contracts (totaling about 5% ofpayments) will provide for managing

T

PART 2

California’s Feather River WatershedConservation Security Program and Wildlife Case Study 1:


surface water irrigation withdrawalsto benefit critical fisheries (for exam-ple, fish screens on water intakes).Those will be in place on irrigationsystems providing water to about 1,877acres of cropland.

About 1% of CSP payments willbe used to provide winter cover cropsto capture nitrates, or to provide forgrazing management strategies thatshould benefit grassland habitat.

In all, just over $2.4 million inConservation Security Program paymentswill be used for practices that appear toprovide direct wildlife habitat benefits.That represents 38% of totalConservation Security Program paymentsresulting from the 2006 signup.

OTHER WILDLIFE BENEFITSPest management is the largest catego-ry of funded enhancements. The bulkof the contract funding is for the use ofIntegrated Pest Management (IPM)strategies which either meetUniversity of California IPM stan-dards for a comprehensive program(1,023 acres in 2007), or use IPM tech-niques but not the full comprehensiveprogram (more than 4,600 acres in2007). Three program contracts utilizea certified organic pest managementsystem on a total of 295 acres of organic cropland.

Those contracts could include theuse of buffer strips or other habitat-related practices, but that informationis not available to us. By reducing pesticide use and encouraging non-chemical pest control methods, thoseprogram payments should providesome benefits to some wildlife species.

In this watershed, farmers apply-ing for a Tier II contract must first

meet minimum water-use efficiencycriteria on the entire operation, inaddition to having water quality andsoil quality protected on the wholeoperation. Minimum water qualityprotection includes both nutrient management and pest managementpractices2.

In all, $3.1 million in ConservationSecurity Program enhancement pay-ments, representing 49% of all CSP pay-ments resulting from the 2006 signup in California, will be used for pest man-agement practices designed to reducepesticide use that should also benefit some wildlife.

In all, 87% of the total ConservationSecurity Program payments resultingfrom the 2006 signup in California’sFeather River watershed are for practicesthat appear to provide either directwildlife habitat benefits, or a reductionin the use of pesticides that should benefitsome wildlife species.

1 Lower Feather Watershed, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service California web site, www/ca.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/2006/lowerfeather.html.

2 Landowners with irrigated cropland must have an Irrigation Enhancement Index score of at least 50 to obtain a Tier II contract, and must use fallow in crop rotations to conserve soil moistureon non-irrigated land. For details, see www. ca.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/2006/lowerfeather.html.


EHM 24

EHM 15 Manage rice straw residues for waterfowl, and rice fields for food/cover $916,973 14%

EHM 08 Maintain native trees and shrubs in riparian areas $475,120 7%

EHM 04 Manage surface water irrigation withdrawals to benefit critical fisheries $339,216 5%

EHM 06 Provide water for upland wildlife $339,115 5%

EHM 10 Manage non-crop areas with minimum 80% native plants $140,000 2%

EHM Other habitat management, including field borders,

managing cropland for wildlife, eradicate invasive plants $184,344 3%

ENM 24 Use winter cover crops to capture nitrogen (providing winter cover) $37,012 1%

EGM Forage production monitoring plans and alternate water sources $12,060 0%

Wildlife Habitat Payments $2,446,840 38%

EPM01-1 Use comprehensive U-Cal Integrated Pest Management system $1,166,139 18%

EPM01-2 Use Integrated Pest Management system components

(less than comprehensive plan) $1,683,475 26%

EPM 02 Use Certified Organic pest management $265,050 4%

Pesticide Reduction Payments That Should Benefit Wildlife $3,128,048 49%

Total Wildlife Habitat & Pesticide Reduction Payments $5,574,888 87%

Total CSP Payments $6,426,506 100%

Conservation Security Program Enhancement Practices

With Wildlife Habitat & Pesticide Reduction Benefits in California

Payments

Through 2015

Share of all

CSP payments


he Chesapeake Bay is America’s largest estuary, measuring nearly 200miles long, and draining 64,000 square miles. The watershed covers partof six states, including nearly all of Maryland and much of Virginia and

Pennsylvania.According to the US Government Accountability Office, “over time, the

bay’s ecosystem has deteriorated. The bay’s ‘dead zones’—where too little oxygenis available to support fish and shellfish--have increased, and many species of fishand shellfish have experienced major declines in population.”1

“Water quality and ecosystem integrity in the Chesapeake Bay have beenaffected by excessive nutrient loading, which has resulted in the depression ofdissolved oxygen levels and the loss of submerged aquatic vegetation. Theseeffects have impacted economically important aquatic species and have dimin-ished the value of the bay as a recreational resource. ”2

In 1998, the US Geological Survey assessed the areas of the watershed thatappeared to have the highest impact (in terms of nitrogen load) on the bay.3

Some of the high-impact watersheds identified in that analysis were eligible forConservation Security Program signups in 2005 or 2006, including the Monocacyin central Maryland (2005) and southern Pennsylvania (2006), the LowerSusquehanna-Swatara in southeast Pennsylvania (2005), and the Nanticoke inMaryland and Delaware (2006).

Conservation Security Program and Wildlife Case Study 2:

Chesapeake Bay

CONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAM CONTRACTS INTHE CHESAPEAKE REGION The 2006 Conservation SecurityProgram signup included four water-sheds that drain into the Chesapeake:the Monocacy in southernPennsylvania, the Choptank andNanticoke that straddle the Delaware-Maryland border, and the North ForkShenandoah in Virginia. In additionto the watersheds eligible for theConservation Security Programsignup in 2006, farmers in seven otherwatersheds that drain into the

Chesapeake Bay were eligible for CSPcontracts in 2005 (see table).

The Choptank and Nanticoke areadjacent watersheds that flow throughthe lower Eastern Shore intoChesapeake Bay. Combined, theydrain about 879,000 acres, about three-quarters of which are in Maryland andthe remainder are in the headwaterareas in Delaware. About half of theland is used for agricultural purposes,and primary crops include corn, beans,barley, wheat, and vegetables. Poultryproduction is an important industry inthe watershed, and poultry manuremanagement a particular concern.

T


CSP Signups in the Chesapeake Region

WATERSHED STATE YEAR

S. Fork Shenandoah Virginia 2005

N. Fork Shenandoah Virginia 2006

Lower Rappahannock Virginia 2005

Mattaponi Virginia 2005

Raystown Pennsylvania 2004, 2005

Lower Susquehanna - Swatara Pennsylvania 2005

Monocacy Pennsylvania 2006

Maryland 2005

Chester-Sassafras Maryland,

Delaware,

Pennsylvania 2005

Choptank Maryland,

Delaware 2006

Nanticoke Maryland,

Delaware 2006

USDA says the Nanticoke “is oneof the healthiest rivers in theChesapeake and provides excellenthabitat for many threatened andendangered species.” The Choptankwatershed in Maryland is one of thesubjects of an intensive, 5-year effortby USDA to measure the benefits offarm conservation practices on theenvironment.6

The Monocacy watershed is insoutheast Pennsylvania and northernMaryland. The Maryland portion ofthe Monocacy watershed was eligiblefor the Conservation SecurityProgram in 2005.

The North Fork Shenandoahwatershed is in northwestern Virginia.A neighboring watershed, the SouthFork Shenandoah, was eligible for theConservation Security Program in2005.

2006 CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM CONTRACTSIn June, 2006, USDA announced thatfarmers in the Nanticoke, Choptank,Monocacy and North ForkShenandoah watersheds would be eli-gible for about $24.2 million inConservation Security Program con-

tract payments through 2015.Contracts in the Chesapeake Bayregion were concentrated in theChoptank and Nanticoke watersheds,along the eastern shore of the Bay.The Maryland portions of thosewatersheds — the downstream portion with the most direct influenceon the Bay— will receive nearly three-quarters of the CSP contract paymentsawarded in the region in 2006.Delaware farmers (the upper parts ofthe Choptank and Nanticoke water-sheds) will receive about 21% of totalCSP payments. As a result, our analy-sis is heavily skewed by policies inthese two states, where about 45% oftotal CSP payments provided eitherwildlife habitat benefits, or pesticidereduction that should benefit somewildlife.

In contrast, in the North ForkShenandoah watershed in Virginia,65% of Conservation SecurityProgram payments either provide forwildlife habitat benefits, or for pesti-cide reduction that should benefitsome wildlife, while in Pennsylvaniathe percentage was about 87%.However, those two watersheds repre-sented only about 5% of the projectedCSP payments we reviewed.

WILDLIFE HABITAT BENEFITSOne in five Conservation SecurityProgram contract dollars — a total of over $4.7 million — is slated forhabitat management. The largest cate-gory of funded enhancement is for


increasing and maintaining wildlifehabitat in order to achieve a HabitatManagement Index score of at least0.5. The enhancement was used in allexcept the Monocacy watershed, andmost of the payments went for farmsthat ended up in the 0.6 to 0.7 rangeon the index (higher payments wereawarded for higher scores).

Overall, payments based on someform of habitat management indexrepresent 18% of the ConservationSecurity Program payments in theregion. It was the most significantwildlife-related habitat enhancementin the North Fork Shenandoah,Choptank and Nanticoke watersheds.The Habitat Management Indexappears to be the primary tool used inthe region for measuring and reward-ing wildlife habitat through theConservation Security Program.

Throughout the region, field bor-ders, buffer strips, contour strips andnew hedgerows were used to reducenutrient and pesticide runoff and provide additional wildlife habitat. In

various forms, this enhancement rep-resented about $1.9 million, or 8% oftotal Conservation Security Programpayments.

Our estimate of wildlife habitatbenefits likely understates the actualwildlife benefits provided. As notedabove, nutrient loads in theChesapeake Bay are a primary concernin the region, because of their impacton the Bay’s aquatic species. Ourscreen for assessing wildlife-relatedbenefits largely excluded nitrogenmanagement strategies, except wherethey used practices like buffer stripsthat also provide terrestrial habitatbenefits. Additional nutrient manage-ment practices not included in ourtotals should help reduce the impact of nutrients on the aquatic habitat inChesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

In total, at least $7.6 million inConservation Security Programenhancement payments in theChesapeake Bay region will be used for practices that should provide wildlife habitat benefits.

That represents 31% of total CSP pay-ments resulting from the 2006 signupin these watersheds.

OTHER WILDLIFE BENEFITSLow input non-chemical methods ofpest control were used extensively inConservation Security Program con-tracts in the Choptank and Nanticokewatersheds. Those should reducerunoff into the Bay and reduce pesti-cide impacts on local beneficial insects.Crop rotation (using at least two cropsin three years) was also used to breakup pest cycles and reduce the use ofpesticides.

Payments will also provide forhigh-intensity integrated pest manage-ment systems in some locations. Theinformation available does not allowus to determine if, for example, bufferstrips and other habitat-producingpractices were included.

In all, $3.7 million inConservation Security Programenhancement payments, representing15% of all CSP payments resultingfrom the 2006 signup in theChesapeake Bay region, will be usedfor pest management practicesdesigned to reduce pesticide use thatshould also benefit some wildlife.

Overall, $11.2 million, represent-ing 47% of Conservation SecurityProgram payments resulting from the2006 signup in the Chesapeake Bayregion, is for enhancements thatappear to provide wildlife habitat benefits or reduce pesticide use inways that should benefit some wildlife.

EHM 02 Increase and maintain wildlife habitat management index

ENM 20 on lands (0.5 to 1.0) $4,434,208 18%

EPM03

EHM 11 Use field borders, buffer strips, contour strips and hedgerows to

ENM reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff, and provide for wildlife habitat $1,931,420 8%

ENM 03 Use 5-10 foot setback in applying nutrients to protect waterways $359,239 1%

ENM Other nutrient management (e.g., nutrient application using

phosphorus-based application rates, incorporating

manure to prevent runoff) $473,313 2%

EHM Other habitat management (crops left unharvested,

blue bird or bat boxes, etc.) $203,186 1%

EGM Rotational grazing systems and livestock exclusion $199,743 1%

EPL

EAM Plant management (nectar-producing plants) and windbreaks near feedlots $11,397 0%

Total Wildlife Habitat Payments $7,612,506 31%

EPM 02 Use low input non-chemical pest control methods $1,952,764 8%

EPM 09 Use crop rotations to break up pest cycles $1,446,461 6%

EPM Use high intensity integrated pest management and other strategies $314,877 1%

Total Pesticide Reduction Payments That Should Benefit Wildlife $3,714,102 15%


Total CSP Contracts (estimated) $24,196,700 100%

Payments

Through 2015

Share of all

CSP payments


Conservation Security Program Enhancement Practices With Wildlife

Habitat or Pesticide Reduction Benefits in the Chesapeake Bay Region

3 US Government Accountability Office: Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Needed to Better Guide Restoration Efforts, Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Testimony before the Subcommitteeof Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, July 13, 2006, page 4-5. 4 US Geological Survey, Spatially Referenced Regression Modeling of Nutrient Loading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, proceedings of the First Federal Interagency Hydrologic ModelingConference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April, 1998, page 1-2. URL:water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/chesbay/ches.html.5 USGS, ibid, page 3-4. URL:water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/chesbay/ches.html. United States Department of Agriculture, USDA To Assess Environmental Benefits of Conservation Programs,news release, July 22, 2004, www.usda.gov/newsroom/0299.04.html. 6 United States Department of Agriculture, USDA To Assess Environmental Benefits of Conservation Programs, news release, July 22, 2004, www.usda.gov/newsroom/0299.04.html.


he 2006 Conservation Security Program signup in Georgia included theLittle Ocmulgee Watershed in southeast Georgia. According to theUniversity of Georgia, just over one-quarter of the Little Ocmulgee

watershed is in agricultural production, with the remainder primarily forest,forested wetlands, and clearcut areas.7

In 2002, the state of Georgia completed a watershed cleanup plan (a TotalMaximum Daily Load assessment) designed to address excess levels of fecal col-iform bacteria in the river. The plan recommended, among other managementpractices, a reduction in livestock access to streams in the watershed, and limiting

the land application of manure to agronomic rates. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife

Resources Division notes the presence of 6 wildlife species of con-cern in the watershed. The red-cockaded woodpecker and gophertortoise are federally protected. The Ocmulgee shiner, yellow-crowned night-heron, Florida pine snake, and sailfin shiner arelisted as species of concern.8

Upland pine forest, a natural community of special concern,occurs in the watershed, as do 17 plant species that are federallyprotected, state protected, or a species of special concern at thestate level.


Georgia’s Little Ocmulgee Watershed

CONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAM CONTRACTS In June, 2006, the USDA announcedthat 58 farmers were approved forConservation Security Program con-tracts that would provide nearly $1.2million in FY 2006, and $6.3 millionthrough 2015, in payments. The 58contracts include, on average, about 4practices each that should providewildlife habitat benefits or reduce pes-ticide use. (In the larger 2005 sign-up,119 farmers in five Georgia water-sheds received CSP contracts that willprovide payments covering 92,508acres, most of it irrigated cropland).

WILDLIFE HABITAT BENEFITSThrough 2015, Conservation SecurityProgram contract enhancement pay-ments for planned HabitatManagement activities total $706,057,about 11% of total CSP payments.The largest funded practice is formanaging crop residue after plantingto retain at least 50% cover of the soilsurface (in some contracts 70%).Conservation Security Program pay-ments will provide over $500,000 forthis practice, which represent 8% oftotal CSP payments. The practice isintended to reduce surface runoff and

T

Fencing can protect streams from

livestock impacts and provide wildlife

habitat.


soil erosion, but it would also maintainsome spring cover in crop fields.

Conservation Security Programcontract enhancement payments forgrazing management strategies thatshould benefit wildlife habitat total$304,264 through 2015, about 5% oftotal CSP payments. One practicefunded in Georgia is rotational graz-ing strategies that will provide for atleast 4 pastures, with 4-8 day averagerotational cycle (EGM 02), whichshould help maintain a mosaic of dif-ferent grassland heights. Those pay-ments represent about 3% ofConservation Security Program pay-ments, and will cover about 1,424acres in 2007. Other grazing manage-ment practices funded in Georgiainclude rotating feed or shade at leastfour times per year to keep livestock atleast 100 feet from surface water orother sensitive areas (1,978 acres,EGM 05), and excluding livestockfrom water bodies (1,270 acres, EGM04).

Conservation Security Programpayments for restricting manureapplication based on phosphorusneeds should benefit aquatic habitatby keeping excess nutrients out of thesurface water. Those payments willtotal $117,036, representing about 2%of total program payments.

A small portion of program pay-ments in the watershed will providefor the use of phosphorus (rather thannitrogen) as the basis for manure

application rates, which should reducerunoff into neighboring streams. 14contracts, representing roughly 1% ofConservation Security Program pay-ments, will provide for livestockexclusion from nearby water bodies(EGM 04). Both practices could helpaddress the excess fecal coliform bac-teria in the river.

In all, about $1.1 million inConservation Security Program pay-ments in Georgia’s Little Ocmulgeewatershed will be used for practicesthat provide wildlife habitat benefits,representing 18% of total CSP pay-ments through 2015.

Prescribed burning of under-story

species can improve habitat in wooded

areas. US FWS photo


OTHER WILDLIFE BENEFITSThe key pest management practicereceiving funding is the use of cropscouting and pesticide applicationsbased on Extension Service treatmentthresholds to reduce or optimize pesti-cide use (EPM 10).

Two other pest managementpractices also feature prominently inGeorgia. Management of undesirablepasture pests through the use of cropscouting and pesticide applicationsbased on Extension Service treatmentthresholds (EPM 16) represents about

EHM 17 Manage for crop residue after planting that exceeds 50% ground cover $503,667 8%

EGM 02 Use 4-8 pastures or more for rotational grazing with short rotation cycles $170,965 3%

EHM Other habitat management, including leaving unharvested grain and

hay, early sucessional habitat on idle crop land, managing field borders,

prescribed burning of woodlots, and other. $202,390 3%

EGM Other grazing management, including rotating feed to distribute

livestock impacts, excluding livestock from water bodies, and other $133,299 2%

ENM 31 Base manure application on phosphorus rates to reduce runoff $117,036 2%

Total Wildlife Habitat Practice Payments $1,127,357 18%

EPM 10 Use crop scouting and Extension Service recommendations to

reduce pesticide use $1,853,970 30%

EPM 16 Use scouting and weed control to reduce undesirable pasture pests $379,280 6%

EPM 09 Manage nematode zones to minimize the use of pesticides $273,196 4%

Total Pesticide Reduction Practices $2,506,446 40%

Total Wildlife Habitat & Pesticide Reduction $3,633,803 58%


6% of payments. Managing nematodezones to minimize the use of pesticides(EPM 09) represents about 4% of pay-ments. In all three cases, the paymentsare for strategies that rely on pestscouting and specific pesticide applica-tion, rather than annual whole-fieldspraying. That should reduce theimpact of pesticides on non-targetwildlife species.

A total of $2.5 million inConservation Security Program paymentsare for Pest Management enhancementsthat should benefit some wildlife, and

they account for 40% of all projectedprogram payments through 2015.

In all, about $3.6 million inConservation Security Program enhance-ment payments planned through 2015should provide wildlife habitat benefit,or result in reduced pesticide use thatsupports wildlife, in Georgia. That rep-resents about 58% of the $6.3 million intotal CSP contract payments resultingfrom the 2006 signup in Georgia.

Payments

Through 2015

Share of all

CSP paymentsConservation Security Program Enhancement Practices With Wildlife

Habitat Benefits

7 University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, Little Ocmulgee Watershed 1998 Land Cover. 8 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Known Occurrences of Special Concern Plants, Animals and Natural Communities in Little Ocmulgee River Watershed(HUC8:03070105). February 25, 2004.


he 2006 Conservation Security Program signup in Minnesota includedthe Red Lakes watershed in northern Minnesota (Beltrami,Clearwater, Koochiching and Itasca Counties). The watershed includes

about 1.3 million acres of land, including large forested areas and a number oflakes. Only about 6% of the watershed is cropland (77,600 acres), and another3% is pasture (36,400 acres). The cropland is used primarily for small grains, soybeans, and forage crops. The pasture is typically used for beef and dairy production. 9

The USDA identified water quantity management, pasture manage-ment, water and wind erosion, and water quality as major resource concerns in the watershed.

CONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAM CONTRACTS In June, 2006, USDA announced that14 farmers were approved forConservation Security Program con-tracts that would pay participants$120,558 in FY 2006, and $1.4 millionthrough 2015. The relatively smallnumber of contracts likely reflects thelack of agricultural land in the water-shed. (In the larger 2005 sign-up, sixMinnesota watersheds were eligiblefor Conservation Security Programcontracts. 590 farmers received con-tracts that will provide payments cov-ering 147,768 acres, predominantlydryland cropland.)

WILDLIFE HABITAT BENEFITS Through 2015, Conservation SecurityProgram contract enhancement pay-ments from the 2006 signup forplanned Habitat Management activi-ties total $538,731, about 38% of total

CSP payments. Key practices receiv-ing funding include avoiding the nesting season (May 1 to July 1) inhaying alfalfa or grass (which willbenefit 200 acres in 2007), using aflushing bar when harvesting forageto reduce wildlife damage (which willbenefit about 4,150 acres in 2007), andleaving wide swaths of uncut forage ashabitat (86 acres in 2007). A smallamount ($9,900 in 7 contracts over 9years) will encourage the use of neststructures and brush piles for habitat,including about 110 acres in 2007.


Minnesota’s Red Lakes Watershed

Prescribed burning of grasslands can

help maintain grasslands.

US Fish & Wildlife Service photo.

T

Grazing Management enhance-ments provide the bulk of remainingConservation Security Programenhancements with substantialwildlife habitat benefits ($251,682through 2015, 18% of CSP payments).Key practices include using a PastureCondition index to better manage thepasture (which should result in more


diverse growth patterns on over 2,800acres in 2007), and other practices thatreduce grazing pressure and theimpact of livestock on waterways.

Small amounts ($40,449 in total)will also be used to reward two farm-ers who use phosphorus-based manureapplication rates on fields borderingstreams, lakes and wetlands, to pay forleaving un-harvested corn for livingsnow fences (providing winter cover),and to manage shelterbelts near feedlots.

In all, 57% of the ConservationSecurity Program payments in

Minnesota’s Red Lakes watershed willpay for practices that should providewildlife habitat benefits.

OTHER WILDLIFE BENEFITS Conservation Security Program pay-ments for pest management enhance-ments including funding for the use oftwo or more pest managementenhancement components identifiedby USDA. Those enhancement com-ponents apply to about 6,600 acres in2007 and are designed primarily toreduce the use of pesticides or targettheir use to selected areas.

A total of $395,305 in fundedenhancements is for pest managementpractices that should benefit some wildlife(about 28% of all Conservation SecurityProgram contract payments).

All together, 85% of the $1.4 millionin Conservation Security Program payments in Minnesota’s Red Lakeswatershed will pay for practices thateither provide wildlife or wildlife habitatbenefits, or reduce pesticide use and benefit some wildlife.

9 Red Lakes Watershed, USDA NRCS web site, www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/2006/red_lakes/red_lakes.html

Payments

Through 2015

Share of all

CSP payments

EHM 03 Avoid nesting period (May/June) when haying legumes and grasses $212,310 15%

EHM 19 Use flushing bar when harvesting forage $186,804 13%

EGM 14 Use Pasture Condition Score Sheet to monitor and manage pasture $133,683 9%

EHM 01 Leave at least 100’ of uncut hayfield as habitat (up to 10%/field) $124,137 9%

EGM Other grazing management strategies, including better cattle

distribution, limiting access to livestock ponds, using crop

residue instead of fall forage. $117,999 8%

EHM Other habitat management, including brush piles and snags,

no fall tillage, and converting grass areas to native species $15,480 1%

EAM 10

EAM 06 Use unharvested corn as living snow fence, and manage s

helterbelts near feedlots $13,419 1%

ENM 14 Base manure application rates on Phosphorus on fields

bordering streams, lakes and wetlands. $11,550 1%

Wildlife Habitat Enhancements $815,382 57%

EPM 01 Implement 2-4 pest management enhancement components $395,305 28%

Pesticide Reduction Enhancements $395,305 28%


Total Program Payments $1,432,751 100%

Conservation Security Program Enhancement Practices With

Wildlife Habitat or Pesticide Reduction Benefits


n discussions with wildlife professionals about the Conservation SecurityProgram, many cite Missouri as an example of where the program providesample benefits for wildlife. The 2006 signup in Missouri included the

Spring River watershed in the southwest region of the state. The watershedincludes about 1.3 million acres of land, including about 549,000 acres of pastureand range, 331,000 acres of active cropland, 56,400 acres of Conservation ReserveProgram land, and 210,000 acres of forest land. Only about 17,000 acres of thewatershed’s cropland is irrigated, mostly from wells.

The cropland is primarily located in the northern part of the watershed,while pasture, rangeland, and some forest dominate the southern part of thewatershed.

The watershed faces many natural resource challenges. The resource con-cerns identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Missouriinclude inadequate habitat for wildlife, a variety of threatened and endangeredwildlife and plants, noxious and invasive plants, sheet and rill erosion, and levelsof pathogens (from livestock), nutrients and organics in the area’s surface water.Surface water supplies public drinking water in three places in the watershed.10

The area is on the edge of the historic tallgrass prairie range. Some 99% of the Nation’s historic tallgrass prairie has been lost to the plow or urban development.


Missouri’s Spring River Watershed

CONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAM CONTRACTS In June, 2006, the USDA announcedthat 360 Missouri farmers and ranch-ers were approved for ConservationSecurity Program contracts that wouldprovide $2.9 million in FY 2006, and$20.6 million through 2015, in pay-ments. (In 2005, 1,133 farmers in 7Missouri watersheds were approvedfor CSP contracts).

WILDLIFE HABITAT BENEFITSThrough 2015, Conservation SecurityProgram contract payments forplanned Habitat Management activi-ties total $5.4 million, or about 26% oftotal CSP payments. In addition, about$9 million in payments (44% of totalCSP payments) is planned for grazingmanagement activities that should alsobenefit wildlife, primarily throughmanaged rotational grazing strategies.

The Missouri NRCS used aWildlife Enhancement Index Score as the primary means of providinghabitat management enhancementpayments. CSP contract payments will

I

cover nearly 60,000 acres of land thatmeet a minimum 0.6 WildlifeEnhancement Index score.Enhancement payments for farmersproviding a bundle of quail habitatpractices should cover over 5,800 addi-tional acres of quail habitat.

Habitat Management enhance-ment payments also include contractsin 45 places, with payments totaling$201,802 through 2015, for managingnative grasslands to maintain nativeplants. While relatively small, thosecontracts could be significant withrespect to maintaining about 1,425acres of remnant native tallgrassprairies in 2007.

Wild turkeys are found throughout

Missouri.



The bulk of the GrazingManagement contract funding is relat-ed to the use of managed rotationalgrazing strategies. The large numberof grazing management enhancementsin the area should provide substantialbenefits for grassland wildlife. Forexample, EGM 05 ($4.8 millionthrough 2015) involves maintaining agrazing system with at least 4, 8, or 16pastures, and moving livestock every 4to 15 days. The Missouri contracts willprovide for that practice on about71,700 acres of land in 2007. EGM 10($2.7 million through 2015) requiresfarmers to adopt at least two enhancedgrazing management activities from adesignated list, which will providecontract payments covering over32,500 acres of grazing land. Bothpractices should result in improved,more diverse grassland vegetation.

In addition, $0.5 million (2% ofpayments) is planned for nutrientmanagement enhancements thatshould benefit wildlife, including theuse of buffer strips and reduced phos-phorus application. The enhancementpayments for buffer areas should pro-vide better managed wildlife habitaton nearly 7,000 acres.

Pest Management enhancementpayments that will provide for the useof managed hedgerows, field borders,buffer strips and buffer areas repre-sent 1% of CSP payments, covering9,155 acres in 2007.

In all, about $15.1 million inConservation Security Programenhancement payments plannedthrough 2015 should provide wildlifehabitat benefits. That represents about73% of the $20.6 million in total pro-gram contract payments resultingfrom the 2006 signup in Missouri.

OTHER WILDLIFE BENEFITS There is $3.2 million planned for pest

management strategies, including spotspraying, field scouting and otheractivities that replace broadcast pesti-cides and reduce pesticide runoff andleaching potential. The commitmentof resources to reduce pesticide runoffshould help address the water qualityproblems identified in area streams.The largest pest management pay-ment category, using spot spraying in

place of broadcast pesticides to reducerunoff and non-target impacts, willprovide for that practice on nearly81,000 acres of land. Those practicesshould reduce the impact of pesticideson birds, their food base, and otherwildlife.

In all, $3.2 million, 15% ofConservation Security Program pay-ments in Missouri, will pay for practicesthat should benefit wildlife by reducingthe use or impact of pesticides.

All together, $18.2 million, or 88%of the $20.6 million in ConservationSecurity Program payments in Missouri’sSpring Creek watershed, will be used forpractices that provide wildlife habitat orpesticide reduction benefits.

10 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service of Missouri, FY ’06 Proposed Conservation Security Program Sub-basin Spring River - 11070207,www.mo.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/spring.html. Author’s note: The NRCS-Missouri web site includes substantial information on the Spring River watershed, and would be a good model forother states to follow.


EGM Managed rotational grazing strategies $9,035,898 44%

EHM 20 Improve habitat to achieve wildlife enhancement index score of at least 0.6 $4,021,585 20%

EHM 12 Use quail habitat bundle of practices on cropland or grazing land. $664,904 3%

EHM 01 Leave crops un-harvested, or plant food plots on grasslands $392,103 2%

EHM 21 Manage native grasslands to maintain native plants. $201,802 1%

EHM 11 Hay and graze outside the nesting seasons. $123,537 1%

ENM Nutrient management through buffer strips and application

set-backs, and reducing phosphorus application $453,789 2%

EAM 06 Windbreaks to buffer feedlot areas $7,200 0%

EPM 17 Use of hedgerows, borders, filters and buffers to reduce pesticide impact $153,926 1%


EPM 05 Use spot spraying, mowing, or natural controls instead of broadcast pesticides $1,957,880 10%

EPM 10 Use field scouting to help keep pests below economically damaging thresholds. $738,910 4%

EPM Other pest management enhancements, including

pesticide selection to reduce runoff, and spray area set-backs from waterways. $460,676 2%


Total Wildlife Habitat and Pesticide Reduction Payments $18,212,210 88%



Wildlife Habitat and Pesticide Reduction Benefits in Missouri

Payments Through 2015

Share of allCSP payments



Nebraska’s Little Blue Watershed

he 2006 signup in Nebraska included the Upper Little Blue watershedin south-central Nebraska. The watershed includes 1.4 million acres ofland in south-central Nebraska, plus several thousand acres in Kansas.

The watershed is about 70% cropland and 30% range land and pasture. The watershed has many natural resource challenges and lies at the western

edge of the historic tallgrass prairie region in the central United States. Only 2%of Nebraska’s historic tallgrass prairies remain intact and this area includes someof the state’s last large parcels of native tallgrass prairie . It also includes portionsof the Rainwater Basin, a complex of wetlands that provides internationallyimportant migratory habitat for millions of ducks, geese, and other waterfowl.Only about 10% of historic Rainwater Basin wetlands remain intact, and the areaserves as the “waterfowl hotel” for the Central Flyway of North America .

The Little Blue River provides about 36% of the annual flow of the Big BlueRiver, which supplies drinking water for Topeka, Lawrence, and Kansas City,Kansas. Because of the extensive use of herbicides used to grow corn andsorghum, atrazine levels in the river have been a continuing problem. Irrigatedagriculture (almost all from groundwater sources) is prevalent in the central and

western part of the basin, especially north of the LittleBlue River. Dryland crops, pasture and range aremost common south of the river. The lower part ofthe watershed has fairly steep slopes that generallyexceed 10%, making fields in that portion more sus-ceptible to runoff .

In the last several years, the ongoing droughthas led to concerns about the level of river flows inthe Big Blue River. A compact between Nebraska andKansas requires Nebraska to restrict water use in thebasin when needed to maintain target river flows atthe state line .

T


CONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAM CONTRACTS In June, 2006, USDA announced that348 Nebraska farmers and rancherswere approved for ConservationSecurity Program contracts thatwould provide $5 million in paymentsin 2006 and over $40 million through2015. (In 2005, 1,016 farmers in 4watersheds were approved for CSPcontracts covering about 429,000 acresof land in Nebraska, most of it irrigat-ed cropland).

WILDLIFE HABITAT BENEFITS Through 2015, Conservation SecurityProgram contract enhancement pay-ments for planned HabitatManagement activities total $1.8 mil-lion, about 5% of total CSP payments.In addition, about $4.2 million in payments (10% of total program payments) is planned for grazingmanagement activities that should alsobenefit wildlife, primarily managedrotational grazing strategies thatshould provide benefits for grasslandwildlife.

The per-acre payment for thelargest category of grazing enhance-ments (EGM05-16, which provides forwater, cross-fencing, and adequate restof grasslands during the grazing sea-son), would appear to cover over23,000 acres of grassland in 2007. Thenumber of 2006 contracts that involveconservation of remnant native tall-grass prairies has not been confirmed,

but state wildlife officials report that anumber of the recent CSP contracts inthis part of Nebraska have includedtallgrass prairie (including some TierIII contracts).

The enhancement payments forproviding quail habitat should covernearly 30,000 acres of habitat, the bulkin the habitat quality index range of0.51 to 0.60 (representing usable butnot ideal quail habitat, including acombination of food sources andcover). The quail habitat enhancementwas one of the most popular practicesin Nebraska.

Enhancement payments designedto reward good prairie chicken habitat(typically large blocks of open grass-land) should cover over 10,500 acres ofhabitat, all in the habitat quality indexrange of 0.51 to 0.60 (representingusable but not ideal habitat). NebraskaGame & Parks Commission staff willbe conducting surveys in the future togauge changes in prairie chicken habi-tat that result.

The enhancement payments forleaving tall, undisturbed small grainstubble over winter would translateinto winter cover on nearly 59,000acres. Nutrient Management pay-ments to provide 5-15% (or more)buffer to cropland ratio should helpreduce atrazine, other pesticides,nutrients and sediment in the river.The planted buffer areas should alsoprovide wildlife cover, nesting andfood.

The small amount of enhance-ment payments for wetland manage-ment would appear to be enough toprovide benefits to about 59 acres ofwetlands. Some of the other practicesfunded could also have benefits forwetlands, including reduced runoff ofnutrients, sediments, and pesticidesinto wetland areas.

In all, $6.7 million, representing17% of Conservation SecurityProgram payments, is planned forpractices that should provide wildlifehabitat benefits in Nebraska.

OTHER WILDLIFE BENEFITSPest management strategies that selectand apply products in ways thatreduce pesticide runoff and leachingpotential, using crop rotations and spotspraying or banding of pesticides,should help address atrazine andnutrient problems in area streams.

$3.8 million, representing 9% of Conservation Security Programpayments, is planned for pesticidereduction strategies that should benefitsome wildlife species.

In all, $10.5 million inConservation Security Program enhance-ment payments planned through 2015should provide wildlife habitat or pesti-cide reduction benefits in Nebraska’sLittle Blue watershed. That representsjust over one-quarter of the $40 millionin total program contract paymentsresulting from the 2006 signup inNebraska.


EGM 05 Managed rotational grazing strategies $3,850,976 10%

ENM 03 Manage buffers with greater than 5% buffer/crop ratio $672,582 2%

EHM 20 Habitat index rating for quail at least 0.51 $647,210 2%

EHM 01 Leave undisturbed small grain stubble over winter $565,823 1%

EHM 02 Early successional habitat on field borders and

buffers, and un-harvested alfalfa buffers $287,100 1%

EHM 20 Habitat index for prairie chickens at least 0.51 $185,226 0%

EGM Other grazing management enhancements $324,015 1%

EHM Other habitat management enhancements $132,670 0%

ENM Other nutrient management enhancements $105,990 0%

EAM 06 Windbreaks to buffer feedlot areas $3,375 0%


EPM 03 Products selected to reduce runoff, use crop rotations,

spot spraying or banding to reduce pesticide use or impact $3,757,288 9%




11 Nebraska’s signup area included a small portion of the Middle-South Platte-Sterling watershed (located primarily in Colorado), but that watershed represents only about 1% of the wildlife-related CSP payments in Nebraska.12 Bachand, Richard, The American Prairie: Going, Going, Gone? A Status Report on the American Prairie, National Wildlife Federation, Boulder, Colorado, 2001.13 Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, The Rainwater Basin, www.rwbjv.org/_TRWB/index.htm.14 University of Nebraska, Conservation Buffers: Big Blue River Basin Nebraska and Kansas, Background, http://conservationbuffers.unl.edu/blueriverbackground.htm.15 Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, 2006 Annual Evaluation of Availability of Hydrologically Connected Water Supplies: Little Blue River Basin, December 30, 2005


Wildlife Habitat or Pesticide Reduction Benefits in Nebraska




he 2006 Conservation Security Program signup in Texas included fourwatersheds in northern Texas, plus the corner of Oklahoma’s UpperBeaver watershed. The Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red watershed is

in the Texas panhandle; the South Wichita and Wichita watersheds are in northTexas; and the East Fork Trinity watershed lies northeast of Dallas.

The South Wichita and Wichita watersheds lie in the rolling hills of northTexas. The area is mostly range; the Wichita watershed includes just over one-fourth cropland and 56% range, and the South Wichita is about 88% range.Major crops include wheat, cotton, and forage and grain sorghum. Invasivewoody species are a concern, as are wind and water erosion on cropland.

The Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red watershed in the Texas Panhandleincludes 1.3 million acres, about two-thirds of it range land. Dryland crops rep-resent 292,900 acres, about 22% of the watershed, while irrigated crops coverabout 77,800 acres, or 6% of the watershed. The area includes many cattle onrange land, and primary crops are small grains, grain and forage sorghum, andcotton.

The East Fork Trinity watershed lies just northeast of Dallas. About one-fourth of the 787,500 acres of land in the watershed is developed and about 45%is pasture or rangeland. Nearly one-fourth of the watershed is dryland croplandthat grows wheat, corn, grain and forage sorghum, cotton, soybeans, and vegetables.


North Texas Watersheds

CONSERVATION SECURITYPROGRAM CONTRACTSIn June, 2006, the USDA announcedthat 15 applications from Texas wereapproved for Conservation SecurityProgram contracts that would provide$395,373 in FY 2006, and $2.9 millionthrough 2015, in payments. Those con-tracts were primarily in the UpperPrairie Dog Town Fork Red water-shed and to a lesser extent the Witchitawatershed. A few ConservationSecurity Program contracts in the

Upper Beaver watershed are alsoincluded. The East Fork Trinitywatershed received only one verysmall contract, representing just $1,350through 2015, and the South Wichitawatershed received no approved CSPcontracts.

In 2005, 67 Texas farmers andranchers in 18 watersheds receivedConservation Security Program con-tracts, covering about 379,000 acres.

T

The Texas horned lizard, the state

lizard, is a state-protected species

that lives throughout Texas.



Grazing management enhance-ments should provide the second high-est category of wildlife habitat bene-fits, in a region that contains substan-tial range land. In the Upper PrairieDog Town Fork Red watershed,enhancements include providing alter-native sources of water to reduce theimpact of livestock on streams andnatural springs on over 28,000 acres ofrange (EGM 10). In that watershed,invasive brush would be controlled onover 100,000 acres of land (EGM 08).Other grazing management enhance-ments include grazing strategiesdesigned to benefit a designatedwildlife species, rotational grazingpractices, and fencing to restrict live-stock access to ponds and streams.

In all, about $1.9 million inConservation Security Program enhance-ment payments planned through 2015should fund practices that provide bene-fits to wildlife or wildlife habitat. Thatrepresents about 67% of the $2.9 millionin total contract payments resulting fromthe 2006 signup in Texas.

OTHER WILDLIFE BENEFITSPest management enhancementsinclude the use and application ofproducts in ways that would reducepesticide runoff and leaching on near-ly 18,000 acres in the Witchita water-shed, and spot spraying or bandingwould be used to reduce pesticide useon over 6,600 acres. Other funded pestmanagement strategies include usingcrop rotations to break up pest cycles,and field scouting to reduce pesticideuse.

Conservation Security Programcontract enhancement payments forpest management that should benefitwildlife total $367,162 through 2015,about 13% of total program payments.

In all, $2.3 million in ConservationSecurity Program enhancement pay-ments planned through 2015 should fundpractices that provide benefits to wildlifeor wildlife habitat, or reduce pesticides inways that should benefit wildlife. Thatrepresents 80% of the $2.9 million intotal contract payments resulting fromthe 2006 signup in Texas.

WILDLIFE HABITAT BENEFITSBased on USDA information,through 2015, Conservation SecurityProgram contract enhancement pay-ments for planned HabitatManagement activities in Texas total$1.2 million, about 41% of total CSPpayments. In addition, $726,756 (25%of total CSP payments) is planned forgrazing management activities thatshould also benefit wildlife.

The $1.2 million in HabitatManagement enhancements through2015 will provide for a variety of prac-tices that will benefit wildlife in thedry rangeland of north Texas. In theUpper Prairie Dog Town Fork Redwatershed, that includes providingyear-round water sources for wildlifeon over 30,000 acres of range (EHM06). Wildlife escape ramps would beprovided for water tanks serving over28,000 acres of range (EHM 29).Landowners would manage the timing of harvest to avoid the nestingseason on over 3,300 acres (EHM 03).Other wildlife habitat managementpractices include leaving unharvestedgrain as a wildlife food source, pre-scribed burning of grasslands, andbrush management.


EHM 29 Provide wildlife escape ramps for water tanks $374,456 13%

EHM 03 Avoid nesting period when harvesting hay, crops $263,715 9%

EGM 10 Use alternate watering facilities to reduce the impact

of livestock on streams and springs $221,145 8%

EGM 08 Manage invasive brush species $208,080 7%

EGM 03 Grazing management strategies that benefit a target wildlife species $192,908 7%

EHM 06 Provide year-around water source for wildlife $151,882 5%

EHM Other habitat management, including leaving un-harvested

grain for food, prescribed burns, clearing brush, and

obtaining a minimum habitat index score $392,874 14%

EGM Other grazing management, including rotational grazing and

limiting livestock access to streams and ponds $104,623 4%


EPM 03 Pesticide selection to reduce runoff $224,063 8%

EPM Other pest management, including spot spraying instead of

broadcast, use of crop rotation to break up pest cycles $143,099 5%

Total Pesticide Reduction Payments That Benefit Wildlife $367,162 13%

Total Wildlife Habitat and Pesticide Reduction $2,277,230 80%




Conservation Security Program Enhancement Practices With Wildlife

Habitat and Pesticide Reduction Benefits


Notes

FERD HOEFNER


110 Maryland Avenue NE

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 547-5754

JULIE SIBBING


1400 Sixteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 797-6800

BRAD REDLIN

Izaak Walton League of America

1619 Dayton Avenue, Suite 202

St. Paul, MN 55104

(651) 649-1446

DUANE HOVORKA


409 310th Street

Elmwood, NE 68349

(402) 994-5995

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Documents

Hidden Treasures - IATP · HIDDEN TREASURES 5 hen Congress enacted the Conservation Security Program as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, it culminated over two decades of discussions on