Farm Bill Conservation Programs Research Articles

Using Remote Sensing to Measure the Impact of Farm Bill Conservation Programs on Overwintering Cover Crop Presence at Landscape Scales

Using Remote Sensing to Measure the Impact of Farm Bill Conservation Programs on Overwintering Cover Crop Presence at Landscape Scales

Iowa Farm Environmental Leaders' Perspectives on the U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs

As stakeholders prepare to lobby future Farm Bills, this study reveals farmers’ perspectives on federal conservation programs. In-depth interviews were held with ten farm environmental leaders, farmers who have extensive experience with conservation practices and federal conservation programs. Results reveal that conservation programs have played a limited but important role in incentivizing the adoption of and offsetting costs for establishing conservation practices. Programs’ strengths, weaknesses, and potential improvements were also explored; results reveal that most farmers believe existing conservation programs could be improved with relatively minor tweaks and adaptations, such as more flexibility in working land program requirements and adjustments to land retirement program payment rates. To some extent, farm environmental leaders also align themselves with the perspectives of environmental NGOs, advocating for transformative approaches, such as expanding mandatory conservation compliance to all cropland, including non-Highly Erodible Lands cropland.

Promoting sustainable agriculture: Iowa stakeholders’ perspectives on the US Farm Bill conservation programs

Farmers perceive a tension between short-term profit and long-term sustainability, which can be bridged by external investments in conservation. In the USA, the Farm Bill plays an important role in providing this investment through conservation programs. Since the Farm Bill is influenced by various stakeholders, their perspectives tend to inform its programs and practices. We aim to understand influential stakeholders’ viewpoints on strengths and weaknesses of major conservation programs as a means for either incremental or transformative changes leading to policy improvements. Interviews were conducted with representatives from key stakeholder groups, including farmer and agribusiness groups, commodity groups, government agencies, and environmental NGOs. Results reveal that commodity group and agribusiness representatives maintain that current conservation programs have been effective at reducing soil erosion and proposing incremental changes to them. Specific issues include simplifying the conservation stewardship program, easing requirements attached to the environmental quality incentive program, avoiding excessive conservation reserve program payments to compete with tenant farmers for good agricultural lands, and preventing farmers from being out of compliance on highly erodible land. However, results also reveal that stakeholders now appear to be more concerned about water quality and nutrient management rather than soil erosion. Environmental NGOs and research groups present transformative ideas to address this issue. At the farm level, they promote both infrastructural improvements and conservation-conscious management practices. At the landscape level, many stakeholders recognize the need for holistic, scalable approaches to soil and water quality conservation. However, interviewed stakeholders unanimously foresee incremental, not transformative, changes to Farm Bill conservation programs and policies.

Wildlife value orientation of landowners from five states in the upper midwest, USA

ABSTRACTFive Upper Midwest states (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa) participated in a Plains and Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative (PPP-LCC) funded survey of landowners. All five surveys included a 13-item wildlife value orientation (WVO) scale to provide insight into how landowners in this region make land use decisions that affect wildlife habitat. Most landowners were utilitarian (59%), 11% were identified as mutualists, and pluralists and distanced landowners were 15% each. Pluralist and mutualist landowners placed more importance on wildlife considerations when making land use decisions compared to utilitarian and distanced landowners. However, landowners’ WVO was not related to their participation in United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Bill conservation programs. The proportion of WVO types among landowners varied considerably by age cohort. The proportion of utilitarians was highest for landowners born during the 1970s age cohorts and has since declined.

Farmer Participation in U.S. Farm Bill Conservation Programs

Conservation policy in agricultural systems in the United States relies primarily on voluntary action by farmers. Federal conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, offer incentives, both financial and technical, to farmers in exchange for adoption of conservation practices. Understanding motivations for (as well as barriers to) participation in voluntary programs is important for the design of future policy and effective outreach. While a significant literature has explored motivations and barriers to conservation practice adoption and participation in single programs, few studies in the U.S. context have explored general participation by farmers in one place and time. A mixed-methods research approach was utilized to explore farmer participation in all U.S. Farm Bill programs in Indiana. Current and past program engagement was high, with nearly half of survey respondents reporting participation in at least one program. Most participants had experience with the Conservation Reserve Program, with much lower participation rates in other programs. Most interview participants who had experience in programs were motivated by the environmental benefits of practices, with incentives primarily serving to reduce the financial and technical barriers to practice adoption. The current policy arrangement, which offers multiple policy approaches to conservation, offers farmers with different needs and motivations a menu of options. However, evidence suggests that the complexity of the system may be a barrier that prevents participation by farmers with scarce time or resources. Outreach efforts should focus on increasing awareness of program options, while future policy must balance flexibility of programs with complexity.

Opportunities and challenges to implementing bird conservation on private lands

With >70% of the United States held in private ownership, land-use decisions of landowners will ultimately dictate the future of bird conservation in North America. However, land-use objectives of landowners vary considerably and present opportunities and challenges for bird conservationists. Innovative strategies incorporating proactive approaches to address educational, financial, social, and economic needs of landowners are required to garner participation in conservation programs and practices to create or enhance bird habitat on privately owned working lands. Farm Bill conservation programs and practices provide unprecedented opportunities to facilitate bird conservation at regional and national scales and frequently serve as the primary vehicle for many non-governmental organizations to accomplish their bird conservation goals. We identify current challenges and opportunities for bird conservation on private lands and present 4 case studies whereby partnerships with federal agencies, mainly the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, have proven successful in eliciting positive, measurable outcomes to bird conservation efforts on private lands spanning many North American physiographic regions. The future of bird conservation will increasingly rely upon the ability of federal agencies to prioritize and allocate additional resources to deliver bird conservation programs on private lands and a greater awareness by conservationists of the role of economics in the decision-making process of landowners. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

Bird community response to mid‐rotation management in conservation reserve program pine plantations

AbstractOpen pine–grasslands are one of the most threatened ecological communities in the southeastern United States and provide essential habitat for many regionally declining bird species. While open pine–grassland forests have diminished, acreage of pine plantations has increased throughout the Southeast, in part because of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill conservation programs. To understand whether fire and herbicide treatments would be effective in creating pine–grassland structure in plantations suitable for a suite of declining early successional and pine–grassland adapted species, we evaluated combined effects of selective herbicide and prescribed fire on plant and bird communities in thinned, mid‐rotation pine stands established under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in Mississippi, USA. Within each of the 12 replicate sites, we assigned 2 paired 8.1‐ha plots to either treatment (herbicide + prescribed fire) or control in a randomized complete block design. We applied treatments during autumn and winter of 2002–2003. During 2003–2006 breeding seasons, we characterized the bird community using repeated (4–6 repetitions/yr), standardized, 10‐minute point counts from which we estimated species richness, total relative abundance, total avian conservation value, and density of select species. Managed plots exhibited reduced hardwood midstory and a greater abundance of grasses and forbs in the ground layer. Although avian species richness and total relative abundance were similar in treatment and control stands, we observed a shift in the bird community from closed‐canopy forest species to early successional and pine–grassland adapted species, many of which are experiencing population declines. We recommend thinning, hardwood midstory control, and prescribed burning within CRP pine plantations to provide habitat for a suite of regionally declining bird species. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

New Farm Bill Could Have Devastating Effects on Water Quality

Agricultural nonpoint-source pollution has repeatedly been cited as a leading cause of degraded water quality in water bodies ranging from tributaries to coastal estuaries. Approximately 40 percent of US agricultural land— roughly 15 percent of all the land in the United States—is enrolled in farm bill conservation programs aimed at improving soil retention and reducing nutrient pollution. But as Congress looks for ways to reduce discretionary funding, these conservation programs are on the chopping block in the 2012 reauthorization of the bill. The impact on water quality could be devastating. The conservation title of the farm bill cost $844 million in fiscal year (FY) 2012. Although there are many conservation programs within the bill, one of the most widely known is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The goal of the CRP, which has existed in various forms since the Agriculture Act of 1954, is to counteract erosion by providing rental payments and costshare assistance to landowners who take sensitive land out of production. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D–MI), chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, credits CRP for preventing in 2012 a repeat of the 1930s Dust Bowl that devastated the American Southwest: “The soil, while it was dry, stayed on the ground because [of] the Conservation Reserve Program.” The impact of the CRP in reducing nonpoint-source pollution has been substantial. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute estimates that in FY 2010, the CRP reduced the nitrogen leaving fields by 95 percent are already taking a hit through the FY 2013 appropriations process. At a March subcommittee hearing, Representative Jack Kingston (R–GA), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, took aim at the CRP: “CRP is something like 10 percent of the crop acreage, but it is 50 percent of the expenditure.... People are getting a monthly check and they decided they like the program. I think we need to look at it.” Ranking member Sam Farr (D–CA) offered his own twist on the usual disparagement of paying people not to farm: “We ought not be paying people for not farming on land they shouldn’t be farming” in the first place. The debate over acreage caps could be moot, however, as prices for corn rise, prompting farmers to opt out of their CRP contracts. In the past year alone, the program has lost 1.5 million acres. The current total of 28 million acres is the lowest amount of enrolled acreage since 1988. Given the importance of CRP lands to wildlife such as migratory birds, conservation groups are keeping close tabs on these land-use changes. “The rate at which native grassland, particularly in our nation’s prairies, is being converted rivals any in recent history,” said Ducks Unlimited’s chief conservation officer Paul Schmidt. “The results could be disastrous for this continent’s waterfowl and wildlife.”

Precision conservation: A geospatial decision support tool for optimizing conservation and profitability in agricultural landscapes

The USDA Farm Bill conservation programs provide landowner incentives to remove less productive and environmentally sensitive lands from agricultural production and reestablish them in natural vegetation (e.g., native grasses, trees, etc.) to achieve conservation objectives. However, removal of arable land from production imposes an opportunity cost associated with loss in revenue from commodities that otherwise would have been produced. Recent Farm Bills have increasingly emphasized targeted practices to achieve specific environmental outcomes that maximize environmental benefits relative to cost. The Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds practice (CP-33) under the continuous Conservation Reserve Program is an example of a targeted conservation practice that has produced measureable outcomes (increased bobwhite and grassland bird populations) with relatively minor changes in primary land use. However, establishing conservation buffers on profitable farmland may be incompatible with the economic objectives of landowners/producers. Precision agriculture technologies provide a powerful conservation planning tool for identifying environmental and economic opportunities in agricultural systems. Precision implementation of conservation practices, such as CP-33, is the foundation of strategic conservation planning and is essential for optimization of environmental and economic benefits. Toward this end, we developed a geospatial decision support tool (Arc GIS tool) to inform this decision-making process. We illustrate the geoprocessing workflow of the tool and demonstrate the conditions under which precision implementation of conservation practices can concomitantly increase whole-field profitability and environmental services for an example farm in Mississippi.

USDA conservation program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services in the Prairie Pothole Region

Implementation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) has resulted in the restoration of >2 million ha of wetland and grassland habitats in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR). Restoration of habitats through these programs provides diverse ecosystem services to society, but few investigators have evaluated the environmental benefits achieved by these programs. We describe changes in wetland processes, functions, and ecosystem services that occur when wetlands and adjacent uplands on agricultural lands are restored through Farm Bill conservation programs. At the scale of wetland catchments, projects have had positive impacts on water storage, reduction in sedimentation and nutrient loading, plant biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat. However, lack of information on the geographic location of restored catchments relative to landscape‐level factors (e.g., watershed, proximity to rivers and lakes) limits interpretation of ecosystem services that operate at multiple scales such as floodwater retention, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat suitability. Considerable opportunity exists for the USDA to incorporate important landscape factors to better target conservation practices and programs to optimize diverse ecosystem services. Restoration of hydrologic processes within wetlands (e.g., hydroperiod, water level dynamics) also requires a better understanding of the influence of conservation cover composition and structure, and management practices that occur in uplands surrounding wetlands. Although conservation programs have enhanced delivery of ecosystem services in the PPR, the use of programs to provide long‐term critical ecosystem services is uncertain because when contracts (especially CRP) expire, economic incentives may favor conversion of land to crop production, rather than reenrollment. As demands for agricultural products (food, fiber, biofuel) increase, Farm Bill conservation programs will become increasingly important to ensure provisioning of ecosystem services to society, especially in agriculturally dominated landscapes. Thus, continued development and support for conservation programs legislated through the Farm Bill will require a more comprehensive understanding of wetland ecological services to better evaluate program achievements relative to conservation goals.

Agricultural conservation practices increase wetland ecosystem services in the Glaciated Interior Plains

The Glaciated Interior Plains historically supported a broad variety of wetland types, but wetland losses, primarily due to agricultural drainage, range from 50% to 90% of presettlement area. Wholesale land use change has created one of the most productive agricultural regions on earth, but wetland conversion has also led to the loss of the ecosystem services they provide, particularly water quality improvement, flood de‐synchronization, carbon sequestration, and support of wetland‐dependent species (biodiversity). Nearly three‐quarters of the Glaciated Interior Plains fall within the Mississippi River drainage basin, where the combination of extensive tile drainage and fertilizer use has produced watersheds that contribute some of the highest nitrogen yields per acre to the Mississippi River. Wetland conservation practices implemented under Farm Bill conservation programs have established or involved management of nearly 110 000 ha of wetlands, riparian zones, and associated ecosystem services over the period 2000–2007. We estimated the cumulative ability of these conservation practices to retain sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus in Upper Mississippi River Basin watersheds. Estimated retention amounts to 1.0%, 1.5%, and 0.8% of the total N, sediment, and P, respectively, reaching the Gulf of Mexico each year. If nutrient reduction is estimated based on the quantity of nutrients exported from the Glaciated Interior Plains region only, the numbers increase to 6.8% of N, 4.9% of P, and 11.5% of sediment generated in the region annually. On a watershed basis, the correlation between the area of wetland conservation practices implemented and per‐hectare nutrient yield was 0.81, suggesting that, for water quality improvement, conservation practices are successfully targeting watersheds that are among the most degraded. The provision of other ecosystem services such as C sequestration and biodiversity is less well studied. At best, implementation of wetland and riparian conservation practices in agricultural landscapes results in improved environmental quality and human health, and strengthens the rationale for expanding conservation practices and programs on agricultural lands.

Barriers to Implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill Conservation Programs and their Implications in Manure Management

Barriers to Implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill Conservation Programs and their Implications in Manure ManagementThe working land conservation programs in the 2008 Farm Bill are capable of enhancing environmental and public health, along with encouraging innovation that will yield sustainable agriculture. Progress in this arena is pivotal, as concerns about links among agricultural practices, environmental degradation, and public health increase. The implementation of these conservation programs can have a...Author(s)Kari B. FitzmorrisAlison J. ScottSourceProceedings of the Water Environment FederationSubjectSession 3: Young Professionals: The Industry's Future IDocument typeConference PaperPublisherWater Environment FederationPrint publication date Jan, 2010ISSN1938-6478SICI1938-6478(20100101)2010:4L.159;1-DOI10.2175/193864710802767786Volume / Issue2010 / 4Content sourceResiduals and Biosolids ConferenceFirst / last page(s)159 - 166Copyright2010Word count121Subject keywordsAgricultureConservationManure ManagementFarm Bill

Barriers to Implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill Conservation Programs and their Implications in Manure Management

Barriers to Implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill Conservation Programs and their Implications in Manure Management

Enhancing the Farm Bill's Conservation Potential Through Land Prioritization

ABSTRACT The Farm Bill conservation programs serve as the primary tools for the creation and improvement of wildlife habitat on working lands. Wildlife conservation would benefit from a working land‐prioritization system that integrates these programs. We developed a Geographic Information System (GIS)–based system to prioritize land for inclusion in Farm Bill conservation programs. We designed the system to be applicable throughout the United States, to minimize potential conflicts of interest, and to facilitate simple implementation. We designated high conservation value (HCV) lands using habitats of greatest conservation need. We placed priority zones around HCV lands to determine high‐ and low‐priority working lands. Nationwide implementation of this system would require gathering and manipulating data from multiple sources, as well as creation of a GIS layer denoting locations of working lands currently in conservation programs. This system would allow funding to be maximized through the ability to select participation based on property location and size, and to target landowners for participation. The wide‐ranging potential benefits of this system make it well‐suited for serving as the backbone to conservation on working lands.

The Role of Farm Policy in Achieving Large-Scale Conservation: Bobwhite and Buffers

The Farm Bill provides a policy vehicle for implementing conservation programs with the potential to alter land use on a large spatial scale. The conservation payments under the Farm Bill dwarf the collective investment of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Pittman-Robertson Act, and Conservation and Reinvestment Act. However, the ecological value of past policy has varied by program, practice, region, and wildlife species, resulting in a broad array of wildlife habitat and population effects ranging from positive to negative. We argue the conservation provisions of the Farm Bill can produce more consistent positive wildlife habitat benefits when policy (program statutes, rules, practices, and practice standards) is developed in the context of explicit goals identified as part of large-scale conservation initiatives. For example, initiatives like the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, and the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI) set science-based goals and objectives to facilitate wildlife species population recovery and sustainability at the landscape scale. We contend that the best ecological and societal cost/benefit ratio is achieved when Farm Bill conservation programs and practices are developed to address these specific habitat goals. We present a case study illustrating how a Conservation Reserve Program option (Conservation Practice 33—Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds) specifically addresses NBCI goals and objectives. We discuss the successes, failures, and lessons learned by NCBI in policy formulation, practice development, programmatic delivery, and evaluation.