Work Plan for the Wildlife Component

Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) National Assessment

Note this document is also available in PDF format, which requires Adobe Acrobat.
CEAP Wildlife Component Work Plan PDF (0.5 MB)

Executive Summary

The Wildlife Component of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) National Assessment is an effort to quantify the effects of the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) conservation practices and pro­grams on fish and wildlife and their habitats in land­scapes influenced by agriculture in the United States.  The Wildlife Component complements the CEAP Cropland Component by addressing fish and wildlife population responses and habitat issues that are not obtainable through its sampling and modeling frame­work.  Since fish and wildlife are affected by conservation actions taken on a variety of landscapes, the Wildlife Component also links to the Wetlands and Grazing Lands Components, to the extent possible.  The myriad effects of the many conservation practices on innumerable fish and wildlife species and communities are virtually impossible to comprehensibly quantify.  Therefore, the Wildlife Component operates under some basic principles to document those effects that are reasonably quantifiable.  These principles include working collaboratively with others already engaged in relevant assessments, leveraging the use of existing data to the extent possible, identifying critical data gaps and stimulating actions to fill them, and focusing assessments on regional scales.

Working in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency, The Wildlife Society is spearheading efforts to summarize effects of USDA conservation programs and practices already documented in the literature.  This effort, resulting in the production of one literature synthesis volume based on conservation programs and another volume based on groups of conservation practices, provides a baseline of understanding upon which additional assessment efforts can build.

Under a contribution agreement with NRCS, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is assisting with conducting workshops and otherwise engaging state fish and wildlife agencies and others in identifying on-going relevant assessment activity and recognizing and prioritizing remaining assessment needs at the regional level.  Specific Wildlife Component projects are then able to target data gaps and meet outstanding assessment needs identified by the fish and wildlife conservation community.  Assessment actions and projects initiated and funded by the Wildlife Component are complemented by numerous other on-going and related activities that can be used to help explain conservation practice effects on fish and wild­life.  Wildlife Component projects funded through Fiscal Year 2006 and related activities are briefly described in this work plan.  As new insights and understanding is generated from these efforts, assessment priorities are expected to shift.  Therefore, this work plan is intended to serve as a living document that is regularly updated to adapt to emerging assessment needs in the future.

Introduction

The U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) is engaged in an effort to quantify the environmental benefits of agricultural conservation practices supported by USDA programs and technical assistance from field technicians (Mausbach and Dedrick 2004).  This Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) is comprised of several components, including a National Assessment that contains the Cropland, Wetlands, Wildlife, and Grazing Lands Components; and a series of Watershed Assessment studies that complement the National Assessment components through focused investigations conducted in select watersheds around the country.  The purpose of CEAP is to enhance the technical information necessary to better address the Nation’s environmental and conservation goals related to agricultural policy, programs, and activities.  

The CEAP Wildlife Component was established to develop approaches to assess and document the fish and wildlife benefits of USDA conservation programs and practices.  A diverse inter-organization task force was assembled to provide input to this effort.  Whereas the approach of the Cropland Component focuses on the use of existing physical effects process models applied to a sample of cropland and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) field sites throughout the country to estimate soil and water related benefits nationwide, the approach taken by the Wildlife Component relies on assembling and coordinating a wide array of assessment activities already underway and targeting additional effort to fill high-priority data gaps.  Priority is given to making use of existing natural resource information and data and applying them in ways that help document specific effects of conservation practices on fish and wildlife resources.  Although this effort is titled the Wildlife Component, it attempts to capture and document, to the extent possible, effects of conservation practices on the full spectrum of aquatic and terrestrial fauna potentially affected by agricultural activities.  This work plan lays out the framework under which the Wildlife Component operates.  It is intended to be a living document, subject to regular modification and refinement as additional activities are identified and initiated and as funds become available.

As they are implemented, elements of the Wildlife Component are intended to generate outcomes that will enable stakeholders to gain an appreciation of fish and wildlife benefits achieved.  Results should inform USDA’s efforts to tailor conservation programs and practices to increase their effective­ness in addressing fish and wildlife conservation needs in agricultural landscapes.

Agricultural conservation programs and wildlife

The reliance of the majority of fish and wildlife resources in the United States on private lands has long been recognized (Hall 1946).  Over 75% of the land base in the conterminous United States is in private ownership.  Nearly 20% of the total land area is under cultivation and more than one-third is comprised of private grazing lands.  These land base attributes highlight the importance of private land management to the welfare of fish and wildlife resources in agricultural landscapes and beyond. 

Agricultural practices and farm policy have long affected the welfare of fish and wildlife communities in much of the U.S. (Gerard 1995).  Impacts associated with conversion of natural habitats to crop and livestock agricultural production has historically been a primary cause of natural ecosystem degradation and fish and wildlife habitat loss (Noss et al. 1995, Tewksbury et al. 2002).  New technologies involving agrichemicals, precision farming equipment, and crop genetics are enabling production to intensify on lands currently under cultivation (Cassman et al. 2005).  These technological advances, in combination with government price supports for commodity crops, make it profitable in some areas to place new lands such as native prairie into agricultural production (House 2005, Johnson 2005, Brady 2006, Stephens 2006).  These advances can place further stress on biodiversity, potentially damaging ecosystem services associated with native biota, such as pollination (Kremen et al. 2002).  At the same time, advances in our understanding of ecological principles and conservation practices have provided insight on how agricultural producers can integrate fish and wildlife habitat considerations into their land management activities (Cassman et al. 2005).  Producers and conservationists are finding new ways to work cooperatively with the land to generate both agricultural and natural resource "commodities," including productive fish and wildlife habitats (DeVore 2002, Imhoff 2003).

The Conservation Title of the 1985 Food Security Act (Farm Bill) opened a new era of conservation (Myers 1988, Heimlich et al. 1998).  In response, the wildlife conservation community has in­creasingly become focused on the opportunity that USDA conservation programs and practices offer to benefit fish and wildlife habitats and populations in the United States.  Wildlife agen­cies and groups have been involved in the legislative process to enhance the fish and wildlife conservation potential in farm bills that reauthorized and expanded the 1985 conservation provisions (1990, 1996, and 2002 Farm Bills).  Many studies have been conducted to document the value of these conservation programs to wild­life resources (Heard et al. 2000, Allen 2004, Haufler 2005).  Numerous special sessions have been held at wildlife conservation community venues such as the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference and The Wildlife Society annual conferences to highlight wildlife conservation accomplishments and opportunities provided by the farm bill.  State fish and wildlife agencies and non-governmental conservation organizations are assisting with delivery of conservation programs to enhance fish and wildlife habitat on private lands throughout the country.  Many of these entities have entered into formal agreements with USDA to assist in program implementation.

CEAP Wildlife Component Objectives

The primary objective of the CEAP Wildlife Component is to quantify the effects of agricultural conservation practices on fish and wildlife resources on landscapes influenced by agriculture in the United States.  The Wildlife Component is intended to complement other components of CEAP.  The majority of initial CEAP effort has been placed on development of the Cropland Component—sampling and modeling associated with the cropland component have been underway since 2003.  Therefore, initial focus of the Wildlife Component is on documenting fish and wildlife benefits derived from conservation practices applied in and around croplands, including lands enrolled in the CRP, followed by documenting wildlife effects associated with other land uses.  The Wildlife Component objectives are:

Short-term:

• Develop and implement approaches for estimating fish and wildlife effects associated with conservation practices applied in cropland settings (including CRP).

Longer-term:

• Develop and implement approaches for estimating fish and wildlife effects associated with conservation practices on wetlands, grazing lands, and forestlands.

• Develop and implement approaches to extending water quality benefits measured by the Cropland Component to effects on aquatic organisms.

While the highest priority is placed on addressing cropland and CRP enrollments, work to develop approaches to address other land uses can move forward without waiting for the cropland objective to be completely met.  In effect, work in all land types is proceeding simultaneously, where feasible.  Efforts are also underway to integrate approaches to capturing fish and wildlife benefits into the CEAP Wetlands and Grazing Lands Components.

Developing an Approach

In 2004, an initial task force was established to develop an approach for the CEAP Wildlife Component.  This group consisted of individuals from numerous or­ganizations that are interested in or had been previously involved with efforts to quantify the fish and wildlife benefits of USDA con­servation programs.  Output from two workshops—one in January 2004 in Washington, D.C., and another in June 2004 in Fort Collins, Colorado—helped lay the foundation for the Wildlife Component approach.  Individuals from the following federal partner agencies were involved with initial scoping activities:

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS):  Resource Inventory and Assessment Division (CEAP Wildlife Component lead), Ecological Sciences Division, Easement Programs Division, Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, National Resources Inventory and Analysis Institute

Farm Service Agency (FSA):  Conservation and Environmental Programs Division, Economics and Policy Analysis Staff

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service:  Natural Resources and Environment

Agriculture Research Service:  National Sedimentation Laboratory

Economic Research Service

U.S. Geological Survey:  Biological Resources Division

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:  Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The interest and resources of numerous other individuals and entities have been involved with and are connected to the component in many ways.  Individuals representing other federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (e.g., Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, The Wildlife Society, Wildlife Management Institute, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, North American Waterfowl Management Plan joint ventures, Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, NatureServe, Defenders of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited, American Fisheries Society, and others), universities and other academic institutions, and state fish and wildlife agencies have provided in­put to and assistance with planning Wildlife Component activities.  The intent of working with this diverse group of primarily fish and wildlife scientists and managers is to capture the on-going work in this active field and to encourage others to become engaged as specific action items are identified. 

What do we mean by "effects?"

For purposes of the Wildlife Component, documented "effects" of practices on fish and wildlife may include any of the following attributes that are quantified in a scientifically based, technically credible way:

1. documented habitat use by target species or groups
2. changes in habitat quality for target species or groups
3. target species population response

Documented habitat use is generally described as the occurrence of an organism in a habitat, regardless of its health or breeding status.  While documenting use of habitats by target species is informative, it is limited without additional information on how the habitat supports the survival and reproduction of the species in the area.  Additionally, fish and wildlife use of local habitats associated with conservation practices may be difficult to predict due to the effects of landscape condition, local weather patterns, regional population status, and other factors.  Quantifying population response is the most powerful measure of effects, yet it is not always possible to tie population changes to practice effects because of the great many extraneous factors that affect species population dynamics.  The most reliable predictor of effects may be quantification of the change in habitat quality for target species associated with implementation of conservation practices.  A focus on habitat quality is useful in predicting the potential for habitats to provide the conditions necessary for target species to survive and reproduce.  The approach of the Wildlife Component attempts to compile documentation of each of these categories of effect, wherever feasible and to the extent possible.

Efforts have been made to develop indicators of ecosystem services (National Research Council 2000, The Heinz Center 2002).  There is continued interest in developing aggregate ecological indicators to gauge the health of the environment, similar to the way well-established economic indicators track the state of the U.S. economy (Meyerson et al. 2005).  While such indicators may be attractive for use in assessing effects of certain conservation actions, they have not been developed to the point where they provide much promise for use in the CEAP Wildlife Component in the near-term.  Therefore, the majority of the effort focuses on quantifying effects of common practices and conservation systems on fish and wildlife species or species groups for which documentation is available or obtainable in the near future. 

Considerable attention has been placed by a variety of wildlife conservation interests to set strategic habitat and population objectives for priority species or groups.  Examples include plans developed by joint ventures established by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan beginning in the mid-1980s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986).  These joint ventures have expanded to adopt all-bird conservation objectives, which have ties to specific plans developed for waterbirds (Kushlan et al. 2002), shorebirds (Brown et al. 2001), land birds (Rich et al. 2004), northern bobwhites and other bird species integrated through the efforts of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative.  Similar planning efforts are evolving for non-bird species.  The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (Schwaab et al. 2005) associated with the emerging National Fish Habitat Initiative and National Fish Habitat Action Plan is developing a conservation plan for this at-risk fish species.  Where possible, conservation effects documented through the CEAP Wildlife Component will be set within the context of habitat and population objectives established by various elements of the fish and wildlife conservation community.  This provides the opportunity to go beyond documenting habitat use, shifts in habitat quality, or changes in populations by conveying meaning to such changes with respect to established national or regional goals for target species.  Water quality metrics associated with land treatment practices may have little use without some sense of what such metrics mean for the health of receiving water bodies (Soil and Water Conservation Society 2006).  Likewise, documented fish and wildlife effects viewed in the context of specific habitat and population objectives are much more useful than providing simple metrics without an understanding of what these metrics mean for target species.

Literature Review

As with other CEAP components, the first step in developing the approach for the Wildlife Component involves examining the current literature on fish and wildlife effects and establishing the state of our knowledge in this area.  As noted above, much effort has been made to study the wildlife response to USDA con­servation programs.  A milestone of compiling this work is the comprehensive literature review and synthesis conducted by Heard et al. (2000).  Since the production of that work in 2000, considerable additional study has been done by a variety of investigators.  Expanded implementation of programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the En­vironmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has greatly extended the accomplishments of these programs beyond where they were in 2000.  The execution of new conservation programs authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill has also resulted in considerable additional habitat accomplishments.  Therefore, a new effort was initiated to review the published literature and update the state of our un­derstanding of the fish and wildlife benefits derived from conservation programs and practices.

In 2005, NRCS and FSA entered into an agreement with The Wildlife Society to synthesize the current literature regarding fish and wildlife response to conservation programs and practices.  This effort was conducted in two phases.  Phase I provided an update of the 2000 program-based literature review developed by Heard et al. (2000), and Phase II is intended to synthesize the literature describing the fish and wildlife benefits of specific conservation practices.  Phase I of this effort, the program-based literature review update, was finalized in November 2005 (Haufler 2005).  The Phase II (practice-based) review is expected to be complete by fall 2006.  The following are some of the primary findings of the Phase I program-based literature review update.

• Most data are from studies conducted on bird response to the CRP.
• Small wetlands in crop fields protected by Swampbuster continue to be critical to waterfowl productivity (Brady 2005, Reynolds 2005).
• Many grassland bird populations have benefited from the change in land use from cropland to grass cover associated with the nearly 20 million acres of CRP in the Great Plains states (Johnson 2005).
• CRP habitat in the Midwest likely contributes to the population growth and stability for some, but not all, grassland wildlife species (Farrand and Ryan 2005).
• Grassland bird production on individual CRP contract fields depends on the cover composition and disturbance from haying and grazing (Johnson 2005).
• Southeastern CRP grasslands managed through burning provide greater vegetation structure and wildlife habitat value than similar sites managed by mowing (Burger 2005).
• While habitat for some grassland bird species is improved the year after (emergency) haying (e.g., horned lark, chestnut-collared longspur, lark bunting), many more species’ habitat quality declines (Johnson 2005).
• From 1992–2003, the presence of upland nesting cover provided by CRP in the upper Midwest resulted in the production of 25.7 million additional upland nesting ducks in the Prairie Pothole Region (Reynolds 2005).
• Studies show positive wildlife response to CRP in the Midwest, but results are complicated by the diversity of vegetation condition and landscape patterns (Farrand and Ryan 2005).
• Continued permanent loss of native grasslands using new technologies and genetically modified crops potentially offsets temporary wildlife habitat gains from CRP in the Great Plains (Brady 2005, Johnson 2005).
• For many species, landscape conditions surrounding specific habitats provided by conservation enrollments or practices (CRP or Continuous CRP buffers) may have a greater influence on habitat suitability than local habitat conditions (Clark and Reeder 2005, Farrand and Ryan 2005).
• Small mammal, herptofauna, and invertebrate use and diversity in conservation buffers are generally positively correlated with the width of the buffer (Clark and Reeder 2005).
• Wildlife use of grassland habitats established with exotic forage grasses in the Southeast is low (Burger 2005).
• Mid-contract management of CRP sites in the Southeast is important for improving wildlife habitat value (Burger 2005).
• Field borders in the Southeast have been shown to benefit northern bobwhite and other species (Burger 2005).
• High bird use has been documented in many upland buffer habitats, yet nest success is low due to the effectiveness at which predators are able to search linear buffer habitats for nests (Clark and Reeder 2005).
• Few papers have been published on the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), although some studies are currently underway.  Additional monitoring is needed (Allen 2005).
• Several studies have documented greater wildlife response to restored wetland complexes enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) than expected, and numerous unpublished reports imply increasing value of this program for wetland wildlife (Rewa 2005).
• There are few published data on the wildlife value of WHIP, EQIP, the Grassland Reserve Program, or the Conservation Security Program (Berkland and Rewa 2005, Gray et al. 2005, Henry 2005, Wood and Williams 2005).  However, the potential for practices funded by these programs to benefit wildlife is substantial.

The Phase II literature review entails compiling relevant literature into sections that relate to major habitat types affected and the primary conservation practices applied in these habitats.  This approach is useful in evaluating the fish and wildlife benefits of certain conservation practices, regardless of the structure of the programs that support them.  Since CEAP is primarily focused on quantifying the effects of conservation practices, this information provides a more useful background for the Wildlife Component than the Phase I program-based literature synthesis.  Primary findings of the Phase II practice-based literature review can be summarized as follows: (to be completed following production of the Phase II report)

Cropland Systems

Linear Strips and Conservation Buffers

Riparian/Aquatic Habitats

Herbaceous Vegetation Establishment

Grassland/Rangeland Habitats

Afforestation

Wetland Habitats

Cumulative/Landscape Effects

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Within both the program-based and practice-based literature review efforts, key data gaps and information needs were identified.  For purposes of informing the CEAP Wildlife Component, literature review authors identified the following data gaps and information needs:

• While wildlife values of CRP lands have been documented, long-term studies are needed to track changes in habitat values over time.  Wildlife benefits of CRP documented in the 1990s may no longer apply today due to changes in local cover conditions, shifts in enrollments, and landscape-scale changes in land use.
• Studies are needed to assess the wildlife use of CRP and similar habitats during the non-breeding season (e.g., winter and migration habitats).  There is a particular need to examine non-breeding winter use of CRP and other grassland practices in the Southeast.
• Better information is needed on the effect of landscape attributes on wildlife use of CRP habitats and the effect of habitat patch size on grassland bird response.
• Studies at greater spatial and temporal scales to address the complexities of grassland bird abundances and nesting success on CRP lands are needed.
• The effects of haying CRP fields on reproductive success of nesting birds during the season of harvest are largely unknown.
• Better information is needed on how non-avian wildlife species respond to CRP habitats on local and landscape scales.
• Comparisons of abundance and reproductive success of grassland species in native prairie versus CRP habitats are needed.
• Further evidence of wildlife population-level change attributable to the availability of CRP grasslands at regional scales is needed.
• A better understanding of the influence of local wildlife responses to sites enrolled in any of the programs on local and regional population dynamics is needed.
• Better understanding of reproduction and survival of all wildlife species in conservation buffers and similar strip habitats is needed.
• The effect of buffer width on use and reproductive potential of birds and other highly mobile species remains largely unknown.
• Better understanding of how conservation buffers influence movement of wildlife in fragmented agricultural landscapes is needed.
• The effect of WRP restored wetlands on local and regional population dynamics of wetland birds, amphibians, and other wetland wildlife is poorly understood.
• An assessment of how continued conversion of native prairie grasslands to agricultural production may be off-setting grassland habitat benefits achieved through programs such as CRP and GRP is needed.
• EQIP projects specifically targeted to benefit fish and wildlife resources need to be tracked and assessed for their effectiveness in benefiting targeted species.
• Umbrella practices, such as the Upland Wildlife Habitat Management practice, cover a broad range of upland habitat manipulation actions to improve habitat quality for wildlife species that vary among sites, frequently integrating many types of practices applied to the planning unit.  Better information is needed on how these broad practices actually change habitat conditions and what benefits to individual species or species groups are achieved.
• Better documentation of aquatic community response to dam removal and other stream restoration practices supported by WHIP and EQIP is needed.
• Is measured change in habitat quality suitable for tracking wildlife benefits, regardless of actual species response?
• Once practices are installed, how does habitat quality change over the life of the practice, with or without active management?

Although considerable advancements have been made, these information needs illustrate some of the questions that remain.  There are more than 160 conservation practices in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide.  Many of these practices have the potential to affect the multidimensional and dynamic suite of fish and wildlife resources inhabiting agricultural landscapes and beyond.  The indefinite ways that these practices, applied in various landscape settings, affect fish and wildlife presents a severe logistical challenge for comprehensively quantifying effects.  While virtually any land management action taken has some effect on the biological community, there are some practices that are more likely to have a greater effect on this community than others.  For practical purposes, we have grouped the common practices most likely to affect fish and wildlife habitat potential by major landscape category where they are typically applied (Table 1).  Where feasible, CEAP Wildlife Component emphasis is placed on quantifying the effects of these primary practices on fish and wildlife.

Table 1.  Broad landscape categories and common conservation practices (NRCS practice code) most likely to affect fish and wildlife habitats.  Description of practices and standards for implementation are provided in the NRCS electronic Field Office Technical Guide.

• Active cropland
  • Conservation Crop Rotation (328)
  • Cover Crop (340)
  • Drainage Water Management (554)
  • Forage Harvest Management (511)
  • Residue Management, Mulch Till (345)
  • Residue Management, No-Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed (329)
  • Residue Management, Ridge Till (346)
  • Residue Management, Seasonal (344)
• Buffers and strip habitats
  • Alley Cropping (311)
  • Contour Buffer Strips (332)
  • Cross Wind Trap Strips (589C)
  • Field Border (386)
  • Filter Strip (393)
  • Grassed Waterway (412)
  • Hedgerow Planting (422)
  • Herbaceous Wind Barriers (603)
  • Riparian Forest Buffer (391)
  • Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
  • Vegetative Barriers (601)
  • Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (380)
  • Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation (650)
• Established herbaceous habitat
  • Conservation Cover (327)
• Wetlands and lentic aquatic habitats
  • Constructed Wetland (656)
  • Dam (402)
  • Dike (356)
  • Fishpond Management (399)
  • Pond (378)
  • Shallow Water Development and Management (646)
  • Structure for Water Control (587)
  • Wetland Creation (658)
  • Wetland Enhancement (659)
  • Wetland Restoration (657)
  • Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (644)
  • "Swampbuster" wetland protection
• Streams and lotic aquatic habitats
  • Channel Bank Vegetation (322)
  • Fish Passage (396)
  • Stream Crossing (578)
  • Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (395)
  • Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
• Grazing lands
  • Brush Management (314)
  • Prescribed Grazing (528)
  • Range Planting (550)
• Forestland
  • Forest Stand Improvement (666)
• Multiple category practices
  • Early Successional Habitat Development/Management (647)
  • Mine Shaft and Adit Closing (457)
  • Nutrient Management (590)
  • Pest Management (595)
  • Prescribed Burning (338)
  • Restoration and Management of Declining Habitats (643)
  • Silvopasture Establishment (381)
  • Tree/Shrub Establishment (612)
  • Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (645)
  • Wildlife Watering Facility (648)

Practices are generally applied as part of Resource Management Systems (RMS), whereby multiple practices are used to address the various natural resource concerns on a planning unit (USDA NRCS 2003).  Practices may be applied progressively, depending upon the producer’s ability to implement the conservation plan in which they are prescribed, and may influence resource concerns or be affected by conditions outside the planning area.  The effects of individual practices on fish and wildlife resources, therefore, vary substantially among landscapes, land uses, and RMS settings where they are applied.

Individual conservation practices are planned and applied through the use of Conservation Practice Standards, which provide the basic criteria and considerations used in the planning process.  Specific characteristics of individual practices may vary from site to site in order to meet site-specific natural resource planning objectives.  This variability and the influence of local and regional landscape conditions makes it challenging to accurately predict the aggregate effects of various conservation practices on fish and wildlife.

Assessment Approach

The primary approach to assessing the effects of conservation programs and practices on fish and wildlife is to work collaboratively with others to capture the work already completed or underway in this arena, and to identify critical data gaps and stimulate action to fill them.  This involves acknowledging and assembling assessments conducted by NRCS and other federal agencies, universities and other academic institutions, state and local government entities, and non-govern­mental organizations. 

Since funding for fish and wildlife-specific assessments pursuant to CEAP are limited, the highest priority identified for the Wildlife Component is to gather existing fish and wildlife information and relate it to conservation practices to the extent possible.  There is a substantial amount of work already underway to assess the fish and wildlife habitat benefits of the Farm Bill by a variety of organizations.  The Wildlife Component seeks to leverage these projects to help meet the objectives of CEAP.

Since fish and wildlife resources, agricultural landscapes, and conservation programs and practices vary greatly across the country, much of the effort to assess wildlife response is best approached at the regional level.  This approach aligns closely with the recommendations of the CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel on regionalization of CEAP efforts (Soil and Water Conservation Society 2006).  Regional groups have been engaged to help set priorities and define approaches targeted toward prominent fish and wildlife species or groups in each region and the dominant conservation programs and practices applied there.  In some instances, such as the Southeast Quail Study Group’s efforts to better understand the plight of the northern bobwhite, this work has been underway for several years.  In other cases, more effort is needed to identify priorities and initiate evaluations.

Under a contribution agreement with NRCS, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is assisting with engaging state fish and wildlife agencies and others at the regional level.  Regional workshops have been conducted at various meetings of regional associations of fish and wildlife agencies to identify on-going assessment efforts and associated priorities for meeting future needs (Fig. 1).  With consideration of assessment needs identified by the literature reviews presented above, these efforts have generated a preliminary list of high priority assessment needs for each of four broad geographic regions generally aligned with regional associations of fish and wildlife agencies (Table 2).  While there are many other needs, this list represents a starting point for the highest priorities perceived by the fish and wildlife conservation community upon which to focus additional assessments associated with the CEAP Wildlife Component.  The list of regional priorities is treated as a dynamic register, subject to regular update as other priorities are identified and refined.  Additional input from the conservation community is being sought to continually refine assessment priorities.

Some of the priorities identified in Table 2 are being addressed by various efforts either directly or indirectly related to CEAP Wildlife efforts.  Efforts to address remaining priorities will be undertaken as projects to address these needs are identified and as funding becomes available in the future.

Figure 1. CEAP Wildlife Component Regions. Regions employed by the CEAP Wildlife Component roughly align with regional associations of fish and wildlife agencies. Regions overlap because fish and wildlife agencies in many states belong to more than one regional association.

Regional associations of fish and wildlife agencies include the Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Table 2.  Preliminary Regional CEAP Wildlife Component assessment priorities identified through regional workshops and surveys of state agency Farm Bill and private lands coordinators.

• Northeast
  • Fish response to stream restoration, dam removal and fish passage
  • Early successional habitat establishment benefits
    • All species response to grassland blocks
    • All species response to planted vs. natural regeneration
    • All species response to scrub-shrub and old-field habitat restoration and management*
  • Riparian buffers – terrestrial and aquatic biota response
  • Aquatic community response to upland conservation practices
  • Terrestrial and aquatic species response to forestry practices
• Southeast
  • Range-wide northern bobwhite response to CP-33 upland buffers*
  • Model wetland habitat quality changes associated with WRP wetland restoration*
  • Wildlife response to rangeland treatments
  • Fish response to stream restoration and riparian buffer practices
  • Mid-contract management of pine plantations
  • Wildlife response to improved pasture treatments
• Midwest
  • Expand analysis of waterfowl response to CRP in the Prairie Pothole Region to include FSA common land unit (CLU) contract data
  • Non-game and non-bird response to wetland restoration and buffers
  • Model wetland habitat quality changes associated with WRP wetland restoration*
  • Landscape-level bird trends [from USGS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data] and land use associated with Farm Bill enrollments*
  • Effects of upland conservation practices on stream biota
  • Effects of on-going prairie conversion on wildlife
  • Effects of various seeding mixtures and mid-contract CRP management
  • Rotational grazing effects on upland wildlife (common EQIP practice)
  • Shorebird and herpetofauna response to wetland restoration and microtopography practices
• West
  • Fisheries (salmonids and others) response to stream restoration, buffers, and upland practices
  • Long-term Great Plains wildlife trends and CRP, etc. (mine State agency population data)
  • Model priority bird habitat potential and practices using GIS (Great Plains)*
  • Prairie grouse, pronghorn and quail response to rangeland practices
  • Response of shrub-steppe species to practices
  • Wildlife response to water developments

* partially addressed by current CEAP Wildlife Component funded project(s).

Planned Activities

The CEAP Wildlife Component includes several key activities intended to quantify the effects of con­servation practices on fish and wildlife.  Most of these are related to work that is already underway or planned for the near future.  Whereas some are national in scope, the ma­jority of actions planned are focused at the regional scale to address priorities identified by regional work groups.  Combining major landscape/habitat types used in Table 1 to organize practices with regional assessment needs defined in Table 2 provides some structure in developing actions to assess fish and wildlife benefits.  Table 3 lists various assessment projects funded through the CEAP Wildlife Component and initiated in FY 2005 and 2006 to address high priority assessment needs.  Shaded cells correspond to areas where regional priorities have been identified.  Additional information describing assessment efforts funded by the Wildlife Component is provided in the following pages.

CP33 modeling

New England scrub-shrub bird assessment

Great Plains GIS Partnership (G²P²) habitat modeling

Missouri Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) habitat monitoring

NEXRAD Doppler radar studies

NatureServe Missouri pilot

University of Northern Colorado NRI-USGS Breeding Bird Survey data analysis

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Intergovernmental Personnel Assignment (IPA)

Related On-going Activities

There are number of activities that, although not directly funded through the Wildlife Component, relate directly to filling the needs and data gaps identified.  Table 4 lists projects and activities that provide the potential to fill high priority assessment needs related to the CEAP Wildlife Component.  Shaded cells correspond to areas where CEAP Wildlife Component regional priorities have been identified.  Additional information describing these assessment efforts is provided in the following pages.

Cropland Component - National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Producer Survey

CEAP Wetlands Component - Biodiversity results

CEAP Grazing Lands Component

Farm Service Agency (FSA) CRP assessments

Mississippi State University Bobwhite Restoration Project studies

Utah State University Sage-grouse Restoration Project

CP33 Upland Buffers Habitat Monitoring

State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies

Audubon’s Birds and Agriculture Program

Compile NRCS Institutes findings

Anticipated Outcomes

Fish and wildlife resources that are potentially affected by USDA programs and conser­vation practices consist of thousands of taxa on a wide diversity of habitats.  The multi­dimensional effects of the variety of conservation practices across the spectrum of fish and wildlife species affected are extremely difficult to condense into simple national or aggregate measures of benefit.  Therefore, prominent species that have been sufficiently studied and for which conservation practices are likely important habitat factors are the initial pri­mary targets of the CEAP Wildlife Component.  Some of these species, such as prairie-nesting ducks, may be suitable for regional modeling capable of quantifying population response to con­servation programs.  These and other measures of fish and wildlife response generated from the efforts described above will be compiled by staff of the NRCS Resource Inven­tory and Assessment Division to provide a complete picture of documented benefits across the country, to the extent possible.  A general timeline for conducting assessments and generating outcomes is outlined in Table 5.

This work plan provides the basic structure of the CEAP Wildlife Component.  While future funding to address high priority assessment needs is anticipated, the outlook on out-year budgets remains uncertain.  While NRCS intends to pursue funding support for these efforts in the future, effective implementation of the CEAP Wildlife Component will continue to rely on the data and human resources of partner agencies and organizations.  Periodic accomplishment reports and fish and wildlife outcome products are anticipated, along with regular updates to this work plan.  Future assessment projects will be identified through on-going communication with regional groups and initiated through appropriate administrative instruments (e.g., contribution agreements, interagency agreements, cooperative agreements within the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units network, etc.).   As additional CEAP Wildlife Component-funded assessments are initiated and other related efforts are identified, this work plan will be updated to include these activities.

The intent of the CEAP Wildlife Component is to remain flexible enough to respond to changes in assessment priorities and developing technologies useful in accurately assessing the effects of current and future conservation programs and practices on fish and wildlife resources.   

Literature Cited

Allen, A. W.  2004.  An Annotated Bibliography on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Effects on Wildlife Habitat, Habitat Management in Agricultural Ecosys­tems, and Agricultural Conservation Policy.  U.S. Department of Interior, Geo­logical Survey Biological Science Report.

Allen, A. W.  2005.  The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.  Pages 115–132 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Berkland, M. W., and C. A. Rewa.  2005.  Environmental Quality Incentives Program contribution to fish and wildlife conservation. Pages 171–191 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Brady, S. J.  2005.  Highly erodible land and Swampbuster provisions of the 2002 Farm Act.  Pages 5–15 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Brady, S. J.  2006.  Effects of cropland conservation practices on fish and wildlife habitat.  Pages __–__ in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of agricultural conservation practices. The Wildlife Society Technical Review _____, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Herrington, and R. Gill, editors.  2001.  United States shorebird conservation plan, 2^nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA.

Burger, L. W., M. R. Smith, R. Hamrick, B. Palmer, and S. Wellendorf.  2004.  CP33-Upland Habitat Buffers monitoring protocol.  Southeast Quail Study Group, Research Committee, 9/02/04 Draft. Accessed June 29, 2006.

This document requires Adobe Acrobat.
CP33-Upland Habitat Buffers monitoring protocol (0.2 MB)

Burger, L. W., Jr.,  2005.  The Conservation Reserve Program in the Southeast: issues affecting wildlife habitat value.  Pages 63–91 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Cassman, K. G., S. Wood, P. S. Choo, H. D. Cooper, C. Devendra, J. Dixon, J. Gaskell, S. Khan, R. Lal, L. Lipper, J. Pretty, J. Primavera, N. Ramankutty, E. Viglizzo, K. Wiebe, S. Kadungure, N. Kanbar, Z. Khan, R. Leakey, S. Porter, K. Sebastian, and R. Tharme.  2005.  Cultivated Systems. Pages 745–794 in Hassan, R., R. Scholes, and N. Ash, editors, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Clark, W. R., and K. F. Reeder.  2005.  Continuous enrollment Conservation Reserve Program: Factors influencing the value of agricultural buffers to wildlife conservation. Pages 93–113 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

DeVore, B. A.  2002.  Stewards of the wild.  Pages 97–106 in D. L. Jackson and L. L. Jackson, editors.  The farm as natural habitat: reconnecting food systems with ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Farrand, D. T., and M. R. Ryan.  2005.  Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program on wildlife conservation in the Midwest.  Pages 41–62 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Gerard, P. W.  1995.  Agricultural practices, farm policy, and the conservation of biological diversity. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Biological Science Report, 1081-292X, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gray, R. L., S. L. Benjamin, and C. A. Rewa.  Fish and wildlife benefits of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Pages 155–169 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Hall, L.  1946.  Land use and modern pressures on wildlife.  Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 11: 115–122.

Haufler, J. B., editor.  2005.  Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Heard, L. P., A. W. Allen, L. B. Best, S. J. Brady, W. Burger, A. J. Esser, E. Hackett, D. H. Johnson, R. L. Pederson, R. E. Reynolds, C. Rewa, M. R. Ryan, R. T. Molleur, and P. Buck.  2000.  A comprehensive review of Farm Bill contributions to wild­life conservation, 1985-2000.  W. L. Hohman and D. J. Halloum, editors.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, Technical Report USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000.

Heimlich, R. E., K. D. Weibe, R. Claassen, D. Gadsby, and R. M. House.  1998.  Wetlands and agriculture: private interests and public benefits.  U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economics Report No. 765.

Henry, H.  2005.  The Conservation Security Program: a new conservation program that rewards historic land stewards who have applied and manage effective conservation systems. Pages 193–198 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

House, B.  2005.  The new sodbusters.  ArgusLeader; Accessed June 29 2006.

Imhoff, D.  2003.  Farming with the wild: enhancing biodiversity on farms and ranches.  Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California, USA.

Johnson, D. H.  2005.  Grassland bird use of Conservation Reserve Program fields in the Great Plains.  Pages 17–32 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, and R. W. Thorp.  2002.  Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:16812–16816.

Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. Salvia, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl.  2002.  Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, Version 1, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, D.C., USA.

Mausbach, M. J., and A. R. Dedrick.  2004.  The length we go: measuring environmental benefits of conservation practices.  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59: 97A–103A.

Meyerson, L. A., J. Baron, J. M. Melillo, R. J. Naiman, R. I. O’Malley, G. Orians, M. A. Palmer, A. S. P. Pfaff, S. W. Running, and O. E. Sala.  2005.  Aggregate measures of ecosystem services: can we take the pulse of nature?  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 56–59.

Myers, P. C.  1988.  Implementing conservation provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill.  Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 53: 5–9.

National Research Council.  2000.  Ecological indicators for the Nation. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Noss, R., E. T. LaRoe, and J. M. Scott.  1995.  Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Report 0611-R-01, U.S. Department of Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

Rankin, E. T., and B. J. Armitage.  2004.  Protection, restoration, and aquatic life potential in Nature Conservancy Areas in the agricultural Midwest: French Creek (New York), St. Joseph River and Fish Creek (Indiana, Michigan and Ohio), and the Mackinaw River (Illinois).  Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Inc.

Rewa, C. A.  2005.  Wildlife benefits of the Wetlands Reserve Program.  Pages 133–145 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Reynolds, R. E.  2005.  The Conservation Reserve Program and duck production in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region.  Pages 33–40 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will.  2004.  Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Schwaab, E., S. Perry, and F. Harris.  2005.  Eastern brook trout joint venture – fact sheet. Accessed May 1, 2006.

This document requires Adobe Acrobat.
Eastern brook trout joint venture – fact sheet (1 MB)

Soil and Water Conservation Society.  2006.  Final report from the blue ribbon panel conducting an external review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, USA.

Stephens, S.  2006.  Plowing the prairie. Ducks Unlimited July/August 2006: 70-77.

Tewksbury, J. J., A. E. Black, N. Nur, V. A. Saab, B. D. Logan, and D. S. Bodkin.  2002.  Effects of anthropogenic fragmentation and livestock grazing on western riparian bird communities.  Studies in Avian Biology 25: 158–202.

The Heinz Center.  2002.  The state of the Nation’s ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.  2003.  National planning procedures handbook (NPPH), Amendment 4, March, 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1986.  North American Waterfowl Management Plan: a strategy for cooperation. Washington, D.C., USA.

Veech, J. A.  2006.  Increasing and declining populations of northern bobwhites inhabit different types of landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: in press.

Wood, F., and J. Williams.  2005.  The Grassland Reserve Program: new opportunities to benefit grassland wildlife.  Pages 147–153 in J. B. Haufler, editor, Fish and wildlife benefits of Farm Bill conservation programs: 2000-2005 update.  The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

< Back to CEAP National Assessment: Wildlife