![](media/image1.png){width="0.41875in"
height="0.2875in"}![](media/image2.jpeg){width="0.9701388888888889in"
height="0.2902777777777778in"}

**United States Department of Agriculture**

**Natural Resources Conservation Service**

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis

for the

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

(WHIP)

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

Title II -- Conservation

Subtitle G -- Other Conservation Programs

Section 2601 -- Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

January 9, 2009

![](media/image3.png){width="2.0694444444444446in"
height="0.4583333333333333in"}

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### 

########### USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

########### The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, family status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA\'s [**TARGET Center**](http://www.usda.gov/oo/target/) at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

########### To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 800-795-3272 (voice) or 202-720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer

########### 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269291 .anchor}**Table of Contents**

**Table of Contents [i](#__RefHeading___Toc219269291)**

**List of Tables [ii](#__RefHeading___Toc219269292)**

**Executive Summary [1](#__RefHeading___Toc219269293)**

**Background [3](#__RefHeading___Toc219269294)**

**Legislative Authority [3](#__RefHeading___Toc219269295)**

**Rationale for the Rule [3](#__RefHeading___Toc219269296)**

**Program Description and Features (pre-2008 Act)
[4](#__RefHeading___Toc219269297)**

**Objective [4](#__RefHeading___Toc219269298)**

**Overview of the Existing Program [4](#__RefHeading___Toc219269299)**

**Regulatory Changes [6](#__RefHeading___Toc219269300)**

**Development of Expected Costs and Benefits
[7](#__RefHeading___Toc219269301)**

**Expected Producer Costs [7](#__RefHeading___Toc219269302)**

**Other Program Costs for the Government and Society
[7](#__RefHeading___Toc219269303)**

**Expected Environmental and Economic Benefits
[7](#__RefHeading___Toc219269304)**

**Discussion of Policy Scenarios [11](#__RefHeading___Toc219269305)**

**Policy Scenario 1 [11](#__RefHeading___Toc219269306)**

**Policy Scenario 2 [11](#__RefHeading___Toc219269307)**

**Policy Scenario 3 [12](#__RefHeading___Toc219269308)**

**Policy Scenario 4 [12](#__RefHeading___Toc219269309)**

**Conclusion [13](#__RefHeading___Toc219269310)**

**Appendix A: Individual WHIP Projects since FY2004
[14](#__RefHeading___Toc219269311)**

**2008 Example WHIP Projects [14](#__RefHeading___Toc219269312)**

**Wyoming: Big Game Habitat Conservation
[14](#__RefHeading___Toc219269313)**

**South Carolina: Declining Bird Species Habitat Conservation
[14](#__RefHeading___Toc219269314)**

**Kansas: Multiple Species Habitat Improvement
[15](#__RefHeading___Toc219269315)**

**California: Fish Passage [15](#__RefHeading___Toc219269316)**

**2007 Example WHIP Projects [15](#__RefHeading___Toc219269317)**

**Multiple States: Fish Passage [15](#__RefHeading___Toc219269318)**

**Maine: Fish Passage [15](#__RefHeading___Toc219269319)**

**Montana: Fish Passage [16](#__RefHeading___Toc219269320)**

**Idaho: Fish Passage [16](#__RefHeading___Toc219269321)**

**California: Multiple Species Habitat Improvement
[16](#__RefHeading___Toc219269322)**

**New York: Bird Species Habitat Conservation
[16](#__RefHeading___Toc219269323)**

**2006 Example WHIP Projects [16](#__RefHeading___Toc219269324)**

**Multiple States: Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation
[16](#__RefHeading___Toc219269325)**

**Delaware: Fish Passage [17](#__RefHeading___Toc219269326)**

**Virginia: Invasive Species Mitigation Measures
[17](#__RefHeading___Toc219269327)**

**Illinois: Multiple Species Habitat Improvement
[17](#__RefHeading___Toc219269328)**

**Washington: Multiple Species Habitat Improvement
[17](#__RefHeading___Toc219269329)**

**2005 Example WHIP Projects [18](#__RefHeading___Toc219269330)**

**Multiple States: Native Sage Brush Restoration
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc219269331)**

**Multiple States: Salmon Habitat Restoration
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc219269332)**

**Arkansas: Ivory Billed Woodpecker Habitat
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc219269333)**

**West Virginia: Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc219269334)**

**2004 Example WHIP Projects [19](#__RefHeading___Toc219269335)**

**Utah: Native Sage Brush Restoration
[19](#__RefHeading___Toc219269336)**

**Multiple States: Salmon Habitat Restoration
[19](#__RefHeading___Toc219269337)**

**Rhode Island: Estuarine Restoration
[19](#__RefHeading___Toc219269338)**

**Alabama: Bird Species Habitat Conservation
[19](#__RefHeading___Toc219269339)**

**Hawaii: Forest Land Habitat Conservation
[20](#__RefHeading___Toc219269340)**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269292 .anchor}**List of Tables**

[**Table 1. Authorized, administration requested, and allowed funding
levels for WHIP, FY 2003--FY 2008\* 5**](#__RefHeading___Toc219269341)

[**Table 2. Most common fish and wildlife related habitat restoration
conservation practices implemented in FY 2004--FY 2007 for WHIP\*.
9**](#__RefHeading___Toc219269342)

**Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis**

**Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269293 .anchor}**Executive Summary**

Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has conducted an interim
final benefit-cost analysis of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP) Interim Final Rule. Executive Order 12866 provides decision
makers with the opportunity to develop and implement a program that is
beneficial, cost effective and that minimizes negative impacts to
health, human safety, and the environment.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, as amended by the Food
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, provides technical and financial
assistance to improve fish and wildlife habitat on eligible private
agricultural land, nonindustrial private forestland, and Tribal land.
The WHIP program is authorized to give priority to national, regional,
and state-directed fish and wildlife initiatives, including rare and
declining species. Program priorities are established with input from
the regional, State, and local stakeholders and vary greatly across the
United States.

This analysis uses a qualitative approach to describe the potential
effects on benefits and costs of WHIP. Many factors have led NRCS to
determine that quantifying benefits and costs is not feasible for this
analysis. First, NRCS has determined that the discretionary changes in
the WHIP interim final rule are limited and are expected to have minimal
impact on the benefits and costs of WHIP. Secondly, until the
Conservation Effects Assessment Project data is available, there is very
limited quantitative information available regarding the benefits of the
conservation practices implemented through WHIP funding. In addition,
the effects of practices implemented by WHIP participants vary greatly
across the United States. Lastly, the literature is limited on the many
direct and indirect environmental effects of the WHIP program. The
limited expected impact from the discretionary policy changes, the
limited literature on benefits, and the diverse nature of WHIP projects
preclude NRCS from using a quantitative approach to describe the
potential costs and benefits of the discretionary policy items
pertaining to the WHIP rule.

The primary costs associated with WHIP include the cost-share outlays by
NRCS; the matching funds of the producer; and WHIP technical assistance
funding. The discretionary policy choices in this rule are not expected
to significantly affect program costs.

The WHIP Interim Final Rule makes two material discretionary policy
changes. The first of these discretionary changes increases the maximum
percentage of program funding for long-term contracts (contracts of
15-year duration or longer) from not-more-than 15 percent to
not-more-than 25 percent of total funding. From Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 to
FY 2007 long-term contracts have accounted for only 4.4 percent of all
WHIP contracts and only 5.8 percent of WHIP funding. Because only 5.8
percent of the funding is currently in long-term contracts, the increase
in the maximum percentage of long term contract funding from 15 percent
to 25 percent is not anticipated to influence WHIP participation or
program costs.

The second material discretionary change in the WHIP Interim Final Rule
decreases the cost-share amount on long-term contracts from 100 percent
to 90 percent. A decrease in cost-share from 100 percent to 90 percent
on long-term contracts may make them, at the margin, less appealing to
potential participants. This increase in costs to the participants
opting for long-term contracts will not significantly affect program
costs or benefits.

The discretionary policy decisions in the WHIP Interim Final Rule are
not expected to affect the environmental concerns addressed by WHIP or
the geographic distribution of program funding.

Qualitative evidence suggests that WHIP assistance to landowners creates
benefits, especially in areas where fish and wildlife habitat is
deteriorating. The provisions in the 2008 Act do not change this
conclusion.

**Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis**

**Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269294 .anchor}**Background**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269295 .anchor}**Legislative Authority**

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was originally authorized
by the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. In 2002,
WHIP was incorporated into the Food Security Act of 1985's Title XII
provisions, which were amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (the 2008 Act).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269296 .anchor}**Rationale for the Rule**

The overarching rationale for public intervention in the protection or
restoration of wildlife habitat is that existing markets fail to fully
recognize the value of benefits arising from fish and wildlife habitat
associated with working agricultural and forestry lands. Individual
production decisions often do not fully incorporate indirect and
nonmarket benefits, and result in land-use and production decisions
strictly based on financial returns from the sale of agricultural or
forestry products. The ecological goods and services provided by
agricultural and forestry lands not only include fish and wildlife
habitat, they also include: climate regulation, flood control, disease
prevention, water purification, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and
a host of other environmental benefits.[^1]. Because these ecological
goods and services are not included in an individual's production
decision and because many of the ecological goods and services can be
classified as public goods[^2], the market can be expected to fall short
in supplying society's desired level of production. The WHIP program
mitigates the following adverse ecosystem effects that can be associated
with agricultural and forestry production:

-   Higher levels of land degradation, such as increased erosion, water
    shortages, decreased air and water quality, and reduction of other
    environmental services;

-   Fragmented corridors;

-   Loss or degradation of native forestland, grasslands, wetlands, and
    other terrestrial and aquatic habitats;

-   Increases in invasive species, and greater susceptibility to
    wildfires;

-   Loss or decline of pollinators;

-   Decreases in plant and animal species productivity, richness, and
    abundance;

-   Reduction of threatened and endangered species and rare and
    declining species that are likely to be listed in the future; and

-   Reduction of biodiversity.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269297 .anchor}**Program Description and
    Features (pre-2008 Act)**

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269298 .anchor}**Objective**

The purpose of WHIP is to foster the improvement of fish and wildlife
habitat on eligible lands. Prior to the 2008 Act, eligible land included
privately owned agricultural land, nonindustrial private forestland,
tribal land, and public land when the primary benefit is on private or
tribal land or the land is under private ownership during the duration
of the agreement. WHIP accomplishes its program purpose by providing
technical and financial assistance to landowners to create and enhance
wildlife habitat.

Financial and technical assistance is needed because of several barriers
to adopting conservation practices. These barriers include:

-   The high initial investment costs to establish habitat improvement
    conservation practices;

-   The possibility of foregone income related to some habitat
    improvement conservation practices;

-   The unfamiliarity with conservation practices necessary to provide
    wildlife habitat; and

-   The perception that existing conservation practices are already
    sufficiently addressing wildlife and conservation objectives.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269299 .anchor}**Overview of the Existing
    Program**

Under WHIP, prior to the 2008 Act, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture, issued
payments to program participants to develop upland wildlife habitat,
wetland wildlife habitat, habitat for threatened and endangered species,
aquatic habitat, and other types of fish and wildlife habitat approved
by NRCS. NRCS state conservationists, in consultation with the State
Technical Committee have generally selected two to six priority habitat
types, which commonly included upland and riparian habitats.

NRCS has provided up to 75 percent of the estimated costs of installing
conservation practices related to fish and wildlife habitat. However,
NRCS has been providing up to 100 percent cost-share for long-term
agreements of 15 years or more.

WHIP funds have been allocated to states based on an allocation model
that includes state fish and wildlife habitat priorities and other
factors. These priorities may include fish and wildlife habitat areas,
targeted species and their habitats, and specific conservation
practices.

At the local-level, NRCS and its partners provide program participants
with an assessment of wildlife habitat conditions, recommendations for
practices to improve these habitat conditions, and a plan that
incorporates practices and strategies for maximizing habitat for target
species. This wildlife habitat development plan is the basis of the
agreement between NRCS and the participant.

The wildlife habitat development plan identifies the cost-share
practices that will be installed and the operation and maintenance
requirements for the life of the agreement. Agreements usually last from
five to 10 years. WHIP provides additional cost-share to landowners who
enter into 15-year or longer agreements to protect and restore high
value and important plant and animal habitat.

After the agreement has been signed, NRCS helps program participants
with technical and financial assistance to install eligible practices
that NRCS determines are primarily for the development of wildlife
habitat. Common practices have included native grassland seeding,
prescribed burns, hardwood planting, and fish passage structure
installation.

The WHIP program encourages partners such as other public agencies,
non-profit organizations, and Technical Service Providers to contribute
to program implementation. The partners may provide technical
assistance, financial assistance, equipment, or installation assistance
to the participant. This emphasis placed on partners in WHIP has
improved communication and coordination among interests addressing
wildlife concerns.

National priorities for WHIP include:

1)  Promoting the restoration of declining or important native fish and
    wildlife habitats;

2)  Protecting, restoring, developing, or enhancing fish and wildlife
    habitat to benefit at-risk species;

3)  Reducing the impacts of invasive species on fish and wildlife
    habitats; and

4)  Protecting, restoring, developing, or enhancing declining or
    important aquatic wildlife species' habitats.

The 1996 and subsequent Farm Bills authorized mandatory funding for WHIP
under the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
Table 1 provides funding details for fiscal years (FY) 2003--2008.

  --------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269341                                                             
  .anchor}**Table 1. Authorized,                                                              
  administration requested, and                                                               
  allowed funding levels for WHIP,                                                            
  FY 2003--FY 2008\***                                                                        

  **(\$ millions)**                                                                           

  **[Fiscal Year]{.underline}**     **[Authorized]{.underline}**   **[Administration          **[Actual
                                                                   Requested]{.underline}**   Funding]{.underline}**

  2003                              \$30                           \$30                       \$30

  2004                              \$60                           \$42                       \$42

  2005                              \$85                           \$59                       \$47

  2006                              \$85                           \$60                       \$43

  2007                              \$85                           \$55                       \$43

  2008                              [\$85]{.underline}             [\$85]{.underline}         [\$85]{.underline}

  **Total**                         **\$430**                      **\$331**                  **\$290**

  \*Modified from CRS Report                                                                  
  RL31301, CRS Report RL31801, CRS                                                            
  Report RL32301, CRS Report                                                                  
  RL32904 and CRS Report RL33412.                                                             
  --------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------

Since 2003, NRCS has entered into more than 24,200 cost-share agreements
with landowners on more than 3.9 million acres. In FY 2007, NRCS
enrolled over 2,100 agreements on over 350,000 acres. The financial
assistance in the agreements exceeded \$31 million. The average
agreement size was 170 acres. There were 28 contracts on over 3,500
acres of American Indian and Alaska Native Lands in FY 2007. On average,
the NRCS financial assistance amounts to approximately \$14,900 for each
long-term agreement.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269300 .anchor}**Regulatory Changes**

The WHIP rule includes mandatory and discretionary changes resulting
from enactment of the 2008 Act. In addition to discretion provided by
the 2008 Farm Bill, NRCS has made other discretionary changes in the
Interim Final Rule to help bring greater consistency across the
financial assistance programs it administers. These latter discretionary
changes are primarily focused on the definitions of terms common among
the financial assistance programs. The 2008 Act did not change baseline
funding for the WHIP program, which remains at \$85 million per year
from fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The analysis focuses on the major
discretionary changes in the interim final rule.

***[Mandatory Items]{.underline}***

-   Section 2602(a) changes the program's purpose by restricting
    participation to owners of private agricultural lands, nonindustrial
    private forestland, and Tribal lands.

-   Section 2602(b) affirms current NRCS policy that habitat developed
    on pivot corners and irregular areas are eligible land under the
    category of "other types of habitat."

-   Section 2602(e) limits payments made to a person or legal entity,
    directly or indirectly, under WHIP to not exceed, in the aggregate,
    \$50,000 per year.

***[Discretionary Items]{.underline}***

The interim final rule:

-   Increases the proportion of annual funds that may be available for
    long-term agreements from "not more than 15 percent" to "not more
    than 25 percent." This change is based on discretion provided in the
    2008 Act.

-   Gives priority to projects that address issues raised by State,
    regional and national conservation initiatives. This change reflects
    language in the 2008 Act and is consistent with current Agency
    policy regarding WHIP.

-   Establishes payment rates for historically underserved producers,
    including Indian Tribes that align with payment rates adopted by
    other NRCS financial assistance programs. This change was made with
    the authority in section 2708 of the 2008 Act.

-   Reduces the cost-share rate on long-term agreements of at least 15
    years from 100 percent to 90 percent. This is a discretionary change
    that is not related to the 2008 Act.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269301 .anchor}**Development of Expected
    Costs and Benefits**

The development of benefit cost ratios or net benefits related to the
changes induced by the WHIP interim final rule has not been undertaken
because of the lack of quantitative data regarding the benefits and
because of the limited effect of the program changes contained in the
WHIP interim final rule. A qualitative assessment of four of the
discretionary changes in the WHIP interim final rule is presented in the
Discussion of Policy Scenarios section.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269302 .anchor}**Expected Producer Costs**

Generally, the cost-share rate for WHIP practices is 75 percent. At this
cost share rate, WHIP program participants can be expected to incur at
least 25 percent of the cost of adopting the conservation practices
recommended in their WHIP cost-share agreement. With the changes in the
2008 Act, the participants' contributions may be reduced slightly for
participants who qualify as "historically underserved producers."
Historically underserved producers will be eligible to receive a cost
share rate 15 percentage points higher than the rate offered to the
general public, up to a maximum of 90 percent. (See Policy Scenario 4).

Using an assumption of a 75 percent WHIP cost share rate and total
financial assistance from 2002 to 2007 of \$159 million, the land
owners' share of the WHIP practice costs would have been about \$53
million. The annual funding of \$85 million authorized by the 2008 Act
is at the same level as WHIP funding from the 2002 Act (in years 2005
through 2008) and totals \$340 million from fiscal year 2009 through
fiscal year 2012. Assuming that the financial assistance apportionment
remains at its historic level of 79 percent of the total funds made
available for WHIP, producer costs are estimated to total nearly \$90
million over the four years from 2009 to 2012.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269303 .anchor}**Other Program Costs for the
Government and Society**

Government costs consist of financial assistance (FA) and technical
assistance (TA). Projected total FA obligations in any year would depend
on the apportionment received from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). From 2002 through 2007 OMB apportioned 79 percent of the WHIP
funding to FA and 21 percent to TA. Total program participation will
depend marginally on extent to which that participation consists of
historically underserved producers (new under the 2008 Act) and the
funding for long-term WHIP agreements because of the higher cost share
rates noted above.

Costs borne by society at large (excluding producer cost discussed
above) could include partner-supplied forms of assistance such as
technical assistance, financial assistance, use of their equipment, and
other resources. These partners may include: public agencies, Tribes,
and nongovernmental organizations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269304 .anchor}**Expected Environmental and
Economic Benefits**

Direct Beneficial Effects: The effects brought about by wildlife habitat
development and improvements through WHIP are many -- occurring both
on-site for participants and off-site for society at large[^3].
Participants derive enjoyment from the presence of fish and wildlife on
their land and may receive monetary benefits through various fish and
wildlife recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping,
bird watching, and other eco-tourism activities, enabling producers to
diversify their farm income and supplement it with non-crop income. See
appendix A for a series of case studies that detail in qualitative terms
the types of benefits generated by the WHIP program.

In addition, many conservation practices that benefit wildlife may also
improve both air and water quality, reduce soil erosion, improve
rainwater infiltration, reduce pest infestation, and increase soil
productivity. For example, the restoration of native prairies provides
food and cover for wildlife while improving organic soil content over
time and increasing infiltration of rainwater into the soil profile
which in turn increases soil moisture and groundwater recharge during
periods of drought. Thus, on-site benefits may include the possibility
of improving grazing conditions, increasing crop pollination, and
reducing management expenses.

The primary ecological goods and services benefits resulting from
wildlife habitat improvement include: (1) the increased stability of
fish and wildlife populations, adding to biodiversity, leading to better
natural control of invasive species introductions, and increased land
devoted to native wildlife habitats, including forestland, grasslands,
wetlands, and other terrestrial and aquatic habitats; (2) benefits for
rare and declining, candidate, and State and Federally-listed threatened
and endangered species; (3) linking wildlife habitat corridors to
provide safe passage for migratory species; (4) on-site physical
effects, such as decreased erosion, water quality and quantity benefits,
air quality benefits, and other environmental services; (5) removal of
barriers that impede migration of aquatic and terrestrial species; and
(6) the economic stimulus to local economies brought about by increased
recreational activities, such as tourism generated by individuals
seeking fish and wildlife-related pursuits (bird watching, hunting,
fishing, etc.).

The most commonly used conservation practices associated with WHIP for
FY 2004 through 2007 are: 394--Firebreak; 382--Fence; 380--
Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment; 645--Upland Wildlife Habitat
Management; 386--Field Border; 422--Hedgerow Planting; 528--Prescribed
Grazing; and 580--Streambank and Shoreline Protection (table 2). These
practices are implemented on a variety of landscapes, since fish and
wildlife occur on all land uses. There are no changes the WHIP interim
final rule that will significantly alter the mix of conservation
practices.

In the future, NRCS anticipates that the unique environmental outcomes
generated through conservation practices adopted by WHIP participants
will be more fully quantified. The source of this information will be
the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Also, some
practice-specific assessments applicable to WHIP are in progress. These
include work by Penn State to assess the effects of dam removal on
aquatic biota in Pennsylvania and by the University of Massachusetts to
assess the effects of Early Successional Habitat Development on
scrub-scrub birds in New England. This type of research might make it
possible to estimate likely environmental outcomes given specific
geographic and climatic conditions in the future.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269342                                                                       
  .anchor}**Table 2. Most common                                                                        
  fish and wildlife related habitat                                                                     
  restoration conservation                                                                              
  practices implemented in FY                                                                           
  2004--FY 2007 for WHIP\*.**                                                                           

                                    **[Units                                                            
                                    Implemented]{.underline}**                                          

  **Conservation Practices**        **FY2004**                   **FY2005**   **FY2006**   **FY2007**   **Total**

  314--Brush Management (acre)      11,639                       13,036       15,569       23,927       64,171

  327--Conservation Cover (acre)    2,771                        4,171        5,069        4,762        16,773

  647--Early Successional Habitat   3,878                        7,879        13,715       14,398       39,870
  Development/ Management (acre)                                                                        

  382--Fence (ft)                   421,812                      479,294      508,974      545,276      1,955,356

  386--Field Border (ft)            139,198                      206,800      157,369      231,682      735,049

  394--Firebreak (ft)               1,727,153                    1,392,432    1,564,248    2,269,080    6,952,913

  396--Fish Passage (mi)            3                            4            13           132          152

  422--Hedgerow Planting (ft)       88,293                       111,003      145,517      142,118      486,931

  595--Pest Management (acre)       14,352                       20,225       12,289       25,475       72,341

  338--Prescribed Burning (acre)    33,382                       32,210       34,903       47,516       148,011

  528--Prescribed Grazing (acre)     133,698                     91,273       48,984       97,097       351,052

  550--Range Planting (acre)        2,811                        1,984        6,514        3,402        14,711

  766--Restoration and Management   \-\--                        5,279        446          728          6,453
  of Natural Ecosystems (acre)                                                                          

  643--Restoration and Management   1,517                        617          8,455        8,990        19,579
  of Rare and Declining Habitats                                                                        
  (acre)                                                                                                

  391--Riparian Forest Buffer       263                          333          295          433          1,324
  (acre)                                                                                                

  390--Riparian Herbaceous Cover    41                           211          33           245          530
  (acre)                                                                                                

  646--Shallow Water Development    934                          1,232        1,908        3,770        7,844
  and Management (acre)                                                                                 

  395--Stream Habitat Improvement   4,855                        11,360       2,067        4,939        23,221
  and Management (acre)                                                                                 

  580--Streambank & Shoreline       25,686                       66,845       35,973       76,804       205,308
  Protection (ft)                                                                                       

  612--Tree/Shrub Establishment     1,994                        6,774        3,796        4,896        17,460
  (acre)                                                                                                

  645--Upland Wildlife Habitat      177,667                      227,340      161,252      370,600      936,859
  Management (acre)                                                                                     

  658--Wetland Creation (acre)      458                          89           186          307          1,040

  659--Wetland Enhancement (acre)   460                          685          714          1,109        2,968

  657--Wetland Restoration (acre)   3,208                        7,261        5,575        2,928        18,972

  644--Wetland Wildlife Habitat     8,553                        10,817       12,224       13,230       44,824
  Management (acre)                                                                                     

  380--Windbreak/Shelterbelt        374,085                      314,500      299,766      167,858      1,156,209
  Establishment (ft)                                                                                    

  \*NRCS ProTracts Database, FY                                                                         
  2004--FY 2007.                                                                                        
  --------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------

Of the total acreage enrolled in FY 2007, six percent will benefit
threatened and endangered species. Threatened and endangered species
targeted through WHIP include, but are not limited to, the following:
American-burying beetle, Neosho madtom, Topeka shiner, gray bat, kit
fox, black-tailed prairie dog, bog turtle, gopher tortoise, dusky-gopher
frog, Eastern-indigo snake, southern-hognose snake, black-pine snake,
Louisiana-black bear, red-cockaded woodpeckers, Mississippi-sandhill
crane, Florida panther, wood storks, snail kites, Florida sandhill
crane, caracara, grasshopper sparrow, Snake River-Chinook salmon, Umpqua
River-cutthroat trout, coho salmon, steelhead, bulltrout,
Lahontan-cutthroat trout, Yuma-clapper rails, Sonoran pronghorn, Mexican
voles, lesser long-nosed bats, and Atlantic Salmon.

Nationally, WHIP acres were distributed among the following three major
habitat types and declining species: upland wildlife habitat, wetland
wildlife habitat, and riparian habitat.

[Upland Wildlife Habitat]{.underline}. Of the total FY 2007 acres
enrolled, over 95 percent encompassed upland wildlife habitat including
grasslands, shrub/scrub, and forests. Several types of early succession
grasslands, such as tall grass prairies, have declined more than 98
percent according to a 1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report. One
primary focus of WHIP nationally is the restoration of these scarce
areas. Wildlife dependent on native grasslands includes neo-tropical
migratory birds, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles and many mammals.
Specific species that will benefit from re-establishment of grasslands
in one or more states include grasshopper sparrow, bobwhite quail, swift
fox, short-eared owl, Karner-blue butterfly, gopher tortoise,
western-harvest mouse, Gunnison-sage grouse, and Greater sage grouse.

Other upland priorities include the establishment of windbreaks, and the
improvement of the edge around cropland, wildlife corridors, shrub-scrub
and steppe habitats, and forests including pine barrens and long leaf
pine. Wildlife species that will benefit from development of these
habitats include Louisiana black bear, Eastern collared lizard,
Bachman's sparrow, ovenbird, acorn woodpecker, western grey-squirrel and
Greater sage grouse.

Practices installed on upland habitat include seedings and plantings,
fencing, livestock management, prescribed burning, and shrub thickets
with shelterbelts. Additional practices were installed for the benefit
of forest land management including creation of forest openings, disking
or mowing including meander disking through woodlands, woody cover
control, brush management, upland wildlife management, aspen stand
regeneration, and exclusion of feral animals.

[Wetland Wildlife Habitat.]{.underline} More than 4 percent of WHIP
lands benefit wetland habitat. WHIP wetland acres are not eligible for
the Wetlands Reserve Program. WHIP wetland habitat includes crop fields
that are flooded in the winter for waterfowl, tidal flushing areas, salt
marshes, wetland hardwood hammocks, mangrove forests, and wild-rice
beds. WHIP wetland habitat also includes created wetlands, freshwater
marshes, and vernal pools in abandoned gravel mines. Among the wildlife
species that will benefit from development or enhancement of wetland
habitat are black crowned night heron, snowy egret, canvasback duck,
ibis, piping plover, short-nosed sturgeon, osprey, California-clapper
rail, fairy shrimp, Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, and endangered
waterbirds (Koloa duck, nerie goose, coot) in Hawaii.

[Riparian and In-stream Aquatic Wildlife Habitat]{.underline}. Riparian
habitat makes up about one percent of the acres enrolled in FY 2007.
This category includes riparian areas along streams, rivers, lakes,
sloughs and coastal areas. Almost 5,000 acres of riparian herbaceous
cover, shallow water management for wildlife, and over stream habitat
improvement and management were installed. Not all WHIP practices are
measured in acres. For instance, funds addressed almost 77,000 feet of
stream bank/shoreline protection.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269305 .anchor}**Discussion of Policy
Scenarios**

This analysis of the WHIP interim final rule examines in qualitative
terms the potential impacts of four discretionary items.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269306 .anchor}**Policy Scenario 1**

Establish a 90-percent cost-share rate on long-term agreements of at
least 15 years;

-   **Beneficial effects of this action**: A change from 100-percent to
    90-percent cost-share rates ensures that participants bear some
    costs in habitat restoration. By having this financial commitment,
    participants may be more committed to maintaining the terms of their
    agreement. Given no increase in program funding, this scenario could
    distribute WHIP funds to possibly more participants because it would
    effectively lower the average cost-share rate on agreements. There
    appears to be ample supply of willing potential participants: in FY
    2008, there were 1,688 unfunded contracts which would have needed an
    estimated \$40 million to complete. Assuming that the participants
    that enrolled at a 100 percent cost-share rate would enroll at 90
    percent, there would be effectively more funding available to enroll
    these participants. However, the impact of any shift from long-term
    contracts to short-term contracts is expected to be small.[^4]

-   **Adverse effects of this action**: Lower cost-share rates in
    long-term agreements could lower producer interest in WHIP long-term
    agreements and therefore potentially lower over-all acreage enrolled
    in WHIP long-term agreements. To the extent that higher benefits
    could be generated through long-term agreements than short-term
    agreements, some decline in over-all benefits may result. However,
    there is no evidence that suggests this would indeed occur.
    Anecdotal evidence suggests that participants that enter into
    long-term contracts are those who are dedicated to protecting and
    restoring critical plant or animal habitat. Decreasing the
    cost-share available to these individuals by ten percent may have
    little impact on their decision to participate in WHIP.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269307 .anchor}**Policy Scenario 2**

    Increase the proportion of annual funds that may be available for
    long-term agreements from "not more than 15 percent" to "not more
    than 25 percent."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Beneficial effects of this action**: This policy option provides
    the opportunity to help ensure that restored habitat is maintained
    for a longer period of time. Long-term agreements may result in
    fewer fish and wildlife species being federally listed as threatened
    and endangered. NRCS entered into nearly 500 15-year agreements with
    program participants between FY 2004 and FY 2007 accounting for
    about four percent of all WHIP agreements and six percent of funds
    obligated. (NRCS Protracts Data, FY 2004--FY 2007). An increase of
    10 percent on the upper bound from a desired limit of 15 percent to
    25 percent would have a negligible effect on likely future
    participation or distribution of long-term and short-term contracts
    in WHIP.

-   **Adverse effects of this action:** The change from 15-years to
    25-years is not expected to have an effect. However, if additional
    long-term agreements are entered into, obligations per agreement
    would increase as they represent costs of agreements with longer
    durations. However, these initial high costs could, in fact, produce
    lower-cost environmental improvements over the lifetime of many
    agreements.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269308 .anchor}**Policy Scenario 3**

    Give priority to projects that address issues raised by State,
    regional and national conservation initiatives.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Beneficial and adverse effects of this action**: Project
    prioritization already considers National, State, and regional
    concerns. Pooling these different concerns when ranking contracts
    allows NRCS to more effectively address problems occurring in
    specific areas within each State. NRCS sees some beneficial effect
    and no adverse effects brought about by this action. Information
    used to set these priorities, such as the State Fish and Wildlife
    Action Plans and National Fish Habitat Management Plan, includes
    numerous data sources and provides new resource data for more
    informed decisions.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269309 .anchor}**Policy Scenario 4**

    Establish WHIP payment rates for historically underserved producers
    (including Indian tribes) that align with payment rates adopted by
    other NRCS cost-share programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Beneficial effects of this action**: At this time, there are no
    WHIP provisions which afford historically underserved producers the
    possibility of a higher cost-share from NRCS. This scenario would
    simplify the administration of programs and possibly make more funds
    available to historically underserved producers who decide to
    participate in WHIP. Resource concerns that may be more prominent on
    agricultural enterprises operated by historically underserved
    producer could be more fully addressed as a consequence. This
    scenario could lead to higher levels of WHIP participation by
    historically underserved participants

-   **Adverse effects of this action:** One consequence of this policy
    change may be a slight shift of funds to historically underserved
    producers from other participants due to the higher cost-share rates
    afforded to historically underserved producers.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269310 .anchor}**Conclusion**

    The changes made by the WHIP interim final rule will have a minimal
    impact on the benefits and costs of the WHIP program. The changes
    will improve program administration by bringing greater consistency
    across financial assistance programs including WHIP, the
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Agricultural
    Management Assistance program. The changes will also address equity
    issues related to assistance to historically underserved producers.
    Finally, the changes will bring the financial incentives offered by
    WHIP into greater alignment with other financial assistance
    programs. Because these changes are expected to have minimal impacts
    on the implementation of the WHIP program and because there is
    limited data on the quantitative effects of wildlife oriented
    conservation practices, a quantitative analysis was not undertaken.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc219269311 .anchor}**Appendix A: Individual
    WHIP Projects since FY2004**

This appendix describes several individual WHIP projects undertaken
since FY 2004. It is not extensive, but is intended to give the reader a
better understanding of the diverse nature of WHIP projects, including
their location, size, the types of conservation practices applied and
resource concerns addressed. The wide range of these characteristics
makes it difficult to access the national benefits generated by the WHIP
given available data at this time. As was stated in the text, NRCS
anticipates that the unique environmental outcomes generated through
conservation practices adopted by WHIP participants will be better
understood through efforts such as CEAP and practice-specific
assessments applicable to WHIP. This type of research might make it
possible to estimate likely environmental outcomes given specific
geographic and climatic conditions that could provide the needed
information for estimating national levels of environmental and economic
benefits from WHIP. These examples are taken from NRCS internal files
and are presented in chronological order by State and resource concern
addressed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269312 .anchor}**2008 Example WHIP Projects**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269313 .anchor}**Wyoming: Big Game Habitat
Conservation**

Wyoming is rich in big game. It is home to tens of thousands of antelope
and deer, and large populations of elk and moose. Many of these animals
depend on routes that they have used for many years to migrate between
summer range in the to their critical winter range. Woven wire fences
were historically built for managing sheep operations. Over the years,
most operators have converted to cattle. Many woven wire fences remain
that may prevent or harm wildlife migrating through the area. In some
cases, landowners unknowingly installed barbed wire fences that are
unfriendly to wildlife. In 2008, Wyoming piloted a Wildlife-Friendly
Fence Initiative. Financial assistance was offered to retrofit fences
that are not wildlife friendly in migration corridors. NRCS worked with
partners to identify these important corridor areas. The Initiative gave
landowners the opportunity to facilitate big game migration, avoid
wildlife mortality, and prevent yearly damage to their fences (success
story write-up from the Wyoming NRCS State office November 2008).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269314 .anchor}**South Carolina: Declining Bird
Species Habitat Conservation**

Partnership efforts of Federal, state, and local agencies and private
landowners worked together to restore and improve habitat for declining
species that depend on grasslands and similar habitats. The project
totaling 16,000 acres utilized pine stand thinning, prescribed burning,
native warm season grass establishment and eradication of invasive
species. Bird species including bobwhite quail and song birds such as
prairie warbler, loggerhead shrike, and Bachman's sparrow have benefited
from this work (South Carolina NRCS Current Developments, March 2008,
"Wildlife Habitat Restoration Improves Thousands of Acres in Newberry
County").

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269315 .anchor}**Kansas: Multiple Species
Habitat Improvement**

A Kansas WHIP participant has turned an eroded small farm into a
productive agricultural and wildlife operation. A 30-foot sinkhole had
developed, row crops could not be sustained, and the farm was abused by
cattle overgrazing. Today, 10 years later, the farm is home to coveys of
quail, deer and even snakes. Conservation practices such as controlled
burns and cutting invasive trees and brush, followed by planting of
native grasses contributed to improving the land. With the farm
improving cattle grazing has been reintroduced. It's quite a turnaround
for the farm that was once neglected (LJ World.com, Kansas, February 4,
2008, "Honorees have transformed eroded plot to natural oasis").

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269316 .anchor}**California: Fish Passage**

A partnership between a number of governmental agencies and a winery to
remove a dam built in 1965 took place on a creek as a major subsidiary
of the Napa River in northern California. The dam provided water for
frost protection. The goals of the project were to improve water
availability and passage for steelhead trout and Chinook salmon, protect
the eroding stream banks, and enhance the riparian corridor. After the
dam removal three boulder weirs were placed in the stream to facilitate
flow and provide a "staircase" for the fish, the creek banks were cut to
a 2:1 slope and stabilized with toe rocks and willow brush mats
installed. The winery, as part of its commitment to organic farming
agreed to find other means of frost protection (Winesandvines.com, April
25, 2008, Winery Removes Fish Barrier in Napa").

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269317 .anchor}**2007 Example WHIP Projects**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269318 .anchor}**Multiple States: Fish
Passage**

Eleven states, including Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine,
New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming,
obligated over \$5.4 million for fish passage projects during FY 2007.
Such projects as dam removal, fish ladder installation, culvert
replacement, and self-regulating tide gates were approved for
implementation. With implementation of these projects over 300 miles
will be made accessible for such prioritized aquatic wildlife species as
Atlantic salmon, whitefish, shellfish, burbot, grayling, northern pike,
Brook and Brown trout, American shad, American eel, Blackside Dace,
alewives, blueback herring, rainbow trout, sea lamprey, smallmouth bass,
Roanoke Logperch, Roanoke Bass, Yellowstone Cutthroat trout, Sauger
burbot, and prairie fish.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269319 .anchor}**Maine: Fish Passage**

A small brook known as the Harmon Brook is one of 13 tributaries to the
better known East Machias River. Clear, free-flowing streams are
required by young salmon for their survival. For 50 years the brook has
flowed through a culvert of a logging road. Culverts pose real
challenges to adult salmon seeking spawning grounds and their tiny
offspring by changing the dynamics of a stream, affecting downstream
flow, water temperature and sediment load. The culvert was replaced by
an archway and rocks placed to replicate a natural waterway making the
road invisible to the stream.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269320 .anchor}**Montana: Fish Passage**

Through the tenacious efforts of an irrigation district manager that
took 40 years of work, a 660 foot fish passage channel was finally
completed to bypass a 300 foot long, 12-foot high diversion dam on the
Tongue River that has been in place since 1885. This work opened 50
miles to six species of concern such as the blue sucker, sturgeon chub,
and the sicklefin chub, including another 49 species of fish.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269321 .anchor}**Idaho: Fish Passage**

The Bear River in south eastern Idaho provides critical habitat for the
threatened Bonneville cutthroat trout. The River is also a major source
of irrigation water for adjacent farms and ranches. After irrigation
season there were numerous fish found trapped in irrigation ditches
which lead away from the river. A large diversion structure and fish
screen was installed and now provides safe passage when the threatened
trout is traveling up and down the spawning river.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269322 .anchor}**California: Multiple Species
Habitat Improvement**

Through WHIP a farmer gained improvements in soil, water, native plants,
and wildlife habitat. Water required by field and row crops was provided
through work with the local irrigation district and tomato cannery rinse
water. The crop fields filter the rinse water. Twenty-six neighbors,
agencies, and organizations completed the largest vegetation management
plan of its kind in the State to control brush encroachment into
grasslands and improve habitat on grazing land. Native trees and shrubs
were planted along ranch ponds and riparian areas to provide cover and
food for wildlife. Fencing and the use of prescribed grazing control
invasive plant species and benefit livestock, vegetation and wildlife.
Livestock are kept away from ponds and streams with wildlife friendly
fencing and are pumped drinking water at solar-powered watering
facilities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269323 .anchor}**New York: Bird Species Habitat
Conservation**

Between 1966 and 2003, 64 percent of shrubland bird species and 85
percent of grassland bird species declined significantly. Early
successional bird species are a conservation priority, including New
York threatened, endangered, and species of special concern. Several
thousand acres have been enrolled in eight core grassland habitat areas
selected based on research completed through GIS analysis. In fiscal
year 2007 128 WHIP applications were received representing 3,300 acres.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269324 .anchor}**2006 Example WHIP Projects**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269325 .anchor}**Multiple States: Sage Grouse
Habitat Conservation**

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming used WHIP to provide funding
to conserve habitat for the greater sage grouse (a bird native to the
Great Plains and western United States) with a two decade declining
population trend. Private land comprises 28 percent (40 million acres)
of the total acreage where existing greater sage grouse populations are
threatened; the remaining acreage is located on state, tribal and public
lands. WHIP provided financial and technical assistance for sage grouse
habitat projects that assist in the implementation of the NRCS sage
grouse habitat conservation action plan and accrue the maximum benefit
from partners' contributions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269326 .anchor}**Delaware: Fish Passage**

The Pursel Mill Dam on the Lopatcong Creek, a tributary of the Delaware
River, was breached. It opened over 10 miles of streams that had been
closed for more than 150 years to migratory fish. This is one of many
projects that are actively restoring rivers and their native fisheries.
Creek bank stabilization and plantings of native vegetation conservation
practices assist to complete stabilization of the stream system. Aquatic
species benefiting were the American eel (a migratory fish species),
brown trout, brook trout (a native species), and other aquatic species.
The permitting process took two years. Sixteen partners including
private individuals, local, State and Federal governments joined this
WHIP project.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269327 .anchor}**Virginia: Invasive Species
Mitigation Measures**

Virginia NRCS used WHIP funds to help eradicate zebra mussels. They
provided funds to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
to eradicate a colony of zebra mussels --- a non-native invasive
species. The only known colony of zebra mussels is located in a quarry
in Northern Virginia. Zebra mussels have the potential to invade and
devastate populations of Virginia\'s native mussels.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269328 .anchor}**Illinois: Multiple Species
Habitat Improvement**

Savannah is a rare and declining habitat in Illinois that provide
critical habitat for mockingbirds, turkeys, woodpeckers, the state
threatened loggerhead shrike, and many other species. Unlike the
parched, stunted corn and soybean fields across central Illinois, a
native grass and wildflower parcel remains undaunted by the drought that
is troubling farmers and frustrating gardeners. In fact, this
WHIP-funded prairie and savannah restoration seems like an oasis in a
literal row crop desert.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269329 .anchor}**Washington: Multiple Species
Habitat Improvement**

A farmer in Washington has been so successful in combining agriculture
and wildlife habitat on his farm that he is continually receiving
unsolicited offers to purchase his farm. Conservation practices
installed are fencing, conservation cover, tree and shrub plantings,
livestock exclusion areas, and seeding of native grasses on rangeland,
many ponds constructed, watering facilities, cross fencing, and pest
management activities have provided excellent wildlife habitat
improvements.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269330 .anchor}**2005 Example WHIP Projects**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269331 .anchor}**Multiple States: Native Sage
Brush Restoration**

The greater sage grouse, a bird native to the Great Plains and western
United States, including California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wyoming, has seen a decline in
population over the past two decades. Private land comprises 28 percent
(40 million acres) of the total acreage where existing greater sage
grouse populations are threatened; the remaining acreage is on state,
tribal and public lands. WHIP provided financial and technical
assistance for sage grouse habitat projects that provide the maximum
benefits from partners' contributions, and help implement the NRCS sage
grouse habitat conservation action plan.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269332 .anchor}**Multiple States: Salmon
Habitat Restoration**

WHIP money was provided to restore a variety of habitats: creeks,
wetlands, inter-tidal mudflat, inter-tidal sedge-plant benches,
freshwater wetland, riparian zone, floodplain, grassland, oak woodland
and savanna, shrub/steppe, conifers, springs, seeps, rivers and streams,
for salmon (Coho, Chinook, Atlantic) and steelhead (both fish species
are anadromous). Alaska, California, Idaho, Maine, Oregon, and
Washington signed agreements with private owners, Tribes, and public
agencies in an effort to use WHIP funding effectively as part of the
WHIP Salmon Habitat Restoration Initiative. Many conservation practices
have been installed as part of this effort and include such practices as
streambank and shoreline protection, critical area planting,
conservation cover, riparian forest buffer, livestock exclusion fencing,
fish stream habitat improvement, irrigation water pipeline, prescribed
grazing, access road, structure for water control, tree and shrub
establishment, trough, channel vegetation, fence, stream channel
stabilization, upland wildlife habitat management, wetland enhancement,
wetland restoration, dam removal and fish ladder installation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269333 .anchor}**Arkansas: Ivory Billed
Woodpecker Habitat**

WHIP funds were provided to Arkansas to share in the costs of private
landowners for practices that improve and restore native Ivory billed
woodpecker habitat, including previously logged areas near deciduous
forest swamps. The bird has been thought to be extinct in for more than
60 years.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269334 .anchor}**West Virginia: Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation**

Using the WHIP program, partners worked to protect a 960-acre working
farm with a network of caves and springs including woodland and wildlife
habitat in West Virginia; the ecosystem supported 22 caves, two streams,
several springs and dozens of sinkholes. Nearly three miles of fencing,
alternative water facilities, prescribed grazing and a nutrient
management plan were implemented. Livestock are no longer being
permitted to graze the 500 acres of forestland and a seven-acre riparian
zone covered through tree and shrub planting.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269335 .anchor}**2004 Example WHIP Projects**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269336 .anchor}**Utah: Native Sage Brush
Restoration**

The Greater Sage grouse, an at-risk bird species, has seen a 90 percent
decline in population over the past twenty years due to the loss of sage
brush, the woody plant necessary for the existence of sage grouse. As a
consequence over 90 percent of WHIP enrolled land in Utah is for the
purpose of improving upland habitat especially sage brush. Located in
Parker Mountain, which is entirely under private ownership, the enrolled
land is a prime environment for sage brush. Habitat restoration work is
consisting of planting of forbs, livestock exclusion fencing, prescribed
grazing, and installations of water facilities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269337 .anchor}**Multiple States: Salmon
Habitat Restoration**

WHIP funds were applied to restore a variety of habitats such as,
creeks, wetlands, inter-tidal mudflat, inter-tidal sedge-plant benches,
freshwater wetland, riparian zone, floodplain, grassland, oak woodland
and savanna, shrub/steppe, conifers, springs, seeps, rivers and streams,
for salmon (coho, Chinook, Atlantic) and steelhead (both fish species
are anadromous). Alaska, California, Idaho, Maine, Oregon, and
Washington signed agreements with private owners, Tribes, and public
agencies in an effort to use WHIP funding effectively. Many conservation
practices have been installed as part of this effort and include such
practices as streambank and shoreline protection, critical area
planting, conservation cover, riparian forest buffer, livestock
exclusion fencing, fish stream habitat improvement, irrigation water
pipeline, prescribed grazing, access road, structure for water control,
tree and shrub establishment, trough, channel vegetation, fence, stream
channel stabilization, upland wildlife habitat management, wetland
enhancement, wetland restoration, dam removal and fish ladder
installation. For example, Maine has approved an agreement to remove the
Lower Sabio Dam with the State of Maine, Atlantic Salmon Commission,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Project SHARE, and the Washington County
SWCD as partners. The dam is located on the west branch of the Machias
River. Removal of the old dam structure will eliminate the threat to
salmon habitat below the dam.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269338 .anchor}**Rhode Island: Estuarine
Restoration**

WHIP funds provided assistance to restore eelgrass beds in Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island. During the restoration eelgrass plants were harvested
and transplanted covering hundreds of acres of the Bay. Eelgrass
provides habitat for bay scallops, blue crabs, lobsters, water fowl such
as Atlantic brandt, and many other species, and is also good for the
economy and water quality.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269339 .anchor}**Alabama: Bird Species Habitat
Conservation**

A client owns two tracts of land in Macon County, Alabama. The primary
resource concern is to provide wildlife habitat for quail and turkey.
The owner became interested in the WHIP program and applied for the
program in 1998. Funds were limited and her application was not funded.
With NRCS encouragement in 1999 she applied again and her application
was approved for funding. Longleaf pine trees were planted in 2000. Due
to a drought the trees failed to make a stand and had to be replanted in
2002. Other practices installed include fire lanes, strip-disking, and
prescribed burning. The persistence paid off. The plantings and
practices installed are becoming established and helping to provide food
and shelter for quail turkey, and other upland birds. Most wildlife
species have the potential to dramatically increase their population.
But the growth is usually limited by one or more habitat factors such as
food or cover. When these habitat factors are in good supply they ensure
healthy individual animals as well as a healthy overall population. In
FY 2004, 95 percent of acreage enrolled in the WHIP program in Alabama
was for upland habitat with the remainder for wetlands habitat.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc219269340 .anchor}**Hawaii: Forest Land Habitat
Conservation**

The Honouliuli Preserve, Oahu, Hawaii, is a lowland diverse and globally
rare, 3,692 acres of mesic forest in the Waianae mountain range. The
Honouliuli Perserve protects a native land snail species that is found
nowhere else on earth. The forest boundaries contain one of the last
remaining habitats for native forest birds and the Hawaiian owl,
culturally significant and revered as a guardian spirit by ancient
Hawaiians. Also present is the flycatching 'elepaio, a singing land bird
once revered by Hawaiian canoe builders. Along with partner The Nature
Conservancy, WHIP funds were used to plant over 3,900 plants listed as
endangered, install catchment tanks and irrigation systems. Funds were
also used to install various kinds of traps for the purpose of
controlling rodents to protect the rare snail, planted endangered plant
species, and the endangered Oau Elepaio forest bird during the nesting
season.

[^1]: For a background on ecosystem services and their assessment,
    please see "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and
    Human Well-Being: Synthesis", Island Press, Washington, DC. World
    Resources Institute.

[^2]: Public goods differ from private goods in many respects. With
    public goods, the market can not exclude non-paying consumers from
    enjoying their provision (non-excludability) and one person's use of
    them does not deprive other consumers from using them (non-rivalry).
    Traditional examples include: public television, national defense,
    public health programs, public firework displays on the Fourth of
    July in the United States and to some extent, lighthouses.

[^3]: Benefits are diverse, which make it difficult to quantify them on
    a national scale. Readers are directed to Appendix A for some
    insights into the wide range of resource concerns addressed with
    WHIP, many far-afield from traditional, agricultural conservation
    practice-based activities undertaken in other NRCS conservation
    programs. Another good source of information is Gray et. al.
    publication in Fish and Wildlife Benefits of Farm Bill Conservation
    Programs, 2002-2005 Update, The Wildlife Society, Technical Review
    05-2, 2005. October 2005 entitled, "Fish and Wildlife Benefits of
    the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program". Gray, for example, gives
    examples of past WHIP projects and lists out the knowledge gaps
    needed to better understand the environmental outcomes generated.

[^4]: Little is known about the willingness of participants to enter
    into long-term contracts in response to an "effective" increase in
    their cost brought about by a drop in NRCS' cost-share. Assuming a
    supply-elasticity for long-term contracts on the part of potential
    WHIP participants of 0.5 during the FY 2004 to FY 2007 period, it
    would be expected that the number of long-term contracts would be
    reduced by 25 (from 495 out of 11,178 WHIP contracts) to 470. Given
    the average costs of long-term contracts during that same period,
    this reduction in long-term contracts would have "released"
    \$724,403. Assuming that all this money would be spent on short-term
    contracts, the program would have gained an additional 66 "non
    long-term" contracts. This would have increased the number of
    shorter-term contracts by 0.62 percent.