To purchase this report, contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (call toll free 1-800-553-6847), or the Defense Technical Information

Center, 8725 Kingman Rd., Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218.
A National Survey of Conservation A National Survey of Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) Participants Reserve Program (CRP) Participants Reserve Program (CRP) Participants

on Environmental Ef on Environmental Ef on Environmental Effects,W fects,Wildlife ildlife ildlife

Issues, and Issues, and Issues, and Issues, and Vegetation Management egetation Management egetation Management

on Program Lands on Program Lands on Program Lands

Reserve Program (CRP) Participants

on Environmental Effects,Wildlife

Issues, and Vegetation Management

on Program Lands

Biological Science Report

USGS/BRD/BSR--2003–0001

July 2003

By

Arthur W. Allen

Mark W.Vandever

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Suggested citation:

Allen, A.W., and Vandever, M.W., 2003, A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on

environmental effects, wildlife issues,and vegetation managemnet on program lands: Biological Science Report,

USGS/BRD/BSR--2003-0001, 51 p.
iii

Contents Contents

Page

Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... v

Characteristics of Conservation Reserve Program Participants and Contracts...................................................... v

Environmental Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program ............................................................................. v

U.S. Department of Agriculture Administration of the Conservation Reserve Program ....................................... v

Social Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program ........................................................................................... v

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

National Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Regional Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Interpretive Summary of Conservation Reserve Program Survey Respondent Written Comments ................... 19

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Education and Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................................... 21

Agricultural Ecosystems........................................................................................................................................ 21

Grassland Habitats and Management .................................................................................................................... 23

Trees and Woodland Management ........................................................................................................................ 24

Social and Economic Considerations .................................................................................................................... 25

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................................... 28

References Cited ......................................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A. Regional Summaries of Survey Respondent Written Comments by U.S. Department of

 Agriculture Farm Production Region ....................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix B. Conservation Reserve Program Survey ................................................................................................ 41

Appendix C. Confidence Intervals for National Responses to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

 Survey........................................................................................................................................................................ 45
iv

Preface Preface Preface

Technology and specialization propelled the United States to the forefront of the worlds’ leading agricultural

producers. The principal components of modern agriculture, energy, machinery, agrochemicals, and irrigation, all

potentially influence farm and off-farm environmental quality. Consequently, agricultural effects on abundance, distribution, and diversity of wildlife continue to be profound, reaching from individual fields across rural landscapes

into freshwater and marine ecosystems.

The 20th century saw American agricultural yields increase as a consequence of farming existing cropland more

intensively and bringing, new, less fertile lands into production. By the 1980’s, the agricultural community was in a

crisis due to growing operational expenses, elevated interest rates, waning land values, overproduction, and diminished foreign demand for products. The economic situation in the agricultural sector and heightened public concern

about environmental quality brought forth establishment of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in Title XII of

the Food Security Act of 1985. The voluntary, long-term cropland retirement program is not the first effort by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to remove environmentally sensitive land from production. The CRP has

become the principal USDA conservation program with a current enrollment of over 13.7 million ha (34 million

acres). Substantial environmental and social benefits led to persistent support from agricultural and conservation

communities for continuation of the CRP in 1990 and 1996 agricultural legislation. The CRP was again reauthorized

and expanded in the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, promising environmental benefits well into the

21st century.

Financial support to the agricultural community, reduction of surplus commodities, reducing erosion of soil, and

protection of long run soil productivity were principal goals of the CRP. As a consequence of CRP implementation,

however, benefits to wildlife in agricultural ecosystems were apparent and pervasive. Continued evolution of the

CRP has elevated wildlife related objectives in program implementation. Recognition that periodic management of

CRP vegetation may be needed to maximize long-term benefits to wildlife points to changes in how the program may

be administered. Conservation priorities associated with agricultural ecosystems differ across geographic regions.

Consequently, future management of CRP and other agricultural lands that address environmental issues will be most

effective if local goals, priorities, and constraints faced by landowners are effectively incorporated into program

administration. In terms of costs and areas enrolled, the CRP is the largest conservation program in the United States.

How the program is managed has social and environmental quality implications extending far beyond fields enrolled

in the program. Not all effects of the CRP on program participants are obvious, nor have they all been positive. This

report is based on a national survey of 1,412 CRP participants describing personal, family, and environmental effects

as seen from the perspective of those most affected. Strengths and weaknesses of the CRP are described. This information is furnished in the hope that it will assist USDA in continued refinement of agricultural conservation programs.
v

Executive Summary

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) remains the largest environmental program administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA). Enrollment currently exceeds 34 million acres with CRP lands in all 50 states

and Puerto Rico. The CRP continues to be acknowledged for its’ actual and potential environmental benefits. Because the agricultural community and American public value environmental quality and conservation programs have

long-term effects on the social fabric of rural communities, improvement in program performance is an important

goal of USDA conservation policies. Recognition of the opinions and constraints faced by participants is essential for

refinement in administration and management of lands enrolled in conservation programs.

In response to a request by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), completed a

national survey of over 2,000 persons holding existing CRP contracts in 2001. The purpose of the survey was to

describe participant opinions about personal affects of the CRP, wildlife issues, and USDA administration of the

program. Principal findings included:

Characteristics of Conservation Reserve Program Participants and Contracts

• CRP participants retired from active farming, 52%,

• CRP participants remaining active in farming, 43%,

• national average area enrolled in CRP by survey respondents, 156 acres,

• dominant CRP covers: native grasses 55%, introduced grasses 31%, trees 14%,

• almost 85% of CRP covers were successfully established at first planting,

• authorized emergency haying of CRP reported by 10.5% of respondents, and

• authorized emergency grazing of CRP reported by 5.2% of respondents.

Environmental Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program

• improved control of soil erosion reported by 85% of respondents,

• over 75% of respondents believe CRP benefits to wildlife are important,

• positive changes in wildlife populations reported by 73% of respondents,

• improvements in water quality seen by 39% of respondents, and

• improved scenic quality landscapes observed by 37% of respondents.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Administration of the

Conservation Reserve Program

• over 73% of respondents believe USDA furnished proper consideration of wildlife in CRP management,

• over 82% of respondents experienced suitable assistance by USDA related to wildlife issues,

• increased management of CRP, with increase in financial aid, was acceptable to 32% of respondents, and

• more assistance related to wildlife management is desired by 16% of respondents.

Social Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program

• increased opportunities to observe wildlife reported by 59% of respondents,

• potential increase in future income due to CRP identified by 16% of respondents, and

• miscellaneous benefits include: assured income to support retirement, stabilization of farm income, assistance in

continued operation of farms, help in prevention of urban expansion, increased land values, improved

recreational opportunities, better air quality, and

• satisfaction from doing something beneficial for the environment.
vi

While not all effects of the program were positive, almost half (49%) of respondents desire the CRP to continue

without substantial change. A concern of some survey respondents was a need for an increase in rental payments and

assistance to cover management of CRP lands.

Almost 55% of survey respondents were satisfied with the amount of assistance furnished by USDA in relation

to wildlife issues. Survey results imply that delivery of technical assistance and up-to-date information on management of conservation and agricultural lands for wildlife needs greater emphasis by USDA and cooperating agencies.
1

A National Survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) A National Survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Participants on Environmental Effects, Wildlife Issues, and Participants on Environmental Effects, Wildlife Issues, and

V 1

Abstract Abstract

Key Words:

Participants on Environmental Effects, Wildlife Issues, and

Vegetation Management on Program Lands egetation Management on Program Lands1

By

Arthur W. Allen

U.S. Geological Survey

Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

and

Mark W. Vandever

Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

Abstract: A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contractees was completed to obtain information about Abstract

environmental and social effects of the program on participants, farms, and communities. Of interest were observations concerning

wildlife, attitudes about long-term management of program lands, and effectiveness of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

assistance in relation to these issues. Surveys were delivered to 2,189 CRP participants with a resultant response rate of 64.5%.

Retired farmers represented the largest category of respondents (52%). Enhanced control of soil erosion was the leading benefit of

the CRP reported. Over 73% of respondents observed increased numbers of wildlife associated with lands enrolled in the program.

The majority of respondents reported CRP benefits, including increased quality of surface and ground waters, improved air quality,

control of drifting snow, and elevated opportunities to hunt or simply observe wildlife as part of daily activities. Income stability,

improved scenic quality of farms and landscapes, and potential increases in property values and future incomes also were seen as

program benefits. Negative aspects, reported by a smaller number of respondents, included seeing the CRP as a source of weeds,

fire hazard, and attracting unwanted requests for trespass. Over 75% of respondents believed CRP benefits to wildlife were

important. A majority of respondents (82%) believed the amount of assistance furnished by USDA related to planning and

maintaining wildlife habitat associated with CRP lands was appropriate. Nearly 51% of respondents would accept incorporation

of periodic management of vegetation into long-term management of CRP lands to maintain quality of wildlife habitats. Provision

of funds to address additional costs and changes in CRP regulations would be required to maximize long-term management of

program lands. Additional, on-ground assistance related to management of CRP, and other agricultural lands, to maintain wildlife

habitats was commonly identified as a need by survey respondents.

Key Words: Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, habitat management, USDA conservation policy, wildlife.

1

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency.
2 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Introduction

Societal support for the agrarian community persists

but public opinion increasingly reveals concern about

relations between agriculture and environmental quality

(Unnevehr, 1993; Crosson, 1995; Thurman, 1995, U.S.

Congress, 1995; Matson and others, 1997). Agriculture

directly affects more than half of the contiguous 48 United

States (Daugherty, 1997). An even larger area of the Nation and its coastal waters are influenced by agricultural

production (Miranowski and others, 1991; Ribaudo, 1997;

CAST, 1999; Tilman and others, 2001). Consequently, the

amount of attention focused toward environmental issues in agricultural legislation has increased in recent

years [Taylor, 2001; U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), 2001]. Most USDA policies address environmental issues from a national perspective; however, to be

most successful conservation provisions must be regionally focused, cost effective, and compatible with the

aspirations of those enrolled in the programs (Doering,

1992; MacDonnell and Bates, 1993; Baydack and others,

1996; Claassen and others, 2001). Successful incorporation of environmental goals into agricultural legislation

depends ultimately on the proficiency of those who frame

conservation policies to address long-term social and environmental implications of agricultural land use.

The CRP, established under the 1985 Food Security

Act, represents agricultural legislation furnishing positive environmental effects on a national scale (Osborn,

1997; Heard and others, 2000, 2001; General Accounting

Office [GAO], 2002). As of February 2003 over 13.7 million ha (34 million acres) were enrolled in the CRP (Fig. 1)

for a minimum contract period of 10 years (USDA, 2002).

Continuation of the program under the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act and the 2002 Farm

Security and Rural Investment Act permits many CRP

lands existing under renewed contracts to furnish environmental benefits for 30 or more years. Although CRP

objectives continue to evolve, economic support to the

agricultural community and cost-effective conservation

of natural resources remain fundamental goals (Feather

and others, 1999; Ribaudo and others, 2001). Of growing

significance is recognition of the enduring effects that

the CRP has on the distribution and quality of wildlife

habitats.

Wildlife is an issue of importance to most owners of

agricultural lands (Miller and Bromley, 1989, 1990;

Kurzejeski and others, 1992; Allen and others, 1996;

Conover, 1998; Lasley, 2000; Cable, 2002). A recent survey

of State Conservation Committee members, however,

reported over 60% of respondents believed that the

continued loss of wildlife habitat on farms and ranches

was an issue of moderate to major concern (GAO, 2002).

Although wildlife issues have been addressed in recent

conservation policies, greater USDA attention toward

management of the CRP and other agricultural lands to

maintain or improve habitat quality (Roseberry and David,

1994; Hughes and others, 1995; Millenbah and others,

1996; Patterson and Best, 1996; Rodgers, 1999, 2002; Allen

and others, 2001) may be acceptable to many participants

of USDA programs.

Because farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners manage two-thirds of the Nation’s land,

environmental and conservation goals have become key

factors in formulation of USDA policies (USDA, 2001).

Elevation in landowner acceptance of conservation goals

can be accomplished by promoting greater understanding of environmental issues associated with agricultural

production (Manfredo and others, 1998; Lichtenberg and

Zimmerman, 1999; Jackson, 2002a). The beliefs of farm

operators generally parallel those of the non-farming public but opinions on environmental topics may be more

polarized (Lichtenberg and Zimmerman, 1999; Cable, 2002);

information not specific to their geographic region may

be viewed with skepticism (Newton, 2001); and extensive

acceptance of conservation practices can be limited by a

lack of knowledge (CAST, 1999). To be most effective,

communication of conservation information should be

targeted toward specific segments of the public or farm

population with explicit informational needs (Duda and

Young, 1998; Tucker and Napier, 2002) and in a manner

that avoids scientific rhetoric (James, 2002). Communication of “why” specific management practices are

advocated may be just as important as is learning “how”

they can be accomplished. Ultimately, acceptance of conservation policies can be improved by incorporating the

values, opinions, knowledge, and constraints of participants into program objectives and management

prescriptions (Lowe and others, 1999; Laubhan and

Gammonley, 2001; Raedeke and others, 2001; Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003).

Environmental benefits of the CRP, particularly those

associated with wildlife, have been relatively well documented (Dunn and others, 1993; Ryan and others, 1998;

Flather and others, 1999; Heard and others, 2000; Leistritz

and others, 2002). Personal communications over past

years between individuals enrolled in the CRP and authors of this report, however, suggest that varied personal and social affects of the program have not been

formally recognized. From a national perspective, comments such as “since establishment of the CRP streams

have surface water in them” or “the CRP grasses capture

drifting snow, making winter feeding of cattle easier” may

appear relatively unimportant and impractical to measure.

To these individuals, however, such non-quantifiable,

non-market benefits are not trivial (McBeth and Foster,

1994; Williams and Diebel, 1996). An appreciation of such
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 3

understated effects can improve our understanding of

environmental and social implications of long-term conservation programs delivered within agricultural ecosystems.

Our objective was to solicit and describe CRP participant judgments concerning effects of the program on

their family, farm, or community. Participant attitudes toward managing CRP lands to meet conservation objectives and how effective USDA had been in communicating

why specific enrollment or management criteria were required also were of interest. We believe such information

may identify regional issues of concern to participants

and be useful for refining the CRP and other conservation programs. In addition, participant knowledge and

observations could aid USDA in identification of acceptable management alternatives, thereby elevating environmental benefits derived from conservation policies.

Methods Methods Methods

The USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA) Natural Resources Analysis Group of the Economics and Policy

Analysis staff furnished a Nationwide list of 2,261 names

and addresses of CRP contractees as a panel for potential participants in the survey. Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute, 1999) software was used to randomly

select prospective participants from the 2000 active contract database based on the percentage of all active CRP

contracts within the 10 USDA Farm Production Regions

(FPRs) (Fig. 2). The survey was pre-tested by six CRP

participants from four FPRs to insure questions were

clearly understood and to assess respondent burden.

Based on pre-test results, an average of 11.5 minutes were

required to complete the survey. A staged procedure following Dillman (1978) was used to contact CRP participants selected for the survey. A postcard was initially

sent to all potential respondents informing them of study

objectives and that a survey would be sent to them. The

respondents were given the opportunity to decline participation in the evaluation. Two weeks later a package

that included the survey instrument, a postage-paid return envelope, and a letter explaining the purpose of the

study was mailed to each CRP contractee. Approximately

two weeks later a postcard was sent to remind participants of the previously mailed survey, asking for return

of the survey, and thanking those who had already responded. Prior to publication of this document, a preliminary report of survey findings (Vandever and others, 2002)

was mailed to 495 respondents desiring results of the

survey.

Because information from persons intimately familiar

with program effects was desired, 49 (2.2%) CRP contracts in the name of trusts, banks, or other non-personal

ownerships were rejected. Twenty-nine persons (1.3%)

refused to participate in the survey or returned the questionnaire unanswered. One percent of mailed surveys

were returned as undeliverable. Of 2,189 surveys delivered to CRP contractees, 1,412 (64.5%) were answered

and returned (Table 1). A response rate >50% is considered outstanding for a public survey, especially to a government-sponsored study where incentives cannot be

furnished (Dillman, 2000). Data entry and analysis were

completed using Statistical Package for Social Science

(SPSS) (Norušis, 1999).

Results Results Results

Presented below is a summary of national results of

the survey followed by a discussion of findings for the

10 USDA FPRs. Descriptions of responses to questions

formally presented in the survey are followed by an interpretive summary of written comments furnished by survey respondents. A more complete description of written

comments is provided in Appendix A. Survey questions

are presented in Appendix B. Appendix C provides confidence intervals (95%) for national responses to survey

questions. Respondent responses (%) in the text have

been rounded to the nearest whole number.

National Results

Respondent Relations to the Conservation Reserve

Program

Retired farmers were the largest category (52%) of

survey respondents while 43% were owners remaining

active in farming. Renters of CRP land represented 3% of

respondents while 2% were trustees or non-farming owners (e.g., churches, airports, local governments) of CRP

land.

Acres, Composition, and Establishment Success of

Conservation Reserve Program Covers

Nationally, the number of CRP acres owned by

respondents ranged from 0.3 acres to 3,825 acres with a

mean of 156 acres. Over half (55%) of respondents

characterized their CRP land as being planted to native

grasses, followed by nonnative grasses (31%) and trees

(14%). Dominant vegetation covers reported by survey

respondents correspond to current, recently established,

vegetative covers on CRP lands (USDA, 2003). Of the

11.4 million acres devoted to grass or tree cover

establishment 10% are trees while 54% are native grasses,

and 36% are nonnative grasses. (These values are,

however, exclusive of 14.9 million acres of grass existing
4 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Fig. 1. Total Fig. 1 enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program in acres by county in February 2003. Map furnished by

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division.

Fig. 2. U.S. Fig. 2 Department of Agriculture Farm Production Regions and percentage of Conservation Reserve Program

contracts within the Regions in 2001.
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 5

under renewed contracts that include both nonnative and

native grass.) Nearly 85% of respondents reported that

CRP covers on their land were successfully established

at the first planting. Drought was acknowledged (9%) as

the primary cause of failure in initial planting of CRP

covers.

Table 2 displays a national summary of disturbance

and management activities occurring on CRP lands

reported by survey respondents. Nationally, 15% of

respondents said they had used CRP grasslands for

haying or grazing under emergency conditions. Over 63%

said they had used these lands only one time under

emergency use. Slightly less than 27% had used their

grasslands two times and 6.8% had employed emergency

haying or grazing three times. Only 3% of respondents

said they had used grasslands under emergency

conditions more than four times in the life of their contract.

Weed control was the most frequently reported type of

management applied to CRP lands. Nearly twice as many

respondents (62%) reported mowing as compared to 35%

who employed spot treatment using herbicides as the

primary method of weed control. Slightly over 12% of

respondents reported that, to their knowledge, no known

disturbance had ever occurred on their CRP lands.

Environmental and Social Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program

Positive aspects. As might be expected, the greatest

percentage of respondents (85%) believed the CRP

contributed to diminished erosion of soil (Table 3). The

effect the CRP has had on wildlife associated with

agricultural landscapes is illustrated by 73% of

respondents reporting increased populations of wildlife

associated with lands enrolled in the program. Although

38% of respondents reported the CRP provided more

opportunities to hunt and 12% found increased

opportunities to lease land for hunting, nearly 60% of

respondents believed the ability to simply observe wildlife

was an important benefit of the program. Slightly over

29% and 39% of respondents acknowledged

Table 2. Nati able 2 onal summary of types of disturbance, use,

or management that has taken place on lands enrolled

in the Conservation Reserve Program.

Type of management or disturbance %

Spot treatment of weeds by mowing 62.2

Spot treatment of weeds by herbicide 34.7

Additional seeding 16.4

Intentional burning 12.9

Authorized emergency haying 10.5

Establishment of firebreaks 9.6

Fertilization 6.4

Flooding 5.6

Authorized emergency grazing 5.2

Thinning of volunteer trees/shrubs 3.7

Accidental burning 3.2

Thinning of planted trees/shrubs 2.9

Accidental grazing 2.0

Use of pesticide for insect control 1.0

No known disturbance 12.1

Table 1. able 1 National and U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region response rates to the Conservation

Reserve Program survey.

Farm Production Survey response

 Region Total sent Undeliverable No response Responded Response rate (%)a

Pacific 105 1 41 61 58.7

Mountain 160 1 59 100 62.9

Northern Plains 412 2 145 259 63.2

Southern Plains 140 2 48 88 63.7

Lake States 299 2 75 219 73.7

Corn Belt 669 7 217 441 66.6

Delta 104 0 39 64 61.5

Southeast 114 4 44 62 56.4

Appalachian 107 4 41 59 57.3

Northeast 102 1 39 59 58.4

National 2,212 24 748 1,412 64.5

a

Response rate = responded/(total sent–undeliverable).
6 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

improvements in air and water quality, respectively.

Improved control of drifting snow was recognized by 31%

of survey respondents. Over 23% believed the CRP

contributed to greater permanence of surface waters.

Improvement in scenic quality of agricultural landscapes

was cited as a CRP benefit by 37% of respondents. Nearly

17% saw the CRP as contributing to their future income

either through future sale of timber resources, improved

fertility of soils, or increased recreational value of their

land.

In addition to responding to formal questions in the

survey, many respondents “wrote-in” additional benefits

derived from the CRP. Other positive aspects described

included enhancement of soil organic matter and fertility

improving potential future productivity of CRP lands, retention of water from rain and snow, and prevention of

erosion on lands adjacent to CRP acres. Other environmental benefits included reappearance of springs below

CRP fields, less debris in streams, and improved quality

of well water. Lower use of agricultural chemicals, diminished noise from equipment and other farm operations,

and helping to prevent unwanted urban expansion/development were also attributed to the CRP. Economic benefits described included helping to raise grain prices,

assistance in paying taxes, assured income to support

retirement, provision of additional income to support continued operation of the farm, an increase in overall farm

property values, stabilization of farm income, and savings in operation costs by not having to farm corners and

small fields. Many respondents stated the CRP has enabled them to take land out of production that they knew

should have never been farmed. Social benefits described

were diverse and included satisfaction from doing something beneficial for the environment, having hay to give

neighbors in time of need, providing a place for children

and grandchildren to camp or play, provision of sites for

local schools to hold conservation/ecology classes, and

providing places for family/friends to hunt and socialize.

By far, the majority of comments focused on increased

numbers and variety of wildlife associated with CRP lands.

Many respondents stated the enhanced presence of wildflowers and insects were an unforeseen, but welcome

benefit of the program.

Negative aspects. Not all perceptions concerning

environmental and social affects of the CRP were positive. Almost 29% of respondents viewed CRP lands as a

source of weeds (Table 4). Similarly, 13% of respondents

perceived the CRP as making their farm, or landscape,

appear untidy or poorly managed. The CRP was viewed

as a potential fire hazard by19% of those responding to

the survey. Four percent felt too much land had been

taken out of production and enrolled in the CRP. Likewise, 8% of respondents believed the program had a negative effect on local economies due to lower production of

crops and related impacts on local agricultural-based

businesses. In relation to wildlife, 18% of respondents

indicated the CRP had caused problems due to greater

numbers of wildlife. Eighteen percent attributed an increase in unwelcome requests for permission to hunt to

the CRP.

Respondents provided comments describing

negative effects of the CRP other than those listed as

options in the formal questionnaire. One of the most

commonly voiced concerns was trespass and an apparent

presumption by some individuals that CRP lands were

open to public hunting. In some cases, the increase in

habitat quality furnished by the CRP resulted in more

Table 3. N able 3 ational summary of environmental and social

benefits attributed to the Conservation Reserve Program by survey respondents.

 Type of benefit %

Improved control of soil erosion 85.4

Positive changes in wildlife populations 73.2

Increased opportunities to observe wildlife 59.4

Improved water quality 38.8

Increased opportunities to personally hunt 37.6

Improved scenic quality of farms or

 landscape 37.4

Improved control of drifting snow 30.5

Improved air quality 29.2

Increased permanence of surface water 23.7

Potential increase in future income 16.7

Increased opportunities to lease land

 for hunting 11.9

No positive effects 1.1

Table 4. Summary of able 4 the negative environmental, personal, or social effects attributed to the Conservation

Reserve Program by survey respondents.

Type of negative effects %

Source of weeds 28.8

Potential fire hazard 19.3

Attracts unwanted requests for

permission to hunt 18.0

Makes farm appear unkempt or poorly

managed 13.1

Attracts unwanted wildlife 8.7

Negative effects on local economy 7.8

Too much cropland taken out of production 4.1

No negative effects 25.4
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 7

requests from strangers to have access to land for hunting.

The CRP has attracted unwanted wildlife that includes an

increase in insects, deer (Odocoileous spp.), coyotes

(Canis latrans), predators, and other “varmints”. The

increased abundance of pocket gophers (Geomys spp.)

in CRP grasslands was a concern voiced several times

because, over years, the presence of gopher mounds

makes fields rough and difficult to mow. Several

respondents expressed concern that the CRP has had a

negative effect on populations of northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus). Elimination of row crops and

establishment of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)

grasslands were perceived as having the most negative

effects on northern bobwhite quail populations. Some

respondents expressed concern that too many acres

removed from crop production had a negative effect on

local economies. Several respondents believed the large

number of acres enrolled in the CRP prevents young

farmers from being able to start a viable farming operation

and that the program could cause an unnecessary

increase in farmland property values. Conversely, others

expressed apprehension about too many acres of highly

erosive land going back into production due to more

stringent enrollment requirements in recent CRP sign-ups.

As might be expected from the response to formal

questions, the need for additional funds to cover costs

for weed control and the potential hazard of fire presented

by CRP grasslands were commonly expressed concerns.

Wildlife and Habitat Issues

In response to attention given to wildlife in CRP

enrollment requirements, 73% of respondents felt USDA

furnished an appropriate level of consideration (Fig. 3a).

Slightly over 15% of respondents advocated more

awareness of wildlife needs by the USDA while 11%

believed that wildlife had received too high a priority in

CRP enrollment criteria. Figure 3b displays respondent

feelings about the amount of assistance provided by

USDA in relation to wildlife habitat associated with the

CRP. Only 2% believed that too much aid was furnished,

while 82% believed the amount of assistance provided

was appropriate. Almost 16% of respondents thought

not enough assistance was furnished. Almost 55% felt

they had been well informed about why specific types of

CRP management practices were required to maintain or

improve wildlife habitat (Fig. 3c). In contrast, 38% of

respondents felt they had been only partially informed

and 7% alleged they had not been informed about these

requirements at all.

In relation to requirements to modify existing vegetation to qualify for renewal in the CRP, over 75% of

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that CRP benefits

to wildlife were important (Fig. 4a). Slightly over 6% of

respondents disagreed with the statement that CRP benefits to wildlife were important. Three percent of respondents strongly disagreed with requirements to change

the composition of existing vegetation to benefit wildlife.

Fifteen percent were impartial about these management

requirements. Almost 62% of respondents agreed, or

strongly agreed, requirements to enhance CRP vegetation composition to maintain long-term quality of wildlife

habitat were reasonable (Fig. 4b). Slightly less than 12%

of respondents disagreed with management requirements

Fig. 3. National summary Fig. 3 of survey respondent attitudes

about the amount of attention given to wildlife habitat

needs and the quality of information and assistance

furnished by USDA in CRP requirements to manage

vegetation for wildlife priorities.
8 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

to maintain wildlife habitat quality, while 4% voiced strong

opposition. Of those who answered this question, 22%

expressed no opinion. In response to the question about

disturbance of existing CRP vegetation cover, 82% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that established

vegetation should not be disturbed to qualify for renewal

in the program (Fig 4c). Only 4% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed, believing it reasonable to

disturb established vegetation to furnish improvements

in quality of wildlife habitat. No opinion about these requirements was expressed by 14% of respondents.

Management Alternatives

In response to which methods would be most

acceptable if periodic management of CRP land was

needed 58% of respondents identified mowing followed

by shredding of vegetation (35%; Table 5). Application

of herbicides was cited by 26% as the most desirable

management alternative while use of prescribed fire or

burning was selected by 25% of respondents. Grazing

was identified as the preferred management alternative

by 21% of respondents. Disking, or plowing, of CRP

ground was the least desirable management practice being

selected by only 8% of respondents.

Figure 5 displays reasons why periodic management

of CRP vegetation may not be acceptable to farm operators responding to the survey. Over 14% of respondents

stated they did not have equipment to implement management. Slightly over 4% of respondents declared they

did not want to manage their CRP land. Thirty-four percent of respondents said they opposed disturbance of

CRP grassland.

The final question of the survey asked participants

to identify the most acceptable choice between four

scenarios describing possible alternatives for

management of CRP lands. Nationally, nearly half (49%)

of respondents indicated they wanted to see no changes

Fig. 4

Table 5

Fig. 4. National summary of survey respondent attitudes

about CRP benefits to wildlife and USDA requirements to

manage vegetation for wildlife priorities.

Table 5. able 5 National summary of management options most

compatible with farming operations if periodic management of Conservation Reserve Program lands was needed.

Management options %

Mowing 57.7

Shredding/brushhoging 35.4

Herbicides 25.5

Burning 24.7

Grazing 20.9

Disking/plowing 8.3

Fig. 5. National summary of reasons given why survey

respondents oppose management of CRP vegetation covers.
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 9

in enrollment or management criteria (Fig. 6). In this

scenario, CRP lands could only be hayed or grazed under

emergency conditions with a reduction in rental payment

for acres used. The second most popular alternative (32%)

offered an increase in CRP rental payments to cover

management to maintain long-term quality of wildlife

habitat. Restricted use following limited haying or grazing

was the preferred alternative of 12% of respondents.

Under this scenario CRP land could be used for limited

haying or grazing without reduction in rental payments

but emergency use in the used portion of the field would

be prohibited for up to 2 years following managed use.

Periodic haying or grazing with a 25% reduction in rental

payments for acres used was the preferred alternative of

only 7% of respondents.

Regional Results

Respondent Relations to the Conservation Reserve

Program

Table 6 illustrates survey respondent relationships

to the CRP by FPR. Owner operators actively involved in

farming were highest in the Pacific (54%), Mountain (53%)

and Northern Plains (51%). In all other FPRs, CRP landowners no longer actively farming represented a larger

number of respondents than did those remaining active

in agriculture. The highest percentage of survey respondents retired from farming were recorded in the Appalachian (67%) FPR. Renters of CRP land were highest in the

Pacific FPR (8%) followed by the Northeast (5%). The

highest percentage of trustees responding to the survey

was in the Southern Plains (2%) and Mountain FPRs (2%).

The percentage of respondents in the “other” category

(e.g., financial institutions, local governments, churches)

was greatest in the Pacific (3%) and Southeast FPRs (3%).

Acres, Composition, and Establishment Success of

Conservation Reserve Program Covers

Table 7 displays the average number of CRP acres

held by survey respondents in each FPR. The greatest

average amount of acreage enrolled in the CRP was reported by respondents in the Pacific FPR (626.3acres)

followed closely by the Mountain FPR (561.9 acres). Respondents in the Northeast FPR reported the smallest

average amount of acreage enrolled in the CRP with an

average of 37.3 acres. Based on information furnished by

respondents, native grasses were the dominant covers

established on CRP acres in the Northern Plains, Southern Plains, Lake, Corn Belt, Appalachian, and Northeastern FPRs (Table 8). Nonnative grasses were characterized

as the prevailing cover planted on CRP lands in the Pacific and Mountain FPRs. Trees were the leading CRP

planting in the Delta and Southeastern FPRs.

Most respondents reported CRP covers were successfully established during their first planting (Table 9).

Respondents in all FPRs identified drought as the predominant cause for planting failure with the greatest percentage (16%) in the Delta region. Slightly over 5% of

respondents in the Pacific FPR said insects/weeds was

the cause of planting failure. Four percent of respondents

in all FPRs reported planting failures due to insects/weeds,

flooding, or other (e.g., poor seed quality, incorrect preparation of the seedbed) reasons.

Emergency Use

Nationally, 15% of survey respondents reported having used forage on their CRP acres at least one time during emergency conditions (Table 10). The greatest

occurrence of emergency use was reported in the Mountain FPR (35% of respondents) followed by the Northern

and Southern Plains FPRs (24% and 21%, respectively).

Emergency use of CRP forage was least common (3%) in

the Northeast FPR. The most extensive use of CRP acres,

in terms of percentage of acres used, occurred in the

Southern Plains and Lake FPRs where over 30% of respondents reported using > 61% of eligible land when

use was authorized (Table 11). The least extensive use of

CRP acres was reported in the Southeast and Delta FPRs

where 75% and 100%, respectively, of respondents reported using <20% of eligible acres.

Table 12 displays respondent answers to an inquiry

about the number of times their CRP acres had been used

under emergency conditions. Across all regions the

Fig. 6. National summary Fig. 6 of survey respondent reaction

to various funding scenarios for future management of

CRP lands.
10 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

majority of respondents indicated they had used forage

on CRP acres only one time. The most extensive

emergency use occurred in the Northern Plains and

Southern Plains FPRs. Over 3% of respondents in the

Northern Plains indicated they had applied emergency

haying or grazing five times. Nearly 2% said they had

used CRP acres under emergency conditions six or more

times. While nearly 7% of Southern Plains respondents

used CRP acres for emergency forage four times, none

said that these lands had been used more frequently than

that. The least frequent emergency use of CRP occurred

in the Delta and Northeast FPRs where respondents who

used their lands said they had been hayed or grazed only

once. Release of CRP lands for emergency use was least

in these same FPRs (Table 13). Recurrent authorization of

emergency use occurred in the Northern Plains, Southern

Plains, and Mountain FPRs.

Table 8. able 8 Predominant covers established on Conservation Reserve Program acres by U.S. Department of Agriculture

Farm Production Region. Values represent percentage of respondents reporting dominant vegetation planted.

Farm Production Vegetation cover

 Region Mostly native grasses Mostly nonnative grasses Mostly trees

Pacific 44.1 52.5 3.4

Mountain 46.9 51.0 2.1

Northern Plains 65.9 29.5 4.7

Southern Plains 54.9 45.1 0.0

Lake States 61.1 22.7 16.1

Corn Belt 56.0 37.4 6.6

Delta 31.7 0.0 68.3

Southeast 20.0 6.7 73.3

Appalachian 48.3 29.3 22.4

Northeast 71.2 13.6 15.3

National 55.1 31.3 13.6

Table 7. Average number able 7 of acres enrolled in the

Conservation Reserve Program by U.S. Department of

Agriculture Farm Production Region.

Farm Production Region Average # of acres

Pacific 626.3

Mountain 561.9

Northern Plains 177.8

Southern Plains 276.9

Lake States 54.4

Corn Belt 58.5

Delta 120.5

Southeast 87.9

Appalachian 67.2

Northeast 37.3

National 156.0

Table 6. able 6 Survey respondent relations to Conservation Reserve Program ownership by U.S. Department of Agriculture

Farm Production Region. PAC = Pacific; MTN = Mountain; NP = Northern Plains; SP = Southern Plains; LAK = Lake

States; CB = Corn Belt; DLT = Delta; SE = Southeast; APL = Appalachian; NE = Northeast; and NATL = National.

 Farm Production Region

Relationship PAC MTN NP SP LAK CB DLT SE APL NE NATL

Owner/operator 54.1 52.6 50.6 40.7 34.6 45.6 35.5 27.4 31.6 32.2 43.0

Owner/not active 34.4 41.2 43.2 55.8 63.1 49.0 62.9 66.1 66.7 62.7 52.0

Renter/operator 8.2 4.1 4.6 1.2 1.4 3.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.1 3.1

Trustee 0.0 2.1 0.8 2.3 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 0.0 0.9

Other 3.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.1
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 11

Management and Disturbance of the Conservation

Reserve Program

Control of weeds was the predominant management

disturbance across all FPRs (Table 14). Only in the Pacific

and Mountain Regions did herbicides exceed mowing as

a method of weed control. Additional seeding was the

next most common type of management on CRP lands,

again with the greatest occurrence in the Pacific and

Mountain FPRs. Additional seeding occurred following

failure of initial plantings, as well as planting to augment,

or change, vegetation composition in established CRP

covers. From a national viewpoint, intentional burning

was the next most common disturbance reported by 13%

of respondents as having occurred on all, or part, of CRP

acres. Intentional burning was most common in the

Northern Plains, followed by Pacific, Corn Belt, and

Southern Plains FPRs. Intentional burning was reported

by 6% of respondents in all other regions. Accidental

grazing of CRP lands was reported by 9% of survey

respondents in the Pacific Region. Within all other FPRs,

accidental grazing was reported by 3% of respondents.

Table 9. able 9 Summary of planting success of Conservation Reserve Program covers by U.S Department of Agriculture Farm

Production Region.

 Planting results

Farm Production Successful at Failed due Failed due to Failed due Failed due to

 Region first planting to drought insects/weeds to flooding other reasons

Pacific 81.4 10.2 5.1 0.0 3.4

Mountain 80.6 15.3 2.0 0.0 2.0

Northern Plains 87.5 7.8 1.6 2.3 0.8

Southern Plains 83.8 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lake States 88.0 2.9 1.9 2.9 4.3

Corn Belt 82.5 8.4 3.4 3.6 2.1

Delta 81.3 15.6 0.0 0.0 3.1

Southeast 88.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 3.3

Appalachian 85.7 8.9 3.6 1.8 0.0

Northeast 82.5 14.0 3.5 0.0 0.0

National 84.5 9.1 2.3 2.1 2.0

Table 10. able 10 Percentage of survey respondents, by U.S.

Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region,

reporting emergency use of Conservation Reserve Program forage under emergency conditions.

 Have you hayed or grazed

Farm Production under emergency conditions?

 Region No Yes

Pacific 89.8 10.2

Mountain 64.6 35.4

Northern Plains 76.2 23.8

Southern Plains 79.0 21.0

Lake States 89.8 10.2

Corn Belt 88.4 11.6

Delta 95.3 4.7

Southeast 93.4 6.6

Appalachian 87.9 12.1

Northeast 96.6 3.4

National 85.0 15.0

Table 11. Percentage of Conservation Reserve Program 1

acres used under emergency conditions by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region.

Farm Production % of acres hayed or grazed

 Region 0–20 21–45 46–60 61–100

Pacific 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0

Mountain 24.2 15.2 36.4 24.2

Northern Plains 19.3 29.8 28.1 22.8

Southern Plains 6.3 37.5 18.8 37.5

Lake States 15.8 15.8 36.8 31.6

Corn Belt 31.3 22.9 20.8 25.0

Delta 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Southeast 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0

Appalachian 42.9 14.3 14.3 28.6

Northeast 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0

National 24.4 25.4 25.9 24.4
12 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Table 12. Given able 12 emergency use of Conservation Reserve Program lands, the number of times respondents reported use

of acres by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region.

 Number of times acres have been used under emergency conditions

Farm Production Region 1 2 3 4 5 6+

Pacific 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mountain 62.5 31.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Northern Plains 52.6 33.3 7.0 1.8 3.5 1.8

Southern Plains 60.0 20.0 13.3 6.7 0.0 0.0

Lake States 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Corn Belt 72.3 19.1 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Delta 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Southeast 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Appalachian 71.4 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Northeast 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

National 63.7 26.8 6.8 1.1 1.1 0.5

Table 13. able 13 Respondent estimates of the number of times their Conservation Reserve Program acres had been eligible for

emergency use, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region

Farm Production Number of times acres have been eligible for emergency use

 Region 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pacific 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mountain 3.3 20.0 50.0 20.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0

Northern Plains 0.0 30.0 30.0 16.0 12.0 4.0 6.0 2.0

Southern Plains 0.0 30.8 15.4 23.1 23.1 0.0 7.7 0.0

Lake States 0.0 70.6 23.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Corn Belt 0.0 44.2 32.6 20.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Delta 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Southeast 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Appalachian 0.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Northeast 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

National 0.6 39.8 31.6 16.4 7.0 1.8 2.3 0.6
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 13

Nationally, emergency haying and grazing was reported

by 11% and 5% of respondents, respectively. With

exception of the Southern Plains, haying was the most

commonly used method to harvest CRP forage.

Establishment of firebreaks was relatively common in the

southeastern United States where 46% of respondents in

Southeast and 33% in the Delta FPRs reported use of the

practice. Fertilization of CRP lands was greatest in the

Corn Belt FPR with 11% of respondents reporting such

use. Flooding of CRP acres was relatively uncommon with

7% of respondents in the Northern Plains reporting the

greatest occurrence. Respondents reporting thinning of

planted tree/shrubs were greatest in the Southeast (25%)

and Delta (19%) FPRs where establishment of pine

plantations is the dominant CRP conservation practice.

Thinning of volunteer trees/shrubs was greatest in the

Northern Plains region with 6% of respondents reporting

this activity. Pesticide application to CRP acres was low,

with <2% of respondents reporting its use across all FPRs.

Environmental, Social, Economic Effects of the

Conservation Reserve Program

Conservation Reserve Program contributions to

declining rates of soil erosion were recognized as the

dominant environmental benefit across all FPRs (Table 15).

Over 62% of all respondents attributed increasing

populations of wildlife to presence of the CRP. More than

80% of Pacific FPR respondents believed the CRP had

contributed to greater numbers of wildlife. More

opportunities to observe wildlife was the third highest

environmental benefit with an average of 59% of all

respondents seeing it as a positive outcome of the

program. Increased opportunities to personally hunt were

perceived as a relatively important advantage of the CRP.

Generally, however, respondents neither realized, nor

desired to seek, opportunities to lease CRP land for

hunting, which was the lowest ranked benefit of the

program. The desire to lease land for hunting was lowest

Table 14. Type able 14 of management, disturbance, or use of Conservation Reserve Program occurring on all, or part of, acres

by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region. PAC = Pacific; MTN = Mountain; NP = Northern

Plains; SP = Southern Plains; LAK = Lake States; CB = Corn Belt; DLT = Delta; SE = Southeast; APL = Appalachian;

NE = Northeast; and NATL = National.

 Farm Production Region

Management type PAC MTN NP SP LAK CB DLT SE APL NE NATL

Mowing of weeds 39.0 32.3 61.1 57.3 69.6 76.7 34.4 39.3 70.7 57.6 62.2

Application of

herbicides 83.1 42.4 53.7 24.4 30.9 32.0 7.8 19.7 8.6 8.5 34.7

Additional seeding 32.2 22.2 12.8 19.5 10.6 21.4 7.8 8.2 8.6 11.9 16.4

Intentional burning 22.0 5.1 24.5 11.0 6.0 13.9 6.2 14.8 3.4 1.7 12.9

Emergency haying 3.4 22.2 20.2 6.1 8.8 8.6 1.6 4.9 6.9 1.7 10.5

Firebreaks 20.3 5.1 7.8 9.8 5.1 5.5 32.8 45.9 3.4 5.1 9.6

Fertilization 1.7 3.0 3.1 7.3 3.7 10.7 9.4 6.6 6.9 3.4 6.4

Flooding 0.0 1.0 7.0 1.2 5.5 8.9 4.7 1.6 1.7 3.4 5.6

Emergency grazing 8.5 21.2 5.8 12.2 1.8 3.0 0.0 3.3 5.2 0.0 5.2

Thin volunteer

trees/shrubs 3.4 0.0 6.2 1.2 3.2 4.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 1.7 3.7

Accidental burning 10.2 1.0 3.5 9.8 1.4 2.7 3.1 3.3 1.7 1.7 3.2

Thin planted

trees/shrubs 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.3 1.1 18.7 24.6 1.7 1.7 2.9

Accidental grazing 8.5 3.0 2.7 2.4 0.5 1.4 3.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.0

Application of

pesticides 1.7 2.0 1.9 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.0

No known disturbance 11.9 21.2 0.4 19.5 18.9 1.8 34.4 24.6 24.1 40.7 12.1
14 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

in the Corn Belt FPR (7% of respondents) while it was

highest in the Delta FPR (24% of respondents).

Improvements in water quality and permanence of surface

water were believed greatest in Pacific and Corn Belt FPRs.

Over 50% of survey respondents in the Mountain and

Northern Plains regions cited control of drifting snow as

a CRP benefit. Respondent identification of improvements

in air quality were greatest in the Pacific (54%), Southeast

(46%), and Southern Plains (45%) FPRs. As might be

expected, due to the prevalence of tree planting a potential

increase in future income was seen as a benefit by a

substantial number of respondents in the Southeast

(74%), Delta (65%), and Appalachian (34%) FPRs. No

apparent environmental, or social, benefits of the CRP

were observed by 3% of respondents in the Northeast

FPR. Within all other FPRs, <2% of survey respondents

observed no positive effects of the CRP.

Although a greater percentage of respondents saw

positive aspects of the CRP, negative facets of the program

were identified across all FPRs (Table 16). Nationally, the

leading detrimental aspect of the CRP was the perception

by 29% of respondents that lands enrolled in the program

were a potential source of weeds. Respondents in the

Mountain, Pacific, and Southern Plains regions identified

CRP lands being a fire hazard as the most significant

negative aspect of the program. Nationally, the third

greatest unease about the CRP was that it resulted in

unwanted requests for hunting access. Requests for

trespass were of least concern in the Northeast FPR; but

over 12% of respondents across all other regions identified

it as a detrimental effect of the program. The most concern

about unwanted requests for hunting access were

expressed by Corn Belt (23%), Pacific (21%), and Northern

Plains (21%) FPR respondents. Attraction of undesirable

wildlife was generally of minor concern across all regions

but more than 10% of Pacific, Southern Plains, and Corn

Belt region respondents identified this as a negative

aspect of the CRP. Nearly 24% of survey respondents in

the Mountain FPR believed that the CRP had negative

effects on local economies. Respondents in the Pacific,

Mountain, Southern Plains, and Northern Plains FPRs

had a higher than average negative response to this

Table 15. able 15 Survey respondent identified environmental and social benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program by

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region. PAC = Pacific; MTN = Mountain; NP = Northern Plains;

SP = Southern Plains; LAK = Lake States; CB = Corn Belt; DLT = Delta; SE = Southeast; APL = Appalachian; NE =

Northeast; and NATL = National.

 Farm Production Region

 Benefit PAC MTN NP SP LAK CB DLT SE APL NE NATL

Improved control of

soil erosion 93.4 87.9 84.9 90.7 76.6 89.3 79.4 85.2 88.1 74.1 85.4

Positive changes in

wildlife populations 82.0 69.7 77.1 67.4 75.2 72.7 75.8 68.9 69.5 62.1 73.2

Increased opportunities

to observe wildlife 62.3 50.5 55.8 45.3 72.0 58.6 67.7 57.4 61.0 60.3 59.4

Improved water quality 45.9 28.3 38.0 22.1 36.2 48.2 23.8 37.7 45.8 27.6 38.8

Increased opportunities

to personally hunt 27.9 22.2 42.8 24.4 40.8 37.0 61.9 37.7 32.2 41.4 37.6

Improved scenic quality

of farm or landscape 37.7 33.3 35.3 30.2 40.8 37.3 42.9 45.9 45.8 29.3 37.4

Improved control of

drifting snow 41.0 56.6 51.2 33.7 34.9 22.3 0.0 0.0 11.9 8.6 30.5

Improved air quality 54.1 40.4 31.4 45.3 21.1 21.6 30.2 45.9 32.2 15.5 29.2

Increased permanence

of surface water 36.1 21.2 19.8 25.6 19.7 27.3 20.6 18.0 23.7 27.6 23.7

Potential increase in

future income (e.g.,

timber sales) 8.2 8.1 8.9 9.3 15.6 9.8 65.1 73.8 33.9 13.8 16.7

Increased opportunities to

lease land for hunting 9.8 9.1 19.4 15.1 8.7 6.6 23.8 19.7 13.6 10.3 11.9

No positive effects 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 1.4 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 3.4 1.1
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 15

perceived effect of the program. The opinion that too

much land was enrolled in the CRP was expressed by 8%

of respondents across all FPRs. The highest percentage

of respondents reporting no negative effects of the CRP

were recorded in the Delta (55%), Northeast (53%), and

Appalachian (47%) FPRs. Respondents in the Northern

Plains were most critical of the CRP with only 8% believing

that the program had no negative effects.

Wildlife Priorities in Conservation Reserve Program

Enrollment

The majority of survey respondents felt an

appropriate level of consideration for wildlife had been

reflected in CRP enrollment criteria (Table 17). Nearly 20%

of respondents in the Corn Belt and Lake States FPRs

believed not enough attention had been given to wildlife

issues during CRP enrollment. Almost 29% of

respondents in the Mountain region believed too much

attention had been focused on wildlife. Nationally over

82% of respondents were satisfied with the amount of

Table 16. able 16 Survey respondent identified negative aspects of the Conservation Reserve Program by U.S. Department of

Agriculture Farm Production Region. PAC = Pacific; MTN = Mountain; NP = Northern Plains; SP = Southern Plains;

LAK = Lake States; CB = Corn Belt; DLT = Delta; SE = Southeast; APL = Appalachian; NE = Northeast; and NATL =

National.

 Farm Production Region

Negative effect PAC MTN NP SP LAK CB DLT SE APL NE NATL

Source of weeds 34.5 23.7 29.7 22.8 32.2 33.6 14.1 13.6 26.3 21.1 28.8

Potential fire hazard 44.8 46.4 24.7 30.4 19.6 8.9 17.2 15.3 10.5 1.8 19.3

Attracts unwanted

requests for

permission to hunt 20.7 12.4 20.5 16.5 12.6 23.3 14.1 13.6 15.8 7.0 18.0

Makes farm appear

unkempt or poorly

managed 12.1 9.3 6.2 11.4 18.7 14.2 18.7 8.5 22.8 14.0 13.1

Attracts unwanted

wildlife 10.3 8.2 7.7 11.4 7.9 11.0 4.7 3.4 7.0 5.3 8.7

Negative effects on

local economy 20.7 23.7 11.2 16.5 3.7 3.9 4.7 1.7 3.5 3.4 7.8

Too much cropland

taken out of

production 3.4 8.2 3.1 5.1 3.3 3.4 7.8 5.1 3.5 5.3 4.1

No negative effects 25.9 24.7 7.7 40.5 40.7 13.3 54.7 39.0 47.4 52.6 25.4

Table 17. able 17 Survey respondent opinions, by U.S.

Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region,

about the amount of attention given to wildlife habitat

requirements in Conservation Reserve Program

enrollment.

 Amount of attention

Farm Production Not Too

 Region Appropriate enough much

Pacific 73.8 4.9 21.3

Mountain 68.0 3.1 28.9

Northern Plains 71.9 14.1 14.1

Southern Plains 68.2 15.3 16.5

Lake States 75.6 19.8 4.6

Corn Belt 71.9 19.4 8.7

Delta 76.6 17.2 6.3

Southeast 75.4 16.4 8.2

Appalachian 76.8 12.5 10.7

Northeast 86.2 12.1 1.7

National 73.2 15.6 11.1
16 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

assistance received from USDA in relation to planning

and maintenance of wildlife habitat associated with the

CRP (Table 18). In concert with opinions expressed in

Table 17, 6% of respondents from the Mountain region

felt too much attention had been directed toward wildlife

issues. Over half (55% of all respondents) believed they

had been well informed by FSA and NRCS about why

specific management practices were encouraged or

required (Table 19). Almost 38% of respondents, from a

national perspective, felt they had only been somewhat

informed while 7% felt they had not been informed at all.

The greatest need for improvements in communication

related to wildlife issues are in the Lake States, Southeast,

Northeast, and Delta FPRs, respectively, since nearly half

of the respondents in these FPRs felt they had been only

somewhat or not at all informed about these issues.

Importance of Wildlife Habitat and Enhancement of

Conservation Reserve Program Covers

From a national perspective, 75% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed CRP benefits to wildlife

are important and requirements to seed legumes or native

grasses to improve wildlife habitat are reasonable

(Table 20). More than 63% of respondents across all FPRs

felt CRP benefits to wildlife were important, with the strongest support coming from Lake States and Southeast regions. In contrast, 20% of respondents in the Southern

Plains and 18% of respondents in the Mountain FPRs

disagreed or strongly disagreed that CRP benefits to wildlife were important. Over 70% of respondents from the

Delta, Lake States, and Southeast regions either agreed

or strongly agreed that requirements to manage vegetation to maintain long-term benefits to wildlife were reasonable (Table 21). Only 38% of respondents from the

Pacific FPR, however, agreed or strongly agreed with

USDA requirements to implement management to maintain habitat benefits with an almost equal proportion (36%)

either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with such requirements. Relatively large percentages of respondents

in the Southern Plains (27%), Mountain (21%), and Northern Plains (19%) regions also disagreed with these requirements. Requirements to destroy or disturb

well-established CRP vegetation received substantial opposition from survey respondents across all FPRs. Almost 82% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed there

should be no requirements to disturb or enhance CRP

vegetation if it is already well established (Table 22). Only

4% of respondents, nationally, agreed or strongly agreed

that such management was reasonable to maintain habitat quality. Opposition to disturbance of well-established

vegetation was strongest in the Pacific FPR with 95.1%

of respondents in disagreement to these requirements.

More than 80% of respondents in the Southern Plains,

Mountain, Northern Plains, Lake States, Delta, and Corn

Belt agreed or strongly agreed that there should be no

requirements to disturb well-established covers. Across

Table 19. Survey res able 19 pondent opinions, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region, about

how well the Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources

Conservation Service informed participants about why

specific types of cover practices are encouraged by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

 How well informed

Farm Production Well Somewhat Not at all

 Region informed informed informed

Pacific 61.7 31.7 6.7

Mountain 59.8 38.1 2.1

Northern Plains 57.0 34.0 9.0

Southern Plains 62.8 33.7 3.5

Lake States 46.9 46.0 7.1

Corn Belt 54.3 38.2 7.5

Delta 53.2 35.5 11.3

Southeast 51.7 40.0 8.3

Appalachian 57.9 35.1 7.0

Northeast 52.5 39.0 8.5

National 54.8 37.9 7.3

Table 18. Survey res able 18 pondent opinions, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region, about

the amount of assistance furnished by the Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources Conservation Service

to maintain or improve wildlife habitat value of Conservation Reserve Program acres.

 Amount of assistance

Farm Production Not Too

 Region Appropriate enough much

Pacific 85.0 11.7 3.3

Mountain 81.4 12.4 6.2

Northern Plains 78.5 18.0 3.5

Southern Plains 77.6 18.8 3.5

Lake States 87.2 11.9 0.9

Corn Belt 83.5 15.3 1.1

Delta 81.3 18.7 0.0

Southeast 78.7 19.7 1.6

Appalachian 80.7 17.5 1.8

Northeast 81.0 19.0 0.0

National 82.2 15.7 2.1
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 17

Table 20. Survey able 20 respondent opinions, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region, concerning the

importance of Conservation Reserve Program benefits to wildlife.

Farm Production Answer

 Region Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Pacific 23.0 42.6 21.3 8.2 4.9

Mountain 12.5 51.0 18.8 11.5 6.3

Northern Plains 28.9 42.2 18.0 7.8 3.1

Southern Plains 25.3 39.8 14.5 10.8 9.6

Lake States 40.0 45.6 9.3 4.2 0.9

Corn Belt 34.8 42.3 15.6 4.8 2.5

Delta 36.1 41.0 13.1 8.2 1.6

Southeast 27.1 55.9 15.3 0.0 1.7

Appalachian 42.9 26.8 21.4 7.1 1.8

Northeast 31.0 51.7 12.1 5.2 0.0

National 31.8 43.6 15.4 6.3 3.0

Table 21. Survey able 21 respondent opinions, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region, regarding appropriateness of requirements to maintain long-term benefits of Conservation Reserve Program vegetation covers.

Farm Production Answer

 Region Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Pacific 8.2 29.5 26.2 24.6 11.5

Mountain 5.3 45.3 28.4 13.7 7.4

Northern Plains 11.8 40.6 28.7 13.0 5.9

Southern Plains 12.2 40.2 20.7 14.6 12.2

Lake States 19.7 54.5 16.4 7.5 1.9

Corn Belt 17.7 47.0 20.0 12.4 2.8

Delta 18.3 60.0 13.3 6.7 1.7

Southeast 8.5 62.7 20.3 6.8 1.7

Appalachian 27.8 33.3 25.9 9.3 3.7

Northeast 17.2 50.0 24.1 6.9 1.7

National 15.3 46.5 22.1 11.7 4.4
18 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

all FPRs <10% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed

that requirements to disturb established covers to maintain wildlife habitat was a reasonable requirement to renew lands into the CRP.

Conservation Reserve Program Management

Alternatives

When offered a choice, mowing or haying of vegetation on CRP lands was the preferred management option

identified by nearly 58% of all survey respondents

(Table 23). Mowing was the management alternative favored in the Northeast, Corn Belt, Lake States, and Northern Plains FPRs. Shredding of vegetation was the next

most preferred management method, with 35% of respondents selecting this option nationally. Application of herbicides was the predominant management tool chosen in

the Pacific FPR. Use of prescribed fire was seen as a desirable management option by 41%of Pacific and 40% of

Northern Plains respondents. Less than 11% of respondents in the Southeast, Appalachian, and Northeast regions perceived fire as an attractive management option.

Although only identified by 21% nationally, grazing was

the leading option by respondents in the Mountain, Pacific, and Southern Plains FPRs. Nationally, disking/plowing were the least desirable management options. The

disking/plowing option, however, equaled or exceeded

use of herbicides in the Appalachian, Southeast, and Delta

FPRs.

Opposition to disturbance of existing vegetation was

the leading reason given by those who indicated they

did not want to manage vegetation on CRP lands

(Table 24). From 10% to 23% of respondents across all

regions said they did not have the equipment needed to

implement vegetation management. Nationally, an average of 4% of survey respondents simply do not want to

manage CRP lands. Opposition to management was greatest in the Southeast FPR (11% of respondents) and least

in the Southern Plains, Corn Belt, and Pacific regions (<2%

of respondents).

Nationally, nearly half (49%) of respondents desire

no change in CRP enrollment rules or management criteria

(Table 25). In this scenario, CRP lands could only be hayed

or grazed under emergency conditions with a reduction

in rental payment for acres used. The least amount of

opposition to changes in CRP administration of vegetation

management was received from Mountain and Southeast

FPR respondents. The option to implement greater levels

of vegetation management with a concurrent increase in

funding was most acceptable to respondents in the

Southeast FPR (45%) and least desired by Mountain

region respondents (24%). The option to permit limited,

periodic haying/grazing of CRP lands with constraints

on emergency use following managed harvesting was

chosen as a desirable alternative by only 12% of

respondents nationally. The greatest level of respondent

acceptance of this alternative was in the Appalachian

(20%), Mountain (19%), Pacific (18%), and Southern Plains

Table 22. Survey able 22 respondent opinions, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region, reflecting attitudes

about requirements to enhance CRP fields, by planting additional species, or replace existing well-established

vegetation covers with new species to renew lands in the Conservation Reserve Program. Values correspond to

responses to the question: If CRP covers are well established, there should be no requirements to disturb or

enhance them to renew acres in the program.

Farm Production Answer

 Region Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Pacific 60.7 34.4 3.3 1.6 0.0

Mountain 46.9 36.5 13.5 2.1 1.0

Northern Plains 50.8 32.0 12.5 3.5 1.2

Southern Plains 59.0 28.9 9.6 0.0 2.4

Lake States 39.8 42.7 13.3 3.8 0.5

Corn Belt 44.5 36.2 16.1 2.5 0.7

Delta 37.3 44.1 8.5 6.8 3.4

Southeast 29.3 44.8 19.0 5.2 1.7

Appalachian 40.0 36.4 12.7 10.9 0.0

Northeast 33.3 40.4 19.3 5.3 1.8

National 45.1 36.8 13.6 3.4 1.0
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 19

Interpretive Summary of Conservation

Reserve Program Survey Respondent

Written Comments

In addition to answering questions formally presented in the survey, many respondents furnished written comments related to the CRP and its management.

The majority of remarks were short and could be characterized as sweeping expressions of satisfaction with the

CRP and a strong desire to see the program continued

without substantial change. Across several regions, however, issues of obvious concern included greater financial assistance to cover management costs, distress about

destruction of existing cover to meet re-enrollment requirements, a desire to implement periodic use of grasslands, and a need for more technical assistance and

education related to management of wildlife habitat.

Although the survey focused on wildlife, and related management of CRP lands, respondents described

a wide range of environmental and social benefits derived from the program. One participant’s remark reflects

thoughts expressed by many who furnished written observations:

“While the CRP is a benefit to wildlife, its most important function is to keep land idled in useable condition in this disastrous farm economy. The program serves

an important national security purpose as a investment

against an uncertain future.”

Presented below is a synopsis of ideas for

improvement of the CRP provided by survey respondents

across all FPRs. The concepts and ideas are not presented

in order of priority or importance. A more complete

presentation of written comments, by FPR, is furnished

in Appendix A.

Table 23. Survey able 23 respondent identification, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region, of the most

suitable technique if management of Conservation Reserve Program lands was required.

Farm Production Method

 Region Mowing/haying Shredding Herbicides Burning Grazing Disking/plowing

Pacific 31.1 21.3 49.2 41.0 42.6 13.1

Mountain 34.0 16.5 21.6 18.6 62.9 5.2

Northern Plains 57.6 15.7 35.7 39.6 29.4 9.8

Southern Plains 31.0 38.1 25.0 15.5 38.1 8.3

Lake States 75.0 37.3 23.1 18.9 9.4 9.4

Corn Belt 68.6 42.0 26.9 25.1 9.8 6.2

Delta 33.9 57.6 15.3 18.6 10.2 15.3

Southeast 33.3 43.9 10.5 26.3 22.8 17.5

Appalachian 49.1 63.2 7.0 5.3 12.3 7.0

Northeast 76.3 49.2 5.1 8.5 8.5 0.0

National 57.7 35.4 25.5 24.7 20.9 8.3

Table 24. able 24 Reasons given by survey respondents, by U.S.

Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region,

for not wanting to manage Conservation Reserve Program lands.

 Constraints to management

 I do not

 Farm I oppose I do desire to

Production disturbance not have manage

 Region of CRP equipment field

Pacific 41.0 9.8 1.6

Mountain 34.7 18.4 5.1

Northern Plains 40.2 14.1 4.7

Southern Plains 51.2 11.9 1.2

Lake States 31.6 18.4 7.5

Corn Belt 33.6 10.5 1.6

Delta 21.7 20.0 5.0

Southeast 15.8 22.8 10.5

Appalachian 28.1 21.1 7.0

Northeast 20.3 13.6 5.1

National 34.0 14.5 4.2

(14%) FPRs. These FPRs generally correspond to those

with the greatest amount of emergency use recorded. The

least desirable option for management of CRP lands was

periodic haying/grazing with a fixed reduction in rental

payment for acres harvested. Nationally, only 7% of

respondents chose this option with the greatest support

coming from Mountain (17%) and Northern Plains (15%)

FPRs.
20 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Program Administration

• Increase CRP rental rates to reflect increasing

taxes and costs of living.

• Furnish additional financial assistance to cover

maintenance and management costs.

• Allow longer and variable contract periods (e.g., 5,

15, 20 years).

• Have more frequent sign-up periods with longer

advance notice of an upcoming sign-up.

• Liberalize enrollment criteria to permit more

diverse lands (e.g., woodlands, existing grasslands,

wetlands) into CRP or other conservation

programs.

• Increase emphasis on planting of hardwood trees

and windbreaks.

• Eliminate 25% (of county in cropland) enrollment

cap.

• Permit counties that have not reached their 25%

enrollment cap to transfer unused eligibility to

counties where landowners have not been able to

get into the program due to maximum enrollment.

• Reduce the amount of paperwork and record

keeping required.

• Incorporate conservation practices on lands

remaining in production (e.g., encourage

establishment of grass strips, brushy fencerows

between rowcrop fields to provide wildlife cover

and reduce erosion).

• Establish and maintain consistent rules and

regulations across counties.

• Give enrollment priority to lands already in the

program where vegetation covers are well

established and of high quality.

Vegetation Management

• Allow more local control in identification of viable

options for management.

• Permit use of grass cut during construction of

firebreaks without financial penalty.

• Encourage use of grazing over herbicides to

control weeds.

• Permit more frequent, but controlled under an

approved conservation plan, grazing and haying

to maintain quality of grasslands.

• Provide periodic, on-site review of vegetation

conditions with subsequent recommendations for

long-term management of CRP lands.

Education and Technical Assistance

• Provide more frequent, ongoing technical

assistance related to planting requirements,

vegetation management options, and long-term

maintenance of CRP covers.

• Increase education efforts related to wildlife and

long-term management of wildlife habitat on

program lands.

Table 25. Survey able 25 respondent, by U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region, identification of desirable

management alternatives for Conservation Reserve Program lands. PAC = Pacific; MTN = Mountain; NP = Northern Plains; SP = Southern Plains; LAK = Lake States; CB = Corn Belt; DLT = Delta; SE = Southeast; APL =

Appalachian; NE = Northeast; and NATL = National.

 Farm Production Region

Management option PAC MTN NP SP LAK CB DLT SE APL NE NATL

No change 50.0 39.8 43.1 51.9 53.5 52.5 54.5 41.5 43.6 52.7 49.1

Increased management

with increase in $ to

cover costs 26.7 23.5 27.7 26.6 38.1 32.9 34.5 45.3 34.5 34.5 32.1

Limited haying/grazing,

no reduction in rental

payment, 50% field/

year. Constrained

emergency use 18.3 19.4 14.2 13.9 6.9 8.8 7.3 13.2 20.0 7.3 11.5

Periodic haying/grazing

reduction in rental

payment 5.0 17.3 15.0 7.6 1.5 5.8 3.6 0.0 1.8 5.5 7.3
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 21

• Increase distribution of study results, including

reports from other participants in the program,

describing best management practices for CRP

lands.

• Implement regional or local workshops related to

conservation and land management.

Discussion DiscussionDiscussion

Education and Technical Assistance

Results of this survey demonstrate that while a majority of participants recognize personal and environmental benefits, issues related to management of vegetation

are an area of potential improvement in administration of

the CRP. Although nearly half (49%) of respondents to

this survey desire to see the CRP continue unchanged,

many are willing to implement management to maintain

vegetation quality and wildlife habitat and seek specific

educational material and assistance to do so. Apprehension about financial burdens, however, will limit adoption

of revised conservation policies and new recommendations for management. Regardless of the purpose, a smaller

number of respondents do not desire to manage CRP

lands. Some CRP participants do not live in proximity to

their land, while others do not have the equipment required to complete vegetation management. A comparatively small percentage of respondents (<10% nationally)

do not perceive wildlife habitat as a priority. A relatively

large number of CRP participants (34% nationally) oppose disturbance of vegetation already established for

conservation purposes.

Because cumulative, off-site impacts can be greater

than those experienced on-farm, operators may not always visualize overall effects of agriculture on environmental quality or collective, landscape level benefits of

conservation practices established on individual farms.

Consequently, individuals may be understandably reluctant to adopt conservation practices especially if they

result in lower profits or are perceived as an infringement

upon landowner rights (Gillespie and Buttel, 1989; Browne

and others, 1992; Conrad, 2000; Cable, 2002; James, 2002).

Effective communication of proof that adjustments in farming practices can be economically and socially profitable

is essential for increasing landowner acceptance of conservation policies (CAST, 2002; Rodgers, 2002). Kurzejeski

and others (1992) concluded that government and landowner participation in conservation programs would increase in response to greater availability of information.

Timely, accurate advice and assistance also was identified by the Soil and Water Conservation Society (2001)

as a key element in successful implementation of conservation practices. Nearly 60% of respondents to a survey

of State Technical Committee members indicated the

amount of USDA technical assistance currently available

was less than what was needed (GAO, 2002). The Soil

and Water Conservation Society (2001) attributed a weakness in delivery of technical services as the single greatest impediment to meeting public requests for

conservation and environmental quality. Improved monitoring, translation of research findings into effective, economically feasible conservation practices, and escalation

of scientific and technical support were identified as being essential for improvement in performance of conservation programs.

Nationally, over 82% of respondents to this survey

believed the amount of assistance furnished by USDA in

relation to maintaining or improving wildlife habitat was

appropriate. Slightly over 45% of respondents, however,

believed they had been only somewhat, or not, informed

about why USDA advocated specific management practices. These results lead us to conclude that the amount

and quality of assistance was sufficient but expected

benefits to wildlife and why specific management actions

were desired were not always adequately communicated

to program participants. Written comments by survey respondents indicated a desire for information and assistance related not only to management of lands enrolled in

the CRP but agricultural landscapes in general. Although

informational pamphlets were believed useful, there was

an explicit desire for greater levels of on-ground, personal attention in provision of technical assistance related to conservation issues. Demonstration of reasons

supporting, and perceived benefits of, changes in CRP

conservation practices may serve to decrease the 49% of

respondents who desired no changes in management and

administration of the program. While many requests pertained to wildlife, apparently there is a need for more aid

related to management of trees, integration of grazing to

maintain long-term quality of grassland habitats, and conservation options that extend beyond CRP lands to entire agricultural ecosystems.

Agricultural Ecosystems

Criteria used by USDA to evaluate land eligibility for

CRP enrollment and management are important to program

participants. Survey respondents see more control and

flexibility at state and local levels in identification of

solutions to conservation issues as improving program

performance. While many participants support a

progressing emphasis on long-term maintenance of CRP

vegetative quality, there is a need to expand conservation

practices to acreages remaining in production and to lands

beyond those with a cropping history. It is apparent that

reasonable options for management of CRP lands are

acceptable, but respondents across all FPRs expressed

the need for more technical assistance related to
22 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

management of agricultural lands in general. These feelings

mirror recognition that solutions to environmental issues

will be found only when conservation is effectively

addressed across the entire agricultural landscape (Allen,

1994; Richards and others, 1996; Hughes-Popp and others,

2000; Johnson, 2000; Fletcher and Koford, 2002; Popp

and others, 2002; Weber and others, 2002).

Effective conservation policies prevent undue financial or regulatory burdens on landowners and sustain

economically viable use of land (Browne and others, 1992;

Ervin and Smith, 1996). The economic costs of management to address conservation can have a negative influence on land management decisions (Southern, 1984;

Koford and Best, 1995). Consequently, economic incentives may be needed to maintain specific, desirable components of agricultural landscapes (Renfrew and Ribic,

2002). Fifty-three percent of respondents to a survey of

Iowa farmers favored financial incentives to encourage

management for wildlife on their farms (Lasley, 2000). Twothirds of respondents agreed the government should furnish financial support to save wildlife habitat associated

with farmland. Only 24% of respondents to a Kansas CRP

survey, however, indicated a willingness to change some

of the current vegetative cover on their CRP acres to

increase the quality of wildlife habitat, even if 50% cost

share were provided (Diebel and others, 1993). Prescribed

management of lands enrolled in the CRP will require

changes in program rules and regulations. Provision of

funds to cover additional management expenses is one

alternative. Integration of economic uses into land retirement programs by permitting managed haying, grazing,

or other compatible use at reduced rental payment rates

was suggested by the Soil and Water Conservation Society (2001). As shown in this survey, policies allowing

periodic, restricted use of vegetation without financial

penalties, or an increase in financial assistance to cover

management costs, are acceptable options to many CRP

participants. Adoption of such policies must, however,

be based on the understanding that preservation of conservation benefits, long-term maintenance of vegetation

quality, and wildlife habitat values remain overriding

goals.

Policies favoring relatively undemanding alternatives,

reduced management costs, or added incomes probably

provide the greatest opportunities to maintaining viable

populations of farmland wildlife. For example, in 2002 more

than 25,000 ha (>63,000 acres) of grass waterways were

part of the CRP (Table 26). An unknown, but presumably

large, amount of grass waterways exist exclusive of the

CRP. Although the exact amount is unknown, many of

these waterways have been planted to smooth brome

(Bromus inermis). Smooth brome, particularly in wet sites,

can provide spring nesting cover and is probably an ideal

grass for waterways because of its sod-forming growth.

Because smooth brome is not a species with a tall, robust

physical stature, it is less than desirable year-round cover

for wildlife (Allen, 1994; Hultquist and Best, 2001).

Unquantified, observations lead us to conclude that many,

if not most, grass waterways are mowed. Mowing of

grassed waterways is generally required following

establishment to encourage rhizome development and

maximum effectiveness of the conservation practice.

Elimination of mowing of all, or part, of grassed waterways

once they have become well established would increase

their cover value for wildlife, would likely not impede

their ability to slow runoff waters, and would save

operators the time and expense of mowing. This may be

an unacceptable option to the 13% of CRP respondents

who perceive the CRP as making their farm look unkempt.

However, many operators may accept this simple

Table 26. able 26 Conservation practices on active Conservation

Reserve Program contracts as of January 2002. Modified from U.S. Department of Agriculture (2002:XII-1).

Existing grasses and legumes are mostly grasslands

established under earlier contracts comprised of both

native and introduced species.

Conservation practices

 on active contracts Acres %

Existing grasses and legumes 14,962,416 44.3

Native grasses 6,242,967 18.5

Introduced grasses 4,315,178 12.8

Wildlife habitat with

woody vegetation 2,280,870 6.8

Wetland restoration, farmable

wetlands/uplands 1,663,069 4.9

Tree planting 1,170,779 3.5

Existing trees 1,039,664 3.1

Grass filter strips 742,698 2.2

Riparian buffers (trees) 374,284 1.1

Rare and declining habitats 371,450 1.1

Salinity reducing vegetation 267,261 0.8

Wildlife food plots 68,715 0.2

Grass waterways 63,168 0.2

Contour grass strips 55,852 0.2

Shelterbelts, living snow

fences, field windbreaks 52,825 0.2

Shallow water areas for wildlife 36,642 0.1

Vegetative filter strips 31,920 0.1

Diversions/erosion

control structures 1,668 <0.1

Alley cropping, alternative

perennials, cross wind strips 558 <0.1

Totals 33,741,943 100.0
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 23

alternative for increasing the potential quality of wildlife

habitat on their land.

Grassland Habitats and Management

Few ecosystems have been modified as thoroughly

as have North America’s mid-latitude grasslands

(Whitney, 1994). Disturbance (e.g., fire, grazing) is a fundamental element of grassland ecology affecting vegetation spatial patterns as well as species composition and

abundance (Collins and Glenn, 1988; Anderson, 1990;

Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992; Baer and others, 2002). While

disturbance may be desirable from an ecological perspective, dependence on natural disturbance regimes is often

impracticable in altered settings typical of CRP grasslands embedded in agriculturally dominated landscapes.

Existing disturbance presently operates on modest scales

largely defined by landowner objectives and USDA policies (Cochrane, 1993; Bragg and Steuter, 1996). Because

the frequency and type of disturbance applied to CRP

grasslands could represent a crucial issue in definition of

USDA conservation policies, management prescriptions

should be based on well-defined objectives taking the

personal priorities and constraints faced by program participants into consideration.

Regional differences in acceptance of management

alternatives may influence the design of CRP management policies. Prescribed fire, for example, can be an effective tool for habitat-related management of CRP

grasslands. Results of this survey show use of prescribed

fire reported by nearly 25% of respondents from the Pacific and Northern Plains FPRs. Six percent, or less, of

respondents in the Mountain, Lake, Appalachian, and

Northeast regions used fire as a management tool. Use of

prescribed fire in these regions may be a less suitable

option due to the small size of fields, concerns about air

pollution, fear of damage to adjacent woodlands/farm infrastructure, cost, legal liabilities, or a lack of experience

in application of fire for management purposes. Where

these issues constrain application of prescribed fire grazing, haying, mowing, or disking may be more acceptable

management alternatives. Conversely, in western FPRs

where the average size of fields is larger and CRP fields

can be miles from a contractee’s residence, haying, or

other forms of physical disturbance may be less acceptable alternatives because movement of equipment may

be problematic. Most CRP fields in western regions lack

fencing and water requiring additional expense to make

grazing an acceptable option. Simply moving stock from

traditional pasture to distant CRP fields may limit practicality of grazing as a management alternative. Even more

fundamental, not all CRP contractees own or have access

to livestock. Any form of management may be objectionable to some CRP contractees because they perceive it as

a regulatory obligation and burden in terms of time and

financial costs. Contractees retired from active farming

may have the greatest difficulty in acceptance of periodic

management obligations for CRP grasslands due to a lack

of equipment. This can often be addressed by CRP participants contracting the services of other operators to

complete required management obligations.

The large amount of land enrolled in the CRP accentuates the need to define effective management strategies that address local, regional, and national

grassland-related habitat priorities. More than threefourths of CRP lands (Table 26) are dominated by grasses

broadly classified as introduced or native species. Within

each category are cool-season or warm-season grasses

that, as their name implies, exhibit major growth in the

cooler spring/fall or warmer summer periods. Grasses in

all categories exist on CRP acres as single-species monocultures or a mix of species. In terms of potential quality of wildlife habitat, native grasses and stands with a

greater diversity of species generally furnish better habitat than monocultures of introduced grasses. This conclusion is based largely on the ability of native grasses to

yield greater habitat value than introduced species which

are often less robust, shorter, or furnish minimal diversity

in structural composition. The following concepts describe elementary relations between CRP grasslands and

wildlife habitat:

1. Compared to annually tilled croplands, well-established grasslands, regardless of species planted,

provide at least some benefits to wildlife. Relative

values of grass species, however, differ by species of wildlife and geographic region. For example,

smooth brome, an introduced grass, can provide

suitable nesting cover for upland nesting waterfowl in the Northern Plains but has minimal cover

value in more southern, drier regions. Tall fescue,

a detrimental cover for terrestrial wildlife species,

may contribute to lower rates of sediments moving into adjacent surface waters potentially benefitting aquatic habitats and species.

2. Vertebrate species of wildlife are not dependent

on any specific grass species. Diversity of grass

species and physical characteristics of the stand

(height, density, amount of litter, and bare ground)

often define habitat quality within a given field.

3. Grasslands are dynamic, with physical

characteristics and species composition changing

through time. Periodic disturbance by prescribed

fire, disking, limited grazing or haying can furnish

vigorous growth and habitat features required by
24 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

a large number of wildlife species. The quality of

habitat and diversity of wildlife species generally

are greatest in grasslands subjected to moderate

levels of disturbance.

4. Grasslands comprised of a number of grass and

forb species normally are of greater value to wildlife than grasslands of lower diversity.

5. The merits of a CRP field as wildlife habitat are

defined by vegetation attributes within the field

and spatial relations with other land uses. Ultimately, however, specific species of wildlife must

be identified before the explicit habitat potential or

management recommendations for any given field

can be defined.

Respondents to this survey expressed a widespread

desire to incorporate occasional, controlled grazing and

haying into long-term management of CRP grasslands.

Perhaps more than any other type of disturbance, however, effects of grazing on wildlife habitat cannot be defined without specification of which wildlife species are

of management concern. The intensity, duration, and timing of grazing affect grassland vegetation structure, productivity, and species composition (Kirsch and others,

1978; Klute and Robel, 1997). Each of these variables may

influence habitat conditions for a given wildlife species

depending on seasonal habitat requirements. Removal of

grassland cover by grazing alters vegetation height, density, as well as amounts of litter and residual vegetation.

Nesting habitat quality of many species of upland-nesting waterfowl, game birds, and non-game birds declines

in response to annual grazing. Limited, periodic grazing,

however, has been shown to enhance habitat conditions

for these same species over the long-term (Kirsch and

others, 1978, Renken and Dinsmore, 1987; Kruse and

Bowen, 1996).

Any CRP grassland management policy defined by

USDA should be based on the premise that management

prescriptions are intended to maintain long-term quality

of the grassland. Wildlife needs should have coequal

priority in definition of management prescriptions. Only

a portion of vegetation in fields subjected to periodic

grazing or haying should be harvested in any given year

to maintain vegetation cover and habitat. For example, a

field could be harvested over a 2-year period (50%/yr of

field area). To maximize the cover value, remaining,

unharvested vegetation should be left in a contiguous

block of cover rather than isolated patches (Luttschwager,

1991; Horn and Koford, 2000; Allen and others, 2001).

The need for periodic disturbance to maintain desired

characteristics of habitat will vary regionally. Generally,

CRP fields in drier sites or regions will require less frequent

disturbance than fields in areas with higher precipitation.

From the perspective of providing wildlife habitat, annual

grazing or haying of CRP grasslands is an insupportable

management alternative.

Spot treatment of weeds by mowing (62% of respondents) and herbicides (35% of respondents) were leading

types of management applied to CRP lands. Nationally,

13% of respondents said CRP made their farm appear

poorly managed. Undoubtedly, this perception was based

at least in part on the presence of “weeds”. Under existing rules $5.00/acre/year is furnished for management of

CRP grasslands. Based on the number of respondents

reporting spot treatment of weeds, the majority of these

funds are apparently directed toward weed control. In

most cases, as grasslands mature and perennial grasses

become the dominant cover, abundance and distribution

of non-grass, “weedy” vegetation typically decline

(Millenbah and others, 1996; Felix and Owen, 2001; Baer

and others, 2002; Foster and others, 2002). Although there

may be exceptions, these studies and our observations

during field studies of CRP grasslands, lead us to conclude the need to control weeds generally declines as

CRP grasslands mature. To ensure beneficial management

activities are completed on CRP lands, it may be desirable

to modify management policies to provide >50% costshare for completion of specific management actions (e.g.,

disking, burning). The $5.00/acre/year could be furnished

only during the first 5 years of a typical 10-year contract

when weed control is typically of greatest need. Subsequent to that period, funds for management of grasslands would be provided only when a specific, preferred

management action is completed. Program participants

who widely voiced a need for increases in rental payments would dislike such a change in management policy,

but the change would contribute to greater accomplishments in desired management of CRP lands later in contract years when generally most needed. Additionally,

elimination of the existing blanket management fee added

to the rental payment would save USDA conservation

dollars by not giving it to participants who oppose management of CRP lands. These funds could then be directed to those who desire to incorporate beneficial,

long-term management of conservation lands. Ideally,

such a change in management policies and funds would

be clearly defined upon renewal of existing and establishment of new CRP contracts.

Trees and Woodland Management

Over 13% of respondents to this survey identified

trees as the dominant cover on their CRP acres. Excluding

those planted in stream buffers, newly planted and

existing trees account for approximately 7% of current

CRP acres (Table 26). Over 68% and 73% of respondents

in the Delta and Southeast FPRs’, respectfully, reported
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 25

trees as the prevailing cover established on lands enrolled

in the CRP. Respondents in the Delta FPR, in particular,

identified a need for more information related to

management of CRP trees. Respondents in the

Appalachian and Lake States regions voiced desire for

more emphasis on planting hardwood tree species.

Written comments by some respondents in the Mountain

FPR identified a need for more CRP emphasis on

establishment of trees and windbreaks.

Although there has been growing emphasis on hardwood and other softwood species, establishment of pine

plantations [primarily loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)] has

been the dominant forestry practice implemented over

the life of the CRP. Southeastern wildlife professionals

(e.g., Brennan and others, 1993; Capel and others, 1995;

Burger, 2000) have expressed concern about long-term

effects of pine plantations on the quality and distribution

of wildlife habitat. Issues of particular concern include:

lack of diversity in tree species planted, detrimental effects on landscape composition, minimal use of thinning

and prescribed burning, and an increasing dependence

on herbicides in site preparation. In some cases, however, CRP pine plantations have enhanced habitat diversity in intensively farmed regions of the Southeast

(Moulton and others, 1991; Allen and others, 1996). Intensively managed pine plantations can furnish better

habitat for wildlife by adopting alternative management

strategies but many such strategies may reduce expected

future timber revenue. Diversification of pine plantations

and greater habitat quality for wildlife could be accomplished by:

• diversifying pine species planted,

• establishing mixed pine-hardwood plantations

rather than monocultures,

• preserving remnant stands of hardwood trees

within and adjacent to pine plantations,

• limiting plantation size to 100 acres, or less, and

creating irregular rather than linear boundaries,

• reducing stocking levels by planting at wider

spacing between individual trees and rows,

• establishing “soft borders” between plantations

and adjacent agricultural lands by encouraging

growth of shrubs or native grasses,

• encouraging pre-commercial thinning and

commercial thinning of young age-class stands,

• encouraging longer rotations to establish

sawtimber size class stands,

• advocating partial harvest of stands to encourage

multi-age plantations,

• increasing input from state fish and wildlife

agency and non-government organization (e.g.,

Quail Unlimited) personnel in design and

management of plantations, and

• increasing USDA attention given to landowner

priorities and landscape-level conservation and

environmental issues in forestry assistance

programs.

Privately owned forestlands, including plantations

established under the CRP, can be expected to be an important source of Southeastern wood products. Nearly

40% of respondents in the Appalachian FPR identified a

potential increase in future income as an economic benefit of the CRP. Over 65% of respondents from the Delta

and Southeast FPRs’ expect similar economic profits. It is

likely that a large number of these individuals foresee the

future sale of CRP timber as the source of economic gain.

Teasley and others (1997) reported that although timber

harvest is one of the major commercial uses of rural land,

only 10% of landowners used any type of forestry incentive program with Cooperative Extension Service or the

NRCS being the major sources of information. In large

part, effects of privately owned pine plantations on the

quality and distribution of wildlife habitat depend on how

intensively stands are managed for timber production.

Land use decisions on private forestlands are increasingly influenced by social, ethical, and environmental

considerations of an ever more diverse population of

owners (Hyberg and Holthausen, 1989; Sharitz and others, 1992; Bengston, 1994; Thomas, 1994). Changing demographics of southeastern landowners, in particular,

imply that non-timber related financial investment and

wildlife habitat are principal factors affecting management of forest resources (Allen and others, 1996). Owners of southeastern private forestlands frequently place

emphasis on non-market returns from their lands, which

include aesthetic and recreational values. While financial

returns from woodland products remain the primary expectation from those establishing CRP pine plantations,

provision of wildlife habitat appears to be an issue of

near equal importance. Consequently, establishment and

management of CRP plantations should be based on a

balance of short- and long-term goals that increasingly

reflect non-traditional desires of contractees. Most southeastern pine plantations could furnish greater diversity

in habitat over a longer time if periodic management were

implemented, greater provision of educational and technical assistance material were provided, and the management focus reached beyond maximum yields of timber

resources.

Social and Economic Considerations

Undesirable species of wildlife, crop depredation, and

unwelcome requests for permission to trespass or hunt

reflect negative impacts associated with CRP-related

improvements in wildlife habitat. Increases in
26 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

objectionable wildlife were identified by 42% of

respondents to a survey of Kansas CRP participants

(Diebel and others, 1993). As with this survey, undesirable

wildlife was most often identified as deer and coyotes.

Miller and Bromley (1989) concluded that some

respondents did not want to improve wildlife habitat

because they believed it would attract hunters to their

land.

Although use of private lands for fishing, wildlife

observation, camping, and hiking is growing, hunting

remains the most popular recreational activity on private

lands (Teasley and others, 1997). Nationally, 18% of respondents to this survey were distressed about requests

from hunters for access to their CRP lands. Almost one in

four respondents in the Corn Belt FPR voiced concern

over this issue. Factors affecting landowner attitudes

toward granting access to their property include landowner perceptions of those requesting permission to trespass, land management objectives, economic incentives,

opposition to hunting, and concerns about liability or

damage to property (Teasley and others, 1997; Wright

and others, 2002). Based on analysis of past lawsuits

associated with private land recreation, Wright and others (2002) concluded that hunting provides little exposure to liability and governmental agencies should elevate

communication efforts about the legal protection to landowners afforded under state recreational-use statutes.

Several states (e.g., Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South

Dakota) have initiated successful “Walk-in” programs

where lands open to hunting are well marked and landowners receive a financial incentive to permit access.

More widespread use of this type of program may contribute to fewer requests for trespass.

Results of this survey demonstrating little interest

by program participants in leasing CRP lands for hunting

correspond to earlier surveys showing modest interest in

such activity. Osborn and others (1995) reported that only

4% of the respondents to their national survey favored

leasing land for hunting. A survey of CRP contractees

from 16 counties in North Dakota reported <2% of respondents leased, or charged a fee for hunting, on CRP

lands (Leistritz and others, 2002). Concerning overall

hunter access to CRP land, 43% of North Dakota respondents indicated their land was not posted against hunting. Forty percent of respondents said their CRP land

was posted, but they allowed hunter access. Only 4% of

respondents to the North Dakota survey said they prohibited hunting on their CRP lands. Most respondents

(89%) to the survey by Leistritz and others (2002) said

the CRP had no effect on how they posted their lands.

Although negative economic aspects of the CRP on

small farm communities may have been overstated

(Johnson and Maxwell, 2001; Bangsund and others, 2002)

such impacts remain of concern to some enrolled in the

program. Negative effects of the CRP on economies of

small agricultural towns include a decline in agricultural

employment, changing consumer spending as a consequence of less land farmed, lower amounts of commodities stored in local facilities, and lower demand for off-farm

inputs negatively affecting local agriculturally based businesses (Mortensen and others, 1990; Luttschwager and

Higgens, 1991; Johnson and others, 1994; Bangsund and

others, 2002; Leistritz and others, 2002). Based on written

comments, a greater percentage of respondents to this

survey see the CRP providing economic support enabling

retirement, and in some cases, survival of their agricultural lifestyle. Similar conclusions were drawn by

Bangsund and others (2002) from their North Dakota CRP

study. Although 43% of community and agricultural leaders responding to their survey believed the CRP had negative impacts on local agricultural economies and

contributed to a decline in rural populations, conclusions

drawn from their data argue against these judgments.

Seventy-two percent of farm operators responding to the

North Dakota survey indicated the CRP had reduced income risk or stabilized earnings. Respondents also attributed the CRP to helping make farming more economically

and environmentally sustainable and saw recreational

benefits derived from the program as a basis for growth

in local economies. Due to increases in big game, waterfowl, and upland game bird populations and an associated increase in hunter activity, Liestritz and others (2002)

recommend that North Dakota rural communities develop

businesses that could capitalize on enhanced recreational

and economic opportunities presented by the CRP.

Net social benefits of the CRP were projected between $4.2 and $9 billion over the life of the original 10-

year program (Osborn and Konyar, 1990; Osborn, 1997).

Economic benefit estimates were based on increased net

farm income, future value of timber, enhancement of soil

productivity, improved quality of surface waters, diminished damage by windblown dust, and greater recreational

activity. Obviously, a monetary value cannot be assigned

to the assorted personal benefits described by most respondents to this survey. Many respondents expressed

belief that CRP financial expenditures have been far exceeded by environmental and social benefits brought by

the program.

Summary Summary Summary

The purpose of this investigation was illumination

of largely undocumented environmental and personal

affects of the CRP as witnessed by program participants.
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 27

Survey results reveal the majority of respondents value

environmental and social benefits derived from the CRP.

For many, the CRP has enhanced the aesthetic quality of

their farmland, furnished habitat resulting in greater

numbers of wildlife, and increased opportunities for

recreational and social use of agricultural lands. Wildlife

remains an important part of the agricultural and rural

way of life. For a large number of respondents, the

opportunity to simply observe wildlife as a part of their

daily activities is a treasured profit of the CRP. A smaller

proportion of CRP participants believe that wildlife has

received too much attention and the primary goal of the

program should remain focused on improvements in water

quality and soil erosion control. These are not

contradictory goals. Conservation policies forged upon

integration of landowner priorities, landscape-level

planning, regionally appropriate conservation practices,

effective long-term management of vegetative covers, and

extension of conservation programs into lands remaining

in production offer opportunities to provide multiple and

enduring environmental benefits.

Overall, respondents appreciated the quality of

information and effectual assistance in program

enrollment and administration furnished by the USDA.

More personal attention by USDA staff, periodic on-site

visits, and efficient methods to communicate successful

management strategies between program participants were

suggested ways to improve administration of the program.

Contradictory requirements to enhance vegetation

species composition and weed control were seen as flaws

in CRP administration. Similarly, requirements to destroy

well-established grassland cover to replant new species

of grass were perceived by most respondents as

unreasonable. A need for information related to long-term

management of vegetation and wildlife habitat associated

with CRP lands remains. Based on survey results, over

half of the CRP participants are retired from active farming.

In many cases, these individuals do not live near their

CRP lands nor do they have the equipment or ability to

physically manage enrolled lands. Information dealing

with alternative management scenarios and identification

of local operators who can perform the required work

would be useful. Survey respondents generally

demonstrated a willingness to incorporate periodic

management of vegetation on their CRP lands but rising

taxes, costs of living, fuel expenses, and declines in CRP

rental payments were cited as reasons limiting acceptance

of management responsibilities. Increased financial

assistance from USDA, state, or private conservation

organizations to apply management focused on welldefined conservation objectives would likely receive

widespread acceptance by CRP participants.

Americans tend to characterize nature as detached

from human intervention (Browne and others, 1992; Nash,

1992; Whitney, 1994; Jackson, 2002b). Wilderness areas,

nature preserves, and national parks characteristically

are the standard by which most Americans define environmental value. Private lands, however, are where the

majority of the American population lives, works, recreates, and encounters the natural world (Norton, 2000).

Although major loss of habitats equivalent to those experienced in the 19th and early 20th centuries are not foreseen, remaining natural landscapes, especially those on

private lands, will continue to experience use, disturbance,

and fragmentation as a result of growing human population, urban expansion, and agricultural development

(Langner and Flather, 1994; Knight, 1997; Tilman and others, 2001). In addition, a growing population is expected

to effectively shrink the public land base directing greater

pressure on private lands to furnish recreational opportunities (Geisler, 1993). Our understanding of ecological

processes in highly modified, private land ecosystems

remains limited (Norton, 2000). To make better decisions

concerning current environmental issues on private lands

and environmental issues crossing boundaries between

private and public lands, there is an urgent need for monitoring, evaluation, and communication of resultant knowledge to the public and policy arenas (Lubchenco, 1998;

Johnson, 2000; Czech and others, 2001). Development of

ecologically viable agricultural landscapes will require

contributions from social scientists and those who craft

policies on both local and national scales (Weaver and

others, 1996; Matson and others, 1997; Riley and others,

2002). Unfortunately, the market does not reward higher

prices to farmers who are effective conservationists and

rarely are elected officials recognized for considering longrun implications of the policies they advocate. Recent

years have witnessed legislation yielding greater attention to social and environmental issues associated with

agricultural ecosystems. How environmental issues can

be addressed in policies that recognize the societal and

environmental products of agricultural lands will require

persistent refinement (Heimlich and others, 1998).

Current legislation is based on recognition of the

importance of conservation to sustained production of

commodities and environmental services associated with

agricultural ecosystems. The success of USDA

conservation policies in providing lasting benefits

depends on continual public support for the agricultural

community, recognition of landowner concerns and

limitations, and an unrelenting willingness to innovatively

interlace environmental and agricultural objectives in

legislation and program rules. No stakeholder associated

with agricultural landscapes, however, is more important
28 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

than the farmers and landowners who embrace traditional

agricultural knowledge. We hope this survey will be one

effective step in the refinement of policies that continue

to uphold rural communities, sustain wildlife populations,

and enhance environmental quality within and beyond

agriculturally dominated landscapes.

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments

References Cited

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of

Agricultures’ Farm Service Agency. We recognize and

thank Tom Browning (USDA, Retired) for

conceptualization of this project.

We thank the following persons for their review and

constructive comments on earlier drafts of this document:

Alex Barbarika, Skip Hyberg, Tom Lederer, and Robert

Stephenson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency; Steve Brady, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Inventory

and Analysis Institute; Pete Heard and Ed Hackett, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wildlife Habitat Management Institute; Ron Helinski, Wildlife Management

Institute; Lee Lamb, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins

Science Center; and Bill McGuire, Missouri Department

of Conservation. We thank Brian Cade and Kurt Cline for

assistance with statistical analysis. Most importantly, we

sincerely express our gratitude to the many Conservation Reserve Program contractees who took time to share

their observations and opinions by participating in the

survey.

References Cited

Allen, A.W., 1994, Regional and state perspectives on

Conservation Reserve Program contributions to wildlife habitat, report prepared for the Habitat Protection

Committee of the International Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies, Fort Collins, Colorado,

Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, National Biological Survey: Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

Report, 28 p.

Allen, A.W., Bernal, Y.K., and Moulton, R.J., 1996, Pine

plantations and wildlife in the southeastern United

States: An assessment of impacts and opportunities:

Information and Technology Report, no. 3, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service,

Washington, D.C., 32 p.

Allen, A.W., Cade, B.S., and Vandever, M.W., 2001, Effects of emergency haying on vegetative characteristics within selected Conservation Reserve Program

fields in the northern Great Plains: Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation, vol. 56, no. 2, p. 120–125.

Anderson, R.C., 1990, The historic role of fire in North

American grassland, in Collins, S.L. and Wallace, L.L.,

eds., Fire in North American tall-grass prairies: Norman,

University of Oklahoma Press, p. 8–18.

Baer, S.G., Kitchen, D.J., Blair, J.M., and Rice, C.W., 2002,

Changes in ecosystem structure and function along a

chronosequence of restored grasslands: Ecological

Applications, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 1688–1701.

Bangsund, D.A., Leistritz, F.L., and Hodur, N.M., 2002,

Rural economic effects of the Conservation Reserve

Program in North Dakota, Department of Agribusiness

and Applied Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State University, Fargo:

Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report, no. 497,

105 p.

Baydack, R.K., Patterson, J.H., Rubec, C.D., Tyrchniewicz,

A.J., and Weins, T.W., 1996, Management challenges

for prairie grasslands in the twenty-first century, in

Samson, F.B., and Knopf, F.L., eds., prairie conservation, preserving North America’s most endangered

ecosystem: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 2489–259.

Bengston, D.N., 1994, Changing forest values and ecosystem management: Society and Natural Resources,

vol. 7, p. 515–533.

Bragg, T.B., and Steuter, A.A., 1996, Prairie ecology–the

mixed prairie, in Sampson, F.B., and Knopf, F.L., eds.,

prairie conservation: preserving North America’s most

endangered ecosystem: Washington, D.C., Island

Press, p. 53–65.

Brennan, L.A., Gutierrez, R.J., and Rosene, W., 1993, Forest practices, in Church, K.E., and Dailey, T.V., eds.,

Quail III, national quail symposium: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Pratt, p. 174–175.

Browne, W.P., Skees, J.R., Swanson, L.E., Thompson, P.B.,

and Unnevehr, L.J., 1992, Sacred cows and hot potatoes, Agrarian myths in agricultural policy: Boulder,

Colo, Westview Press, 151 p.

Burger, W., 2000, Wildlife response to the Conservation

Reserve Program in the Southeast, in Heard, L.P., Allen,

A.W., Best, L.B., Brady, S.J., Burger, W., Esser, A.J.,

Hackett, E., Johnson, D.H., Pederson, R.L., Reynolds,

R.E., Rewa, C., Ryan, M.R., Molleur, R.T., and Buck, P,

eds., A comprehensive review of Farm Bill contributions to wildlife conservation, 1985–2000: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, Technical Report, USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000, p. 55–73.

Cable, T.T., 2002, Beliefs of Kansas agricultural producers about riparian areas and wildlife conservation:

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 141–142.

Capel, S., Carmichael, B., Gudlin, M., and Long, D., 1995,

Southeast region, in McKenzie, D.F., and Riley, T.Z.,
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 29

comp.-eds., How much is enough, a regional wildlife

habitat needs assessment for the 1995 Farm Bill: Washington, D.C., Wildlife Management Institute, p. 8–11.

CAST, 1999, Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, land and sea

interactions: Council for Agricultural Science and

Technology, Ames, Iowa, Task Force Report, no. 134,

44 p.

CAST, 2002, Environmental impacts of livestock on U.S.

grazing lands: Council for Agricultural Science and

Technology, Ames, Iowa, Issue Paper, no. 22, 16 p.

Claassen, R., Hansen, L., Peters, M., Breneman, V.,

Weinberg, M., Cattaneo, A., Feather, P., Gadsby, D.,

Hellerstein, D., Hopkins, J., Johnston, P., Morehart,

M., and Smith, M., 2001, Agri-environmental policy at

the crossroads, guideposts to a changing landscape,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Washington, D.C.: Agricultural Economic Report, no. 794, 66 pp.

Cochrane, W.W., 1993, The development of American

agriculture, an historical analysis: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 500 p.

Collins, S.L., and Glenn, S.M., 1988, Disturbance and community structure in North American prairies, in During, H.J., Wergeer, M.J.A., and Willems, J.H., eds.,

Diversity and pattern in plant communities: The Hauge,

Netherlands, SPB Academic Publishing, p. 131–143.

Conover, M., 1998, Perceptions of American agricultural

producers about wildlife on their farms and ranches:

Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 26, p. 597–604.

Conrad, D., 2000, Implementation of conservation title

provisions at the state level, in Napier, T.L., Napier,

S.M., and Tvrdon, J., eds., Soil and water conservation policies and programs, success and failures: Soil

and Water Conservation Society, Washington, D.C.,

CRC Press, p. 63–75.

Crosson, P., 1995, The use and management of rural space,

in Castle, E.N., ed., the changing American countryside rural people and places: Lawrence, University

Press of Kansas, p. 134–154.

Czech, B., Devers, P.K., and Krausman, P.R., 2001, The

relationship of gender to species conservation attitudes: Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 187–

194.

Daugherty, A.B., 1997, Land use, in Anderson, M., and

Magleby, R., eds.: Agricultural Economic Research

Service, Natural Resources and Environment Division,

Agricultural Handbook No 712, Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996–1997, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, D.C. p. 1–26.

Diebel, P.L., Cable, T.T., and Cook, P.S., 1993, The future

of Conservation Reserve Program land in Kansas, the

landowners view: Report of progress 690, Agricultural

Experiment Station, Kansas State University.

Manhattan, 56 p.

Dillman, D.A., 1978, Mail and telephone surveys, the total design method: New York, John Wiley and Sons,

325 p.

Dillman, D.A,. 2000, Mail and internet surveys, the tailored design method (2d ed.): New York, John Wiley

and Sons, 464 p.

Doering, O., 1992, Federal policies as incentives or

disincentives to ecologically sustainable agricultural

systems, in Olson, R.K., ed., integrating sustainable

agriculture, ecology, and environmental policy: New

York, Food Products Press, p. 21–36.

Duda, M.D. and Young, K.C., 1998, American attitudes

toward scientific wildlife management and human use

of fish and wildlife, implications for effective public

relations and communications strategies: Transactions

of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources

Conference, vol. 63, p. 589–603.

Dunn, C.P., Stearns, F., Gutenspergen, G.R., and Sharpe,

D.M., 1993, Ecological benefits of the Conservation

Reserve Program: Conservation Biology, vol. 7, p. 132–

139.

Ervin, D.E., and Smith, K.R., 1996, What it takes to “Get to

yes” for whole farm planning policy, Henry A. Wallace

Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland: Policy Studies Report, no. 5, 42 p.

Felix, J., and Owen, M.D.K., 2001, Weed seed dynamics in

post conservation reserve program land: Weed Science: vol. 49, p. 780–787.

Feather, P., Hellerstien, D., and Hansen, L., 1999, Economic valuation of environmental benefits and the targeting of conservation programs, the case of the CRP:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Agriculture Economic Report, no. 778, 56 p.

Flather, C.H., Brady, S.J., and Knowles, M.S., 1999, Wildlife resource trends in the United States, A technical

document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service

RPA Assessment: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort

Collins, Colorado, General Technical Report, RMRSGTR-33, 79 p.

Fletcher, R.J., and Koford, R.R., 2002, Habitat and landscape associations of breeding birds in native and

restored grasslands: Journal of Wildlife Management,

vol. 66, no. 4, p. 1011–1022.

Foster, B.L., Smith, V.H., Dickson, T.L., and Hilderbrand,

T., 2002, Invisibility and compositional stability in a

grassland community: relationships to diversity and

extrinsic factors: Oikos, vol. 99, no. 2, p. 300–307.

Geisler, C., 1993, Ownership: an overview: Rural Sociology, vol. 58, no. 4, p. 532–546.

General Accounting Office, 2002, Report to the Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate.

Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committees’

views on how USDA programs could better address
30 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

environmental concerns. U.S. General Accounting

Office, Washington, D.C., GAO-02-295, 76 p.

Gillespie, G.W., Jr., and Buttel, F.H., 1989, Understanding

farm operator opposition to government regulation of

agricultural chemicals and pharmaceuticals: the role

of social class, objective interests, and ideology:

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol. 4,

no. 1, p. 12–21.

Heard, L.P., Allen, A.W., Best, L.B., Brady, S.J., Burger,

W., Esser, A.J., Hackett, E., Johnson, D.H., Pederson,

R.L., Reynolds, R.E., Rewa, C., Ryan, M.R., Molleur,

R.T., and Buck, P., 2000, A comprehensive review of

Farm Bill contributions to wildlife conservation, 1985–

2000, in Hohman, W.L., and Halloum, D.J., eds.: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, Technical Report, USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000,

208 p.

Heard, L.P., Allen, A.W., Best, L.B., Brady, S.J., Burger,

W., Esser, A.J., Hackett, E., Helinski, R.R., Hohman,

W.L., Johnson, D.H., Pederson, R.L., Reynolds, R.E.,

and Rewa, C., 2001, The history, status, and future

needs of fish and wildlife management on private lands

as related to USDA agricultural programs: North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, no. 66,

p. 54–67.

Heimlich, R.E., Wiebe, K.D., Claassen, R., Gadsby, D., and

House, R.M., 1998, Wetlands and agriculture, private

interests and public benefits: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington,

D.C., Agricultural Economic Report, no. 765, 94 p.

Hobbs, R.J., and Huenneke, L.F., 1992, Disturbance, diversity, and invasion, implications for conservation:

Conservation Biology, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 324–337.

Horn, D.J., and Koford, R.R., 2000, Relation of grassland

bird abundance to mowing of Conservation Reserve

Program fields in North Dakota: Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 653–659.

Hughes, J.S., Hoag, D.L., and Nipp, T.E., 1995, The Conservation Reserve, a survey of research and interest

groups: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, Special Publication, no. 19, 44 p.

Hughes-Popp, J.S., Huszar, P.C., and Hoag, D.L., 2000,

Reducing wind erosion damages and the Conservation Reserve Program, in Napier, T.L., Napier, S.M.,

and Tvrdon, J., eds., Soil and water conservation policies and programs, success and failures: Washington,

D.C., CRC Press, p. 143–154.

Hultquist, J.M., and Best, L.B., 2001, Bird use of terraces

in Iowa rowcrop fields: American Midland Naturalist,

vol. 145, no. 2, p. 275–287.

Hyberg, B.T., and Holthausen, D.M., 1989, The behavior

of nonindustrial private forest landowners: Canadian

Journal of Forestry, vol. 19, p. 1014–1023.

Jackson, L., 2002a, Restoring prairie processes to farmlands, in Jackson, D.L., and Jackson, L.L., eds., The

farm as natural habitat; reconnecting food systems

with ecosystems: Washington, D.C., Island Press,

p. 137–154.

Jackson, L., 2002b, The farm, the nature preserve, and the

conservation biologist, in Jackson, D.L., and Jackson,

L.L., eds., The farm as natural habitat, reconnecting

food systems with ecosystems: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 39–52.

James, S.M., 2002, Bridging the gap between private landowners and conservationists: Conservation Biology,

vol. 16, no. 1, p. 269–271.

Johnson, J., and Maxwell, B., 2001, The role of the Conservation Reserve Program in controlling rural residential development: Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 17,

p. 323–332.

Johnson, P.W., 2000, the role of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service in the development and implementation of soil and water conservation policies in

the United States, in Napier, T.L., Napier, S.M., and

Tvrdon, J., eds., Soil and water conservation policies

and programs, success and failures: Soil and Water

Conservation Society, Washington, D.C., CRC Press,

p. 45–49.

Johnson, R., Ekstrand, E., McKean, J.R. and John, K.,

1994, The economics of wildlife and CRP, When Conservation Reserve Program contracts expire, the policy

options: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny,

Iowa, p. 45–51.

Kirsch, L.M., Duebbert, H.F., and Kruse, A.D., 1978, Grazing and haying effects on habitats of upland nesting

birds: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference, vol. 43, p. 486–497.

Klute, D.S., and Robel, R.H.J., 1997, Seed availability in

grazed pastures and Conservation Reserve Program

fields during winter in Kansas: Journal of Field Ornithology, vol. 68, no. 2, p. 253–258.

Knight, R.L., 1997, Private lands, the neglected geography: Conservation Biology, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 223–224.

Koford, R.R., and Best, L.B., 1995, Management of agricultural landscapes for the conservation of neotropical

migratory birds, in Thompson, III, F.R., ed., Management of Midwestern landscapes for the conservation

of neotropical migratory birds: USDA, Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, General Technical Report, no. NC-187, p. 68–

88.

Kruse, A.D., and Bowen, B.D., 1996, Effects of grazing

and burning on densities and habitats of breeding

ducks in North Dakota: Journal of Wildlife Management: vol. 60, no. 2, p. 233–246.

Kurzejeski, E.W., Burger, L.W., Monson, M.J., and

Lenkner, R., 1992, Wildlife conservation attitudes and
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 31

land use intentions of Conservation Reserve Program

participants in Missouri: Wildlife Society Bulletin,

vol. 20, p. 253–259.

Langner, L.L., and Flather, C.H., 1994, Biological diversity: status and trends in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort

Collins, Colo, General Technical Report, no. RM-244, 24 p.

Lasley, P., 2000, Iowa farm and rural life poll, 2000 summary

report: Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension

Service, Ames: http://www.extension.iastate.edu./

Publications/PM1857.pdf

Laubhan, M.K., and Gammonley, J.H., 2001, Agricultural

producers’ perceptions of sandhill cranes in the San

Luis Valley of Colorado: Wildlife Society Bulletin,

vol. 29, no. 2, p. 639–645.

Leistritz, F.L., Hodur, N.M., and Bangsund, D.A., 2002,

Socioeconomic impacts of the Conservation Reserve

Program in North Dakota: Rural America. vol. 17, no. 3,

p. 57–65.

Lichtenberg, E., and Zimmerman, R., 1999, Information

and farmer’s attitudes about pesticides, water quality,

and related environmental effects: Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, vol. 73, p. 227–236.

Lowe, P., Ward, N., and Potter, C., 1999, Attitudinal and

institutional indicators for sustainable agriculture, in

Brouwer, F., and Crabtree, B., eds., Environmental indicators and agricultural policy: New York, New York,

CABI Publishing, p. 263–278.

Lubchenco, J., 1998, Entering the century of the environment, a new social contract for science: Science,

vol. 279, no. 23, p. 491–497.

Luttschwager, K.A., 1991, Effects of two haying provisions on duck nesting in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields in South Dakota: Brookings, South

Dakota State University, M.S. thesis, 51 p.

Luttschwager, K.A., and Higgens, K.F., 1991, Some sociological and ecological effects of the Conservation

Reserve Program in the Northern Great Plains. Pgs. 58-

62 in L.A. Joyce, J.E. Mitchell, and M.D. Skold, eds.

The Conservation Reserve–yesterday, today and tomorrow: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Fort Collins, Colo, General Technical Report,

no. RM-203, 64 p.

MacDonnell, L.J., and Bates, S.F., 1993, Rethinking resources, reflection on a new generation of natural resources policy and law, in MacDonnell, L.J., and Bates,

S.F., eds., Natural resources policy and law, trends and

directions: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 3–20.

Manfredo, M.J., Decker, D.J., and Duda, M.D., 1998, What

is the future for human dimensions of wildlife?:

Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural

Resources Conference, vol. 63, p. 278–292.

Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J., Power, A.G., and Swift, M.J.,

1997, Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties: Science, vol. 277, p. 504–509.

McBeth, M.K, and Foster, R.H., 1994, Rural environmental attitudes: Environmental Management, vol. 18,

no. 3, p. 401–411.

Millenbah, K.F., Winterstein, S.R., Campa, III, H., Furrow,

L.T., and Minnis, R.B., 1996, Effects of Conservation

Reserve Program field age on avian relative abundance,

diversity, and productivity: Wilson Bulletin, vol. 108,

no. 4, p. 760–770.

Miller, E.J., and Bromley, P.T., 1989, Wildlife management

on Conservation Reserve Program land, the farmer’s

view: North American Wildlife and Natural Resources

Conference, vol. 54, p. 377–381.

Miller, E.J., and Bromley, P.T., 1990, Targeting potential

wildlife management cooperators: Proceedings of the

Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, vol. 44, p. 224–230.

Miranowski, J.A., Hrubovcak, J., and Sutton, J., 1991, The

effects of commodity programs on resource use, in

Just, R.E. and Bockstael, N., eds., Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems: New York, New

York, Springer-Verlag, p. 257–292.

Mortensen, T.L., Leistritz, F.L., Leitch, J.A., Coon, R.C.,

and Ekstrom, B.L., 1990, Socioeconomic impact of the

Conservation Reserve Program in North Dakota: Society and Natural Resources, vol. 3, p. 53–61.

Moulton, R.J., Baldwin, B., and Snellgrove, J., 1991, Impacts of Conservation Reserve Program tree planting

on biological diversity: Annual meeting of Southern

Forest Economists, 20–22 February 1991, Washington, D.C., 15 p.

Nash, R., 1992, Wilderness and the American mind: New

Hampton, Yale University Press, 425 p.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003, Conservation practices and programs on your farm: http://

www.whmi.nrcs.usda.gov

Newton, B.J., 2001, Environmental education and outreach, experiences of a Federal agency: Bioscience,

vol. 51, no. 4, p. 297–299.

Norton, D.A., 2000, Conservation biology and private land,

shifting the focus: Conservation Biology, vol. 14, no. 5,

p. 1221–1223.

Norušis, M.J., 1999, SPSS 9.0, Guide to data analysis: Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 577 p.

Osborn, C.T., 1997, Conservation Reserve Program, in

Anderson, M., and Magleby, R., eds., Agricultural resource and environmental indicators, 1996–1997: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Handbook, no. 712, Washington,

D.C., p. 286–296.

Osborn, C.T., and Konyar, K., 1990, A fresh look at the

CRP, agricultural outlook: U.S. Department of
32 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington,

D.C., AO-166:33-37.

Osborn, C.T., Schnepf, M., and Keim, R., 1995, The future

use of Conservation Reserve Program acres, a national

survey of farm owners and operators: Soil and Water

Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, 48 p.

Patterson, M.P., and Best, L.B., 1996, Bird abundance and

nesting success in Iowa CRP fields, the importance of

vegetation structure and composition: American Midland Naturalist, vol. 135, p. 153–167.

Popp, J., Hoag, D., and Ascough II, J., 2002, Targeting

soil-conservation policies for sustainability, new empirical evidence: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 57, no. 2, p. 66–74.

Raedeke, A.H., Nilon, C.H., and Rikoon, J.S., 2001, Factors affecting landowner participation in ecosystem

management: a case study in south-central Missouri:

Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 195–206.

Renfrew, R.B., and Ribic, C.A., 2002, Influence of topography on density of grassland passerines in pastures:

American Midland Naturalist, vol. 147, no. 2, p. 315–325.

Renken, R.B., and Dinsmore, J.J., 1987, Nongame bird

communities on managed grassland in North Dakota:

Canadian Field Naturalist, vol. 101, no. 4, p. 551–557.

Ribaudo, M., 1997, Water quality, in Anderson, M., and

Magleby, R., eds., Agricultural resources and environmental indicators, 1996–1997: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Natural

Resources and Environment Division, Agricultural

Handbook, no. 712, p. 83–96.

Ribaudo, M.O., Hoag, D.L., Smith, M.E., and Heimlich, R.,

2001, Environmental indices and the politics of the

Conservation Reserve Program: Ecological Indicators,

vol. 1, p. 11–20.

Richards, C., Johnson, L.B., and Host, G.E., 1996, Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota:

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,

vol. 53, no. 1, p. 295–311.

Riley, S.J., Decker, D.J., Carpenter, L.H., Organ, J.F., Siemer,

W.F., Mattfield, G.F., and Parsons, G., 2002, The essence of wildlife management: Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 585–593.

Rodgers, R.D., 1999, Why haven’t pheasant populations

in western Kansas increased with CRP?: Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 654–665.

Rodgers, R.D., 2002, Effects of wheat-stubble height and

weed control on winter pheasant abundance: Wildlife

Society Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 1099–1112.

Roseberry, J.L., and David, L.M., 1994, The Conservation

Reserve Program and Northern bobwhite population

trends in Illinois: Transactions of the Illinois State

Academy of Science, vol. 87, nos. 1&2, p. 61–70.

Ryan, M.R., Burger, L.W., and Kurzejeski, E.W., 1998, The

impact of CRP on avian wildlife: A review: Journal of

Production Agriculture, vol. 11, p. 61–66.

SAS Institute, 1999, SAS/STAT users guide: SAS Institute, Gary, North Carolina, USA.

Sharitz, R.R., Boring, L.R., Van Lear, D.H., and Pinder, III,

J.E., 1992, Integrating ecological concepts with natural resource management of southern forests: Ecological Applications, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 226–237.

Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2001, Seeking common ground for conservation, A Farm Bill proposal,

responding to the grassroots: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, 58 p.

Southern, E.C., 1984, Farm wildlife production: what does

it cost: Transactions of the North American Wildlife

and Natural Resources Conference, vol. 49, p. 159–163.

Taylor, M.R., 2001, The emerging merger of agricultural

and environmental policy, Building a new vision for

the future of American agriculture: Virginia Environmental Law Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 169–170.

Teasley, R.J., Bergstrom, J.C., Cordell, H.K., Zarnoch, S.J.,

and Gentle, P., 1997, Private lands and outdoor recreation in the United States: University of Georgia and

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Environmental Resources Assessment Group,

www.agecon.uga.edu/~erag/nplostxt.htm.

Thomas, J.W., 1994, Trends in forest management in the

United States: The Forestry Chronicle, vol. 70, no. 5,

p. 546–549.

Thurman, W.N., 1995, Assessing the environmental impact of farm policies: Washington, D.C., AEI Press, 79 p.

Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.H.,

Simberloff, D., and Swackhamer, D., 2001, Forecasting

agriculturally driven global environmental change:

Science, vol. 292, p. 281–284.

Tucker, M., and Napier, T.L., 2002, Preferred sources and

channels of soil and water conservation information

among farmers in three Midwestern US watersheds:

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 92,

p. 297–313.

Unnevehr, L.J., 1993, Suburban consumers and exurban

farmers: The changing political economy of food

policy: American Journal of Agricultural Economics,

vol. 75, p. 1140–1144.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995,

Agriculture, trade, and the environment, achieving

complementary policies: OTA-ENV-640, Washington,

D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 241 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001, Food and agricultural

policy, Taking stock for a new century: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 120 p.
 ALLEN AND VANDEVER 33

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2002, Agricultural statistics

2002: U.S. Department of Agriculture. National

Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. n.p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2003, Farm Service Agency,

Monthly CRP summary statistics report, December

2002. www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crpreports.htm

Vandever, M.W., Allen, A.W., and Sexton, N.R., 2002, Selected effects of the Conservation Reserve Program

on program participants, A report to survey respondents: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological

Survey, Fort Collins Science Center. Fort Collins, Colo,

Open File Report, no. 02-476, 21 p.

Weaver, T., Payson, E.M., and Gustafson, D.L., 1996,

Prairie ecology–The shortgrass prairie, in Samson, F.B.,

and Knopf, F.L., eds., Prairie conservation, preserving

North America’s most endangered ecosystem:

Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 67–75.

Weber, W.L., Roseberry, J.L., and Woolf, A., 2002, Influence of the Conservation Reserve Program on

landscape structure and potential upland wildlife

habitat: Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 3,

p. 888–898.

Whitney, G.G., 1994, From coastal wilderness to fruited

plain: A history of environmental change in temperate North America from 1500 to the present: New

York, New York, Cambridge University Press, 451 p.

Williams, J.R., and Diebel, P.L., 1996, The economic

value of the prairie, in Samson, F.B. and Knopf, F.L.,

eds., Prairie conservation: preserving North

America’s most endangered ecosystem: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 135–148.

Wright, B.A., Kaiser, R.A., and Nicholls, S., 2002, Rural

landowner liability for recreational injuries, Myths,

perceptions, and realities: Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, vol. 57, no. 3, p. 183–191.
Appendix AAppendix A Appendix A

Pacific: Pacific:Pacific:

Mountain MountainMountain

Northern Plains

Appendix A. Regional summaries of survey respondent written comments by

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Region.

Pacific: Thirty-three respondents (54%) providing additional written comments, generally expressed positive perceptions of the CRP, requested expansion, or suggested the

program remain essentially unchanged. Longer contract periods were preferred as were

more liberal enrollment criteria to allow additional land into the program. Greater acceptances of local management practices more properly fitting regional conditions were desired. Management procedures to maintain habitat quality and control weeds/brush including periodic grazing, limited grazing rather than herbicides in sensitive (e.g., riparian) areas, and more use of burning or disking were suggested. The provision of additional financial assistance to control weeds was wanted.

The requirement to destroy and replace existing CRP grassland cover with new

plantings was a major issue of concern. There was a perception that original CRP grasslands furnished wildlife habitat of equal or greater value than grass covers that replaced

them. Respondents believed reestablishment of grasses was difficult, expensive, and encouraged establishment of weeds. Many felt enhancement of vegetation species composition in CRP grasslands

should be required only on newly enrolled acres or where the initial success of seeding was poor. These persons

believed that well-established grasslands should not be altered solely to meet wildlife objectives. Requirements to

interseed legumes (e.g., clover, alfalfa) for vegetation enhancement were perceived as ineffective where subsequent

chemical control of broadleaf weeds was required.

Mountain: Over half (58%) of respondents from this region furnished additional written comments. A substantial number of comments favored incorporation

of limited haying or grazing to maintain the long-term quality of CRP grasslands.

However, others believed hay production on CRP grasslands could have a negative

economic effect on non-CRP forage producers and suggested there should be closer

monitoring and control of hay produced under emergency use. These persons also

generally opposed realization of economic profit from CRP forage produced under

emergency conditions. A few respondents believed whole farm enrollment in the

CRP had a negative impact on local economies and should be prohibited.

A common opinion expressed was that wildlife had received too much attention

in recent CRP enrollment criteria. As in the Pacific region, destruction of wellestablished grasslands to replant other grass species was perceived as a waste of

resources. Several respondents stated the CRP was an effective conservation program

but the increased emphasis on CRP wildlife habitat should come with a concurrent increase in funds to cover

management expenses. Several respondents suggested rental payments should be increased to help defray rising

taxes and inflation.

Positive comments pertained to beneficial effects of the CRP on ground water, increased numbers of wildlife,

and control of wind erosion. A greater consistency in evaluation of lands submitted for CRP enrollment was encouraged, as was more emphasis on establishment of trees and windbreaks.

Northern Plains: Forty-four percent of surveys returned from this region held

additional written comments. A large number of remarks focused on positive affects

of the CRP on wildlife populations, scenic quality of landscapes, soil enrichment,

decreased utilization of herbicides, and economic benefits to local economies. There

were many comments suggesting CRP improvement through longer contracts, whole

farm sign-ups, higher rental payments for irrigated land, and inclusion of existing

grasslands into the program.

The most frequent concern expressed was a need to increase financial assistance

for management of CRP grasslands. Respondents stated costs associated with management (e.g., burning, weed control) have increased but USDA payments to cover

these requirements have not. Several respondents suggested an increase in CRP rental

rates based on a cost-of-living index.

35
36 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A

Southern Plains

A. Continued. A

Respondents described benefits of having CRP grasslands as a source of hay during emergencies. Many who

provided written comments advocated periodic, limited haying, grazing, or burning of CRP grasslands to maintain

the quality of the stands and as a means to control wildfire hazards. However, costs and risks associated with burning

of CRP grasslands were of concern to others. Several respondents suggested haying might be a more appropriate

management option than burning. Haying to create firebreaks should be permitted. Use of grass from firebreaks

should be allowed without reduction in rental payments. Several respondents suggested management requirements

and constraints should be defined at the beginning of the enrollment period and not changed prior to expiration of the

original contract.

More comments pertaining to dissatisfaction with the amount and quality of USDA CRP-related assistance were

received from this region than any other. Several respondents described difficulties working with USDA staff in

counties other than where they lived. Because generalized USDA guidelines do not fit the needs of every farm, more

local control in definition of management options was desired. On-going, relatively frequent assistance and

information related to management of CRP lands was requested. There were requests for increased interaction with

USDA staff for information on proper plant species, vegetation management options/techniques, and long-term

maintenance of wildlife habitat. Several respondents stated they felt “forgotten” after the initial sign-up. Others

suggested program entry requirements should be clearly defined and not changed in the middle of the contract period.

The lack of consistency in violation enforcement of CRP management and evaluation of lands submitted for

enrollment were issues of concern.

Southern Plains: Of the surveys returned from this region, 37%

contained written comments. Favorable observations described benefits to

wildlife, air quality, ground water, scenic quality of the landscape, and

financial stability provided to CRP participants and local economies.

Suggestions for program improvements included reduction in the amount of

paper work and record keeping required, an emphasis on habitat

improvements associated with playa lakes, periodic review of vegetation

conditions on enrolled lands with recommendations for long-term

management, more uniform control of weeds, and greater amounts of

information on management practices. Several respondents suggested more

land be enrolled in the CRP and counties that have not met their 25%

enrollment cap should be able to transfer eligibility of unused acres to

counties where farmers have been unable to get into the program. An increase

in education focused on habitat and wildlife management was favored.

The benefits of greater control of soil erosion were described by several respondents who also believed the

growing emphasis on management of CRP lands for wildlife was excessive. Requirement to enhance 51% of existing

CRP grasslands by destroying existing covers and replanting to native grasses was characterized as an impractical and

wasteful constraint to remain in the program contributing to increased erosion of soil and loss of existing benefits to

wildlife. Other impediments to provision of wildlife habitat were identified as conflicts between required control of

weeds and planting of legumes that precluded use of herbicides. Mandatory shredding/mowing of weeds was believed

to inhibit growth of desired grasses and limited cover for wildlife.

Several respondents desired incorporation of periodic grazing of CRP grasslands for more natural control of

weeds and invasive woody species. It was suggested limited grazing should be permitted without financial penalty if

done in accordance with an approved conservation plan. An increase in rental payments was identified as a need to

benefit local economies and furnish better maintenance of enrolled lands. Several respondents believed that an

increase in rental payments would help keep lands in the program and prevent poor, erosive fields from returning to

production.
ALLEN AND VANDEVER 37

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A

Lake States

Corn Belt Corn BeltCorn Belt

A. Continued. A

Lake States: Forty-seven percent of respondents from this region

furnished written observations about the CRP. Comments were dominated

by descriptions of positive affects of the CRP on wildlife and water quality.

Enrollment in the CRP helped some farmers avoid sale of their land for

urban development. Recommendations for program improvement included

longer advance notice of sign-up periods, more flexible enrollment periods

(e.g., 5, 15, 20 years), greater emphasis on hardwood tree plantings,

mandatory use of firebreaks, and acceptance of more and different types of

land (e.g., woodlots) into the program. It was suggested that if farmers want

to enroll in the program the 25% cap per county should be eliminated.

Several respondents believed wildlife should have the greatest priority in

enrollment objectives followed by water quality and soil erosion.

The most common concern expressed focused on relations between inflation, increasing rates of land taxation,

and the inability of existing rental payments to cover mounting requirements for management of CRP covers. Several

respondents cited increases in fuel and maintenance costs and a concurrent decline in rental payments as being major

concerns. Maintenance payments have not increased, making management difficult and limiting enrollment in the

program. Financial incentives were believed necessary to enable landowners to implement conservation and wildlife

friendly practices.

There was a desire to give enrollment priority to existing contracts where high-quality CRP vegetation already

exists. Several respondents stated, that in the long run, this would save taxpayer money and maximize environmental

benefits. Some respondents believed resident landowners/operators should be given priority in program enrollment

over investors and absentee landowners.

There was a high level of satisfaction with USDA administration and the quality of technical assistance in the Lake

States region. The majority of respondents providing comments expressed the opinion that the USDA should keep up

their good work and maintain the CRP without significant changes in design or administration. In some cases,

however, USDA technical assistance was described as poorly planned and information about management of CRP

lands was deficient. It appeared to a few respondents that some USDA staff were not concerned if an operator was

accepted into the program. Several respondents suggested greater USDA flexibility in management rules that address

regional conservation issues. Several respondents wanted enhanced education and technical assistance programs

focused on long-term management of CRP lands for wildlife. Program participants identified a need to be informed

about study results describing best CRP management practices and associated environmental and wildlife benefits.

Requirements to destroy a portion of existing grasslands or interseed legumes to qualify for reenrollment were a

concern. However, these requirements were not as opposed to as in the Southern Plains, Northern Plains, and

Mountain regions. Several respondents believed limited haying or grazing needs to be implemented two or three times

in a 10-year contract to maintain grassland quality and that use of prescribed fire needs greater attention.

Corn Belt: Of the surveys returned from this region, 26% contained

written remarks. Overall, comments were wide-ranging and positive,

focusing on CRP benefits to local economies, commodity prices,

sportsmen, water quality, wildlife habitat, and air quality. Wildlife benefits

were important in this region with many respondents desiring more

emphasis on native vegetation, wildlife conservation, and habitat. The CRP

was characterized as benefitting farmers as well as non-farmers returning

dividends to future generations far in excess of taxpayer costs. Most

comments could be described as “pleased with the program as is”.

Suggested improvements included expansion of the waterways buffer

program, routine renewal of existing contracts having established cover, more flexibility in methods to control weeds

(e.g., disking, haying), greater flexibility in enrollment periods, and acceptance of more marginal, non-tilled land

without a cropping history into the program. Several respondents requested that conservation practices be better

applied to lands remaining in production. For example, establishment of grassed strips between rowcrop fields and

allowing brushy fencerows into the CRP to prevent their removal to provide cover for wildlife.
38 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A

Delta

Southeast SoutheastSoutheast

A. Continued. A

As in most other regions, CRP rental rates and expenses associated with management and maintenance of program

lands engendered many comments. Most respondents favored an increase in rental payments to more closely reflect

current land values and maintenance costs. While a few respondents voiced opposition to any disturbance, many

would like to see periodic use of grasslands. Citing declines in wildlife use as fields aged, many respondents desired

incorporation of periodic haying or grazing to maintain quality of grasslands. Periodic haying/grazing also was

believed to be a way to control weeds and lower dependence on herbicides.

A few respondents resented the increased importance given to wildlife habitat in recent CRP enrollment criteria.

They believed emphasis of the CRP should remain on soil conservation with wildlife assigned a lower priority. In their

opinion, habitat enhancement requirements and unusual, expensive seed requirements have made staying in the CRP

more troublesome and costly. Several respondents stated because they conflict with control of broadleaved weeds,

requirements to interseed legumes to enhance wildlife habitat should be discontinued. Several respondents also

expressed opposition to disturbance of fragile lands upon contract renewal. Destruction of existing cover and

reseeding of new grasses was perceived as being expensive, exposes land to erosion, and causes an overall loss in

wildlife habitat.

While respondents were generally highly satisfied with the quality USDA assistance more described concerns that

local NRCS/FSA staff were over-burdened by an excessive workload. Provision of a pamphlet describing the program

and management options was believed to be a poor substitute for personal attention by USDA staff. More information

was desired on various types of plantings and management for wildlife. Periodic visits to farms by USDA staff for

consultation and improved management assistance also was desired. Workshops and ways to get information out to

new participants in farm programs were wanted prior to, during, and after enrollment. Generally, respondents wanted

program options to be easier to understand, specific to local problems, and regulations be consistent across counties.

Greater attention to more timely payment of cost-share funds also was an issue of concern.

Delta: Forty-seven percent of surveys returned from the Delta FPR contained

written comments, which were generally positive, citing appreciation for effective

administration of the CRP by the FSA and an increased awareness of wildlife in

program planning. Remarks focused on a need for more education relative to

management of CRP trees, greater provision of educational seminars pertaining to

management of lands, and simplification of paperwork associated with the program.

Suggestions for CRP improvement included an increase in rental payments to

cover increasing taxes, more enrollment periods, and liberalized eligibility

requirements to permit additional property into the program. Use of traditional crop

production methods was wanted to produce wildlife food plots, as was an increased

emphasis on planting hardwood tree species. Greater attention was requested for CRP

management to address needs of individual farmers and local problems rather than

trying to make one national program fit local situations.

Southeast: Of surveys returned from this region, 40% contained written

comments. Overall, observations were positive, reflecting appreciation for

environmental, financial, and wildlife benefits derived from the CRP. Several

respondents wanted more varied types of lands, other than cropland, eligible for CRP

enrollment. More diverse types and amount of land dedicated to wildlife food plots

were desired, as was more local control in identification of acceptable conservation

practices. A greater amount of cost-share funds to convert existing stands of fescue to

native grasses was desired. Several respondents stated that requirements to meet

wildlife and environmental issues associated with CRP lands would require

adjustment of rental rates, or cost-share funds, to meet additional management

demands. Increased information relative to long-term management of CRP lands was

requested.
ALLEN AND VANDEVER 39

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A

Appalachian

Northeast NortheastNortheast

A. Concluded. A

Appalachian: Appalachian Nearly 46% of surveys returned from the Appalachian

region held written remarks. Respondent comments reflected positive opinions

about beneficial aspects of program payments, improvements in water quality,

and increased abundance of wildlife associated with CRP lands. Expansion to

include lands already in grass, elimination of fescue as a planting option, more

frequent sign-up periods, additional lands eligible for continuous sign-up

programs, and greater emphasis on planting hardwood trees were identified as

potential improvements in the CRP. Greater flexibility in management options,

periodic haying or grazing of CRP grasslands to maintain habitat quality, and

an increase in cost-share funds to assist long-term management were

recommended. A greater emphasis on education concerning how and when to manage lands for wildlife was seen as

needing more attention. Comparable comments focused on the need to develop ways to communicate information

from farmers/operators who have had success in management of CRP lands for wildlife and other environmental

concerns to those newly enrolled in the program.

Northeast: Forty-two percent of surveys received from the Northeast

FPR contained written comments. Greatest concerns expressed from this

region were relations between rising costs for management of CRP lands,

increased taxation, and decline in rental payments. The need for cost-share

funds for establishment of legumes and obtaining help to accomplish

recommended management for enrollees who do not have proper equipment

were relatively frequent comments. Observations reflected overall

satisfaction with USDA administration and assistance, as well as favorable

response of wildlife populations to the program.
Appendix B Appendix BAppendix B

INSTRUCTIONS

 

Appendix B. Conservation Reserve Program survey.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each question on the following pages. Space is provided at the end of the

survey for you to provide additional comments. Although you may feel that an observation may be inconsequential,

your opinion and thoughts are important to the success of this survey. Your answers and comments will remain

anonymous and confidential.

You can receive a summary of survey results by writing “copy of results requested “on the back of the return

envelope and printing your name and address below it. In order to insure confidentiality, please do not put your name

or address on the questionnaire itself.

1. Which of the following best describes your relation to the CRP? Please check the one blank that most accurately

describes your relationship.

owner/operator, actively involved in farming

owner, but not actively involved in farming

renter and operator, actively involved in farming

trustee

other (please describe)

2. Approximately how many acres do you have enrolled in the CRP? Please write a total number of acres in the

blank.

acres

3. How would you describe your CRP acres? Please check one blank that most accurately describes the majority

of your CRP acres.

mostly nonnative grasses

mostly native grasses

mostly trees

4. Did any vegetative covers fail or need to be reestablished when your land was first enrolled in the CRP? If so,

what was the cause? Please check the blank that most accurately describes your CRP acres.

CRP covers were successfully established at first planting

initial plantings failed due to drought

initial plantings failed due to flooding

initial plantings failed due to insect or weed infestation

initial plantings failed due to OTHER reasons (please describe).

5. Have you hayed or grazed your CRP lands under emergency provisions?

No Yes

If yes, please answer the following:

What percentage of acres were hayed or grazed?

How many times have these acres been hayed or grazed?

How many times has your land been eligible for emergency use?

41
42 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Appendix B Appendix BAppendix B

NONE

Appendix B. Continued.

6. To the best of your knowledge, what types of management, use, or disturbance have taken place on all, or part,

of your CRP acres? (Check all that apply.)

spot treatment of weeds by mowing

spot treatment of weeds by herbicide

use of pesticides for insect control

grazing, authorized under emergency use

grazing, accidental

haying, authorized under emergency use

burning, intentional

burning, accidental

fertilization

additional seeding

establishment of firebreaks by mowing or plowing

flooding

thinning of pine, hardwood trees, or shrubs planted as part of CRP program

thinning of volunteer pine, hardwood trees, or shrubs

other (please describe)

NONE, there has been no known disturbance or use of CRP acres

7. What are the benefits of the CRP on your farm or community, observed by you or your family? (Check all that

apply.)

improved control of soil erosion

improved air quality

improved water quality

increased permanence of surface water

improved control of drifting snow

positive changes in wildlife populations

increased opportunities to personally hunt

increased opportunities to lease land for hunting

increased opportunities to observe wildlife

changes in scenic quality of farm or landscape

potential future income (e.g., sale of timber)

other (please describe)

no positive effects

8. What are the negative effects of the CRP to your farm or community, observed by you or other members of your

family? (Check all that apply.)

too much cropland taken out of production

negative effects on local economy

attracts unwanted wildlife

attracts unwanted requests for permission to hunt

source of weeds

potential fire hazard

makes farm appear unkept or poorly managed

other (please describe)

no negative effects
ALLEN AND VANDEVER 43

Appendix B. Continued. Appendix B Appendix BAppendix B

 9. Please give your evaluation of the amount of attention given to wildlife habitat in CRP enrollment

requirements. (Please circle the one number that best describes your opinion.)

1 -- NOT ENOUGH 2 -- APPROPRIATE 3 -- TOO MUCH

10. Was the amount of assistance you received from the Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources Conservation

Service to plan, maintain or improve CRP acres for wildlife habitat (please circle the one number that best

describes your opinion).

1 -- NOT ENOUGH 2 -- APPROPRIATE 3 -- TOO MUCH

11. How well have you been informed by the Farm Service/Natural Resources Conservation Service during

enrollment or contract renewal about why specific types of cover practices are encouraged? (Please check the

one option that best describes your opinion.)

not at all informed

somewhat informed

well informed

12. In some situations, to have a field renewed in the CRP, the Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources

Conservation Service requires that part of the field have clover/alfalfa interseeded into existing grasses or that

native grasses be planted to replace existing grasses. This is most often done to increase the fields’ value as

wildlife habitat. Which of the following answers best describes your feelings about these requirements?

 Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

CRP benefits to wildlife

are important. 1 2 3 4 5

USDA requirements to

enhance CRP covers to

maintain long-term

benefits to wildlife are

reasonable. 1 2 3 4 5

If CRP covers are well

established there should

be no requirements to

disturb or enhance them

to renew acres in the program. 1 2 3 4 5

13. If periodic management of CRP grassland acres was encouraged to maintain desirable characteristics of

vegetation, which method(s) would be most suitable to your operation? (Check all that apply.)

mowing

shredding/brushhog

grazing

burning

disking/plowing

herbicides

other (please describe)
44 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Appendix B Appendix BAppendix B

OPTIONAL

Appendix B. Concluded.

Periodic management of CRP acres is not desirable, because,

 I do not have equipment

 I do not desire to manage field

 I oppose disturbance of CRP grassland fields

 Other (please describe)

14. In relation to periodic management of CRP land, which of these choices are most appealing to you? (Please

check the one option most acceptable to you.)

No change. Maintain same enrollment and management criteria as current program. CRP acres can

 only be hayed or grazed under emergency conditions with a reduction in rental payment on acres used. No

reduction in annual rental payment.

Periodic haying or grazing with reduced per-acre annual payments. Periodic, limited haying or

grazing allowed with a fixed reduction in rental payment during years of use. Example: A field

could be hayed or grazed once every three years with a 25% reduction in rental payment on acres hayed or

grazed.

Limited haying or grazing with same rental payments but with restricted emergency use. Example:

A field could be hayed or grazed once, or twice, in a typical 10-year contract period. Use would take place in

year 4 to 6 of the 10-year contract. There would be no reduction in rental payment but “emergency use” of the

hayed/grazed portion of the field would be restricted for a year or two following the “non emergency” use.

Increased management practices with increased rental payments. Disturbance or rejuvenation

required during typical 10-year contract with funds furnished to cover management expenses. Example: Light

disking, burning, or haying of a field may be recommended once, or twice, in a typical 10-year contract period

to reduce accumulation of dead plant material, improve vigor of stand, and increase vegetation productivity.

Management expenses above normal rental payment would be furnished by the USDA.

15. Please use the last page of this survey to tell us how can the CRP be designed or administered in future years

to better meet your needs (OPTIONAL). OPTIONAL
Appendix C Appendix CAppendix C

Question 1 Question 1Question 1

Question 2 Question 2Question 2

Question 3 Question 3Question 3

Question 4 Question 4Question 4

Appendix C. Confidence intervals for national responses to the Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) survey.

Question 1: Question 1 Which of the following best describes your relationship to the CRP?

 Relationship

 Owner but not active Owner/operator Renter/operator Trustee Other

National 52.0 43.0 3.1 0.9 1.1

95% confidence interval 55.44–48.49 46.41–39.53 4.45–1.99 1.70–0.33 1.98–0.47

Question 2: Approximately how many acres do you have enrolled in the CRP? Only regional averages calculated.

Confidence intervals are not presented.

Question 3: How would you describe your CRP acres?

 Description

 Mostly native grasses Mostly nonnative grasses Mostly trees

National 55.1 31.3 13.6

95% confidence interval 58.28–51.81 34.38–28.35 15.90–11.43

Question 4: Did any vegetative covers fail or need to be reestablished when your land was first enrolled in the CRP?

If so, what was the cause?

 Results

 Successful at Failed due Failed due Failed due Failed due

 first planting to drought to flooding to insects/weeds to other reasons

National 84.5 9.1 2.1 2.3 2.0

95% confidence interval 86.86–81.75 11.22–7.16 3.29–1.22 3.55–1.38 3.20–1.16

45
46 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Appendix C

Question 5 Question 5Question 5

Question 6 Question 6Question 6

Appendix C. Continued.

. Have you hayed or grazed your CRP lands

under emergency provisions?

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 85.1 87.12–82.77

Yes 14.9 17.18–12.83

Question 6: To your knowledge, what types of manage- Question 6

ment, use, or disturbance have taken place on all, or

part, of your CRP acres?

a. Spot treatment of weeds by mowing

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 37.8 40.70–34.82

Yes 62.2 65.13–59.25

b. Spot treatment by herbicides

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 65.3 68.15–62.38

Yes 34.7 37.58–31.80

c. Use of pesticides for insect control

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 99.0 99.48–98.18

Yes 1.0 1.77–0.49

d. Grazing, authorized under emergency use

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 94.8 96.00–93.23

Yes 5.2 6.71–3.96

Question 6. Question 6.Question 6. Question 6. Continued.

e. Grazing, accidental

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 98.0 99.0–97.0

Yes 2.0 32.0–1.2

f. Haying authorized under emergency use

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 89.5 91.22–87.46

Yes 10.5 12.50–8.74

g. Burning, intentional

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 87.1 89.03–84.93

Yes 12.9 15.02–10.93

h. Burning, accidental

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 96.8 97.72–95.51

Yes 3.2 4.44–2.24

i. Fertilization

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 93.6 94.98–91.97

Yes 6.4 7.98–4.98

j. Additional seeding

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 83.6 85.74–81.22

Yes 16.4 18.73–14.22
ALLEN AND VANDEVER 47

Appendix C

Question 6 (concluded). Question 6 (concluded).

Appendix C. Continued.

k. Establishment of firebreaks

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 90.4 92.10–88.5

Yes 9.6 11.50–7.9

l. Flooding

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 94.4 95.68–92.84

Yes 5.6 7.11–4.28

m. Thinning of pine, hardwood trees, or shrubs

planted as part of the program

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 97.1 97.96–95.84

Yes 2.9 4.1–2.0

n. Thinning of volunteer pine,

hardwood trees, or shrubs

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 96.4 97.4–95.5

Yes 3.6 4.9–2.6

o. Other

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 95.1 96.25–93.56

Yes 4.9 6.39–3.71

p. None, there has been no known

disturbance or use of the CRP acres

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 87.9 89.76–85.77

Yes 12.1 14.18–10.2

Question 7. What are the benefits of the CRP acres on Question 7Question 7 Question 7

your farm or community, observed by you or your

family?

a. Improved control of soil erosion

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 14.6 16.84–12.54

Yes 85.4 87.42–83.12

b. Improved air quality

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 70.8 73.52–68.01

Yes 29.2 31.94–26.44

c. Improved water quality

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 61.2 64.05–58.15

Yes 38.8 41.80–35.91

d. Increased permanence of surface water

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 76.3 78.75–73.59

Yes 23.7 26.37–21.21

e. Improved control of drifting snow

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 69.5 72.21–66.63

Yes 30.5 33.33–27.75

f. Positive changes in wildlife populations

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 26.8 29.55–24.18

Yes 73.2 75.78–70.41
48 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Appendix C

Question 7 (continued). Question 7 (continued).

Appendix C. Continued.

g. Increased opportunities to personally hunt

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 62.4 65.43–59.17

Yes 37.6 40.70–34.45

h. Increased opportunities to lease land for hunting

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 88.1 89.94–85.99

Yes 11.9 13.96–10.02

i. Increased opportunities to observe wildlife

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 40.6 43.53–37.59

Yes 59.4 62.37–56.42

j. Improved scenic quality of farm or landscape

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 62.6 65.45–59.59

Yes 37.4 40.36–34.50

k. Potential increase in future income

(e.g., sale of timber)

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 83.3 85.41–80.86

Yes 16.7 19.09–14.55

l. Other

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 91.7 93.21–89.83

Yes 8.3 10.13–6.75

Question 7 (concluded). Question 7 (concluded).

Question 8 Question 8Question 8

m. No positive effects

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 98.9 99.43–98.09

Yes 1.1 1.85–0.53

Question 8. What are the negative effects of the CRP

acres to your farm or community, observed by your

or other members of your family?

a. Too much cropland taken out of production

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 95.9 96.96–94.47

Yes 4.1 5.48–3.00

b. Negative effects on local economy

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 92.2 93.70–90.38

Yes 7.8 9.58–6.26

c. Attracts unwanted wildlife

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 91.3 92.91–89.43

Yes 8.7 10.52–7.05

d. Attracts unwanted requests for permission to hunt

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 82.0 84.21–79.50

Yes 18.0 20.45–15.75

e. Source of weeds

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 71.2 73.86–68.33

Yes 28.8 31.62–26.09
ALLEN AND VANDEVER 49

Appendix C

Question 8 (concluded) Question 8 (concluded)

Question 9 Question 9Question 9

Appendix C. Continued.

.

f. Potential fire hazard

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 80.7 82.97–78.14

Yes 19.3 21.82–16.98

g. Makes farm appear to be

unkempt or poorly managed

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 86.9 88.84–84.69

Yes 13.1 15.26–11.12

h. Other

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 94.6 95.89–93.09

Yes 5.4 6.86–4.07

i. No negative effects

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 74.6 77.15–71.83

Yes 25.4 28.12–22.80

Question 9. Please give your evaluation of the amount Question 9

of attention given to wildlife habitat in CRP enrollment requirements.

Amount of 95%

 attention National confidence interval

Not enough 15.7 18.10–13.37

Appropriate 73.2 75.99–70.25

Too much 11.1 13.28–9.17

Question 10. Question 10.

Question 1 Question 1Question 11

Question 12 Question 12Question 12

Question 10. Was the amount of assistance you received

from the Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources

Conservation Service to plan, maintain, or improve

CRP acres for wildlife habitat...

Amount of 95%

 attention National confidence interval

Not enough 15.7 18.17–13.44

Appropriate 82.2 84.55–79.57

Too much 2.1 3.17–1.26

Question 11. How well have you been informed by the

Farm Service Agency/Natural Resource Conservation Service during enrollment or contract renewal

about why specific types of cover practices are

encouraged?

How well 95%

informed National confidence interval

Not at all

 informed 7.3 9.09–5.68

Somewhat

 informed 37.9 41.06–34.76

Well informed 54.8 58.01–51.55

Question 12. In Question 12 some situations, to have a field renewed

in the CRP, the USDA requires that part of the field

have clover/alfalfa interseeded into existing grasses

or that native grasses be planted to replace existing

grasses. This is most often done to increase the fields’

value as wildlife habitat. Which of the following

answers best describe your feelings about these

requirements?

a. CRP benefits to wildlife are important

 95%

Answer National confidence interval

Strongly agree 31.8 35.05–28.54

Agree 43.6 47.01–40.08

Neutral 15.4 18.04–12.97

Disagree 6.3 8.14–4.70

Strongly disagree 3.0 4.32–1.90
50 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE REPORT--2003-0001

Appendix C

Question 12 (concluded) Question 12 (concluded)

Question 13

Appendix C. Continued.

Question 12 (concluded). Question 12 (concluded)

b. USDA requirements to enhance CRP covers to

maintain long-term benefits to wildlife are reasonable

 95%

Answer National confidence interval

Strongly agree 15.3 17.96–12.88

Agree 46.5 49.98–42.97

Neutral 22.1 25.11–19.26

Disagree 11.7 14.06–9.52

Strongly disagree 4.4 5.98–3.06

c. If CRP covers are well established there should

be no requirements to disturb or enhance them

to renew acres in the program

 95%

Answer National confidence interval

Strongly agree 45.1 48.59–41.61

Agree 36.8 40.21–33.43

Neutral 13.6 16.15–11.31

Disagree 3.4 4.87–2.26

Strongly disagree 1.0 1.92–0.43

Question 13. Question 13 If periodic management of CRP grassland

acres were encouraged to maintain desirable characteristics of vegetation, which method(s) would be most

suitable to your operation?

a. Mowing

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 42.3 45.42–38.98

Yes 57.7 60.89–54.45

b. Shredding/brushhoging

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 64.6 67.47–61.63

Yes 35.4 38.33–32.49

Question 13 (continued) Question 13 (continued).

c. Grazing

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 79.1 81.50–76.52

Yes 20.9 23.43–18.46

d. Burning

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 75.3 77.82–72.54

Yes 24.7 27.42–22.14

e. Disking/plowing

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 91.7 93.23–89.81

Yes 8.3 10.14–6.73

f. Herbicides

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 74.5 77.05–71.71

Yes 25.5 28.24–22.91

g. Other

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 94.6 95.82–93.00

Yes 5.4 6.95–4.14

h. Periodic management of CRP acres is not

desirable because I oppose disturbance

of CRP grassland fields

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 66.0 68.86–63.08

Yes 34.0 36.87–31.10
ALLEN AND VANDEVER 51

Appendix C

Question 13 (concluded) Question 13 (concluded)

. Concluded.

Question 13 (concluded).

i. I do not have equipment

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 85.5 87.58–83.27

Yes 14.5 16.68–12.38

j. I do not desire to manage the field

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 95.8 96.90–94.40

Yes 4.2 5.55–3.06

k. Other reasons

Answer National 95% confidence interval

No 90.2 91.87–88.20

Yes 9.8 11.75–8.09

Question 14Question 14 Question 14. In relation to periodic management of CRP

land, which of these choices are most appealing to

you?

 95%

Choices National confidence interval

No change 49.1 52.52–45.64

Periodic haying/

 grazing 7.3 9.22–5.61

Limited haying/

 grazing 11.5 13.85–9.43

Increased manage-

 ment practices with

 rental payments 32.1 35.31–28.89
 2003

 51

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE A

Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including time 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send 

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headqua

Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Managem

Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave

Blank)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

6. AUTHOR(S)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Biological Resources Division

 Allen, A.W., and Vandever, M.W.

 USGS/BRD/BSR--

 2003-0001

Available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650).

Available to registered users from the Defense Technical Information Center,

Attn: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA

22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 703-767-9050).

USGS - Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118 N/A

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL

A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands

Research and report completed in cooperation with, and funded by, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency.

A National survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contractees was completed to obtain information

about environmental and social effects of the program. Response rate was 64.5% (n = 2,189). Retired farmers

represented the largest category of respondents (52%). Enhanced control of soil erosion was the leading

benefit of the CRP reported. Over 73% of respondents observed increased numbers of wildlife associated with

lands enrolled in the program. The majority of respondents reported CRP benefits including increased quality

of surface and ground waters, improved air quality, control of drifting snow, and elevated opportunities to

hunt or simply observe wildlife. Income stability, improved scenic quality of farms and landscapes, and

potential increases in property values and future incomes also were seen as program benefits. Negative

aspects were reported by a smaller number of respondents. Over 75% of respondents believed CRP benefits

to wildlife were important. A majority of respondents (82%) believed the amount of assistance furnished by

USDA related to planning and maintaining wildlife habitat associated with CRP lands was appropriate.

Agriculture, agricultural ecosystems, Conservation Reserve Program,

CRP, USDA conservation policy, grasslands, habitat, wildlife

management, woodlands

8327-PAAF1

Biological Science Report (Final)
Fort Collins Science Center Fort Collins Science Center

Production Staff

Leader, Information Management Services

Desktop Publishing Specialist Desktop Publishing Specialist

Jennifer Shoemaker

Dora E. Medellin

NOTE: Mention of NOTE: trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by

the U.S. Government.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned

public lands and natural resources. This responsibility includes fostering the sound use of our lands and water resources; protecting

our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical

places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and

citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities.