National Association of Conservation Districts

Back to Buffer Notes Archive

Buffer Notes

January 2006

In This Issue:

1. Oregon CREP Takes Off
2. Oregon District Blends Education and Restoration
3. Hedgerow Poster Is Colorful Tool for Outreach
4. Researchers Seek To Weigh Buffer ‘Opportunity Costs’
5. CRP Conference Proceedings Are Online
6. Agroforestry Notes Focuses on Visual Simulation
   

1. Oregon CREP Takes Off
Amendment, TA program increase enrollment
Flexibility is one of the keys to success for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Oregon landowners have picked up on that.It’s been about a year since the FSA and state agreed to amend the Oregon CREP, making many more streams eligible and allowing the use of marginal pastureland wildlife buffers as conservation tools. In addition, FSA, state and local partners cooperate to fund CREP technicians in soil and water conservation districts, providing necessary technical assistance and outreach.

“We’ve had a really big jump since we worked with FSA on the amendment,” says Stephanie Page. She has been with the program since its inception as CREP coordinator, but recently moved on to other duties in the Natural Resources Division of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Mike Powers is the new coordinator. Page did have a chance to work on the CREP annual report for 2005 and visit sites in the field.

CREP has been available in Oregon since 1998, but a third of the state’s nearly 21,500 CREP acres have been enrolled since the agreement was amended. “I think it will even take off more this year,” Page says. The state increased funding for incentives this year, targeting work in several areas. “I think 2006 will be a record here.”

District technicians make program work
The state’s CREP works best in counties where conservation districts receive funding to hire technicians who assist landowners, she says. There are 15 technicians. “They have the time to do the technical work on CREP contracts,” says Page. “Our experience with conservation districts helping on CREP is a good model. Districts already have good relationships with local landowners.”

As noted in the state’s 2005 CREP Program Status and Monitoring Report, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board alone funded grant agreements totaling $275,000 with SWCDs in eight regions. Four SWCDs receive funding from the Bonneville Power Administration (a federal US Department of Energy agency). The Wasco SWCD requested funding from both sources this year because CREP technicians have created such an interest in the program they are no longer able to service all of the workload. Wasco now has 2.8 staff working full-time on CREP.

The report also noted that state and federal CREP investments have leveraged technical assistance funds from other sources as well. In Yamhill and Polk counties, local SWCDs leveraged OWEB technical assistance funds to receive funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for an additional full-time-equivalent position for CREP. In the Tualatin watershed, as part of the revised CREP agreement, Clean Water Services, a wastewater and stormwater public utility, provides funding for two full-time technicians at the local SWCD.

The report also notes: “In other counties, CREP contract implementation can be delayed because of inadequate technical staff numbers. Most commonly, NRCS staff are too overloaded to determine site eligibility and complete conservation plans in a timely manner.”

Up to 100,000 acres can be enrolled in the CREP. Full enrollment would produce funding of $193 million from the federal government, $38 million from the state and additional funds from other sources. In addition to SWCDs receiving funds, at least eight others have expressed interest.

Training helps TAs gain needed information
Training is a component of the effort. In late 2004, FSA, the Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Agriculture provided training at two well-attended sessions, according to the state report. In March 2005, Wasco SWCD, FSA and ODF staff provided technical training for other conservation district CREP technicians. Training focused on planting specifications, off-stream watering designs, fencing plans and other information.

“In each area where OWEB invested technical assistance funds, SWCDs cooperated with federal agencies to provide training to new technicians,” the state report said. “Several CREP technical staff participated in an intensive conservation planning training presented by NRCS.”

The 2005 Oregon CREP report is at http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/docs/pdf/water/crep05annualreport.pdf.
The FSA web site at www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crpinfo.htm also has information.

2. Oregon District Blends Education and Restoration
In Douglas County, Oregon, the state’s CREP is one of several riparian restoration efforts helping to make a positive difference.

Douglas County includes five geological formations, from the Pacific Coast to the tops of the Cascade Mountains. With such varied landscape, the Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District has a lot on its plate, including river restoration, forestry, invasive species work and other duties. River restoration can be complicated work in the West. Challenges in counties like Douglas include a checkerboard of public and private ownership, endangered species issues and invasive species concerns.

Most district programs have strong education and outreach components, says District Manager Walt Barton, be that involving student groups in river restoration or educating adults about appropriate plants to use in landscaping. “We’re almost always educating at the same time we’re doing projects. We try to get involved in the community quite a bit and let people know the facts, whatever the issue is,” he says.

CREP has helped with riparian restoration and fencing on 17 miles of streams. The district averages about 15 CREP projects per year, says Barton. The county has two SWCDs, Douglas and Umpqua. A CREP technician works out of the Umpqua office and helps landowners in both districts. (See accompanying story on the Oregon CREP.)“In areas where CREP really works, the partner agencies get along well, and that is the case in Douglas. The Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service and the districts cooperate well,” says Stephanie Page of the Natural Resources Division of the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

The cooperation extends well beyond those partners, too. With several local, state and federal partners also involved in restoration, and a number of different programs, the conservation district serves as a clearing house, Barton says. “Ninety percent of the folks we serve come to us. We’re your local neighbors and friends and can bring the government in if you want.”

In addition to tree plantings and fence construction under CREP, the Douglas District is involved with fish passage and culvert replacement work for the Umpqua Basin Fish Advisory Team. Several state and federal partners also cooperate on that project. The district administers the program and does the field work.

Restoration, education go hand-in-hand
A showcase project for river restoration and fish passage work done by the district is the Mildred Kanipe Memorial County Park. In addition to providing recreation opportunities for county residents, the park serves as a working ranch and outdoor education center. Longtime resident Mildred Kanipe deeded 1,000 acres to the county in her will, with the stipulation that conservation education should be provided at the site. County government turned to the conservation district for site work.

Students are involved with stream and culvert surveys to assure adequate passage for spawning populations of coho salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout. Ten school groups have been directly involved, with about 300 students participating. “We’ve done a lot with schools. We hope working with them will lead to differences in the real world,” says Project Manager Jim Lee, a former teacher who turned to conservation district work because “you can really help the landowner, and you’re still teaching.”

Partners in restoration efforts include FSA, NRCS, the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife, county government, the Douglas County Habitat Improvement Association and the Umpqua Fisherman’s Derby. The Forest Service’s Wolf Creek Job Corps and BLM Youth Conservation Corps have both provided crews at the park.

The park also provides habitat for an array of wildlife species. “The Columbian whitetail deer was de-listed in part because of secure populations in places like this park,” says Lee.

3. Hedgerow Poster Is Colorful Tool for Outreach

“Hedgerow” is blandly described in dictionaries as “a row of shrubs or trees enclosing or separating fields.”

In western Washington State, a poster commissioned by two conservation districts to promote hedgerows is anything but bland. “Pacific Northwest Hedgerows,” created by Good Nature Publishing Co. of Seattle, is a colorful depiction of the value of hedgerows to rural settings and people, plants and animals. “While the art work represents an impressive mix of native flora and fauna, the story of hedgerows’ growth, benefits and usefulness is universal,” says Timothy Colman of Good Nature Publishing.

King County Conservation District Co-Coordinator Brandy Reed agrees. “The idea was to develop a beautiful poster that would in a sense market a conservation practice and communicate that practice in terms of the natural resource benefits conferred,” she says.

The King District and neighboring Kitsap District plan to use the poster to reach out to rural residents and other groups. Hedgerows have many applications, Reed says. They can be used to enhance the work of buffers installed on agricultural lands under CCRP, CREP and other incentive programs. Hedgerows have value on smaller agricultural tracts where cooperators need land for production but still want to install a conservation practice. “Sometimes they have to have a compromise, and that might be a grass filter strip and a hedgerow. That gives us flexibility to help meet the landowner’s need,” Reed says. Hedgerows are also marketed to landowners who want to install conservation practices but don’t qualify for incentive programs.

In some settings, landowners receive federal or state cost sharing for buffers and other practices and add hedgerows at their own cost. Hedgerows also qualify for cost-sharing under some state and local programs. The King District and King County provide local matches for the practice. The district also administers state water quality enhancement cost-share funds from the Washington State Conservation Commission. The state’s new animal feeding operation regulations also provide some cost-share funds. “The King District is actively marketing buffers, and hedgerows are a big part of what we do,” Reed says.

So what plants do a hedgerow make? “On a well-drained, full-sun site, we would lean toward upland species like roses, thimbleberry, snowberry, probably some trees to give vertical structure,” Reed says. “On a wet site, we’d lean more towards species like crabapple, black hawthorn and salmonberry.”

In either case, “we shoot for a real thicket, and try to make it as thorny as possible,” she says. “We want to make them as wide and thick as possible so they knit together into living fence. “We want low shrubs as well as tall shrubs and trees for optimum wildlife habitat.

To help landowners accomplish that, the district Web site has a fact sheet listing all native plant nurseries in the county. It also operates the Wetland Plant Cooperative native plant nursery. Plants for district restoration projects are grown there. Volunteers work at the nursery in exchange for plant materials. The district also holds an annual bare root plant sale.

Poster will have broad application
The district intends to market the Pacific Northwest Hedgerows poster to cooperators, the general public and to schools. “We’re looking to promote it to a broad audience to provide communication about ways to balance rural agricultural land use and conservation,” Reed says. More information on hedgerows will also be available on the district Web site.

Good Nature Publishing will also sell laminated versions of the poster to the general public.

For more information about the poster project and hedgerows, visit Good Nature Publishing’s Web site at http://www.goodnaturepublishing.com or the district’s Web site at http://www.kingcd.org/.

4. Researchers Seek To Weigh Buffer ‘Opportunity Costs’
Field borders—or upland habitat buffers—are recognized as some of the most beneficial CCRP practices for wildlife. But producers have to weight other considerations, too. Scientists at Mississippi State University are trying to pinpoint producer opportunity costs associated with implementing the practices.

During 2000-2002, researchers Philip Barbour, Rick Hamrick, Wes Burger and Steve Martin examined effects of herbaceous field border buffers on opportunity costs on soybean and corn fields in the Black Prairie region in Northeast Mississippi. They compared net profit of field margin areas between two scenarios: continued row crop production vs. enrollment in Continuous CRP CP33 – Habitat Buffers for Upland Wildlife.

Field margins are frequently low-producing crop-yield areas. Yields are influenced by adjacent plant communities that compete for sunlight, water and nutrients. The greatest yield reductions are associated with woody cover.

The MSU study found that crop type, expected yield and commodity prices influenced economically optimal buffer width. As reported in “Research Advances,” a publication of the Forest & Wildlife Research Center at MSU, the researchers found that optimal buffer width increased as expected yield and commodity prices declined and as expected CRP soil rental rate increased.

On average, 30- to 60-foot buffers were optimal in association with corn, while optimal buffer width for soybean fields depended on yield and commodity prices.

The researchers are developing simple spreadsheet decision support tools that would allow producers to input site-specific production costs, expected yields, commodity prices, soil rental rates and USDA commodity payments. These tools are intended to help producers make informed decisions as they balance the sometimes competing objectives of economic return and environmental stewardship.

Wildlife values seen in other research
While optimum buffer widths may vary, research shows that wildlife numbers increase dramatically when practices like CP-33 are installed. “Research Advances” notes that one study found that bobwhite quail were two to three times more abundant on farms with field borders when compared to similar farms lacking borders. “Field borders increase use of fields by bobwhite, hold birds on the landscape during the breeding season and improve nesting and brood-rearing habitat,” the publication said. “Field margins with field borders support more diverse and abundant bird communities during winter and summer.”

It added that research in MSU’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and Department of Entomology demonstrated that pest weed species are not increased by field borders, and beneficial insect abundance is greater in fields with field borders.

For more information on field border research and other research at MSU, go to http://www.cfr.msstate.edu/fwrc/publications/advances.htm.

5. CRP Conference Proceedings Are Online
The US Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have jointly published conference proceedings from “The Conservation Reserve Program: Planting for the Future” event, held in June 2004 in Fort Collins, Colorado. The conference highlighted the 10-year working relationship between the Farm Service Agency and the US Geological Survey.

The 248-page online book, published from the joint FSA/USGS conference, features discussion summaries based upon topical discussions in which a variety of stakeholders – researchers, farmers and representatives from universities, government agencies and other organizations – took part. Participants discussed how to most efficiently implement the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The event placed special emphasis on the role of science in measuring CRP’s accomplishments.

“Investing in scientific research helps to explain CRP’s benefits to the environment and our natural resources,” said FSA Administrator Teresa Lasseter. “The technical knowledge from this conference provides decision-makers with an important tool to ensure the effective use of CRP to improve water quality and wildlife habitat.”

“Our long-term partnership studying conservation issues has shown that economically viable agriculture and natural resources protection can be complementary,” said Dr. P. Patrick Leahy, acting director of the USGS. “Through our scientific research, we continue to help USDA enhance environmental quality in the nation’s agricultural and rural communities.”

Ongoing developments between FSA and USGS include a monitoring, assessment and analysis system that incorporates science into program delivery. Analysis from USGS identifies CRP’s benefits for grassland birds while assessing CRP haying and grazing impacts on wildlife. The cooperative effort between the two agencies serves to:

The new online book is available on the FSA site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/crpconf04/21490.pdf.

6. Agroforestry Notes Focuses on Visual Simulation
The January issue of Agroforestry Notes, published by the National Agroforestry Center, is entirely devoted to visual simulation as a tool for installing practices like riparian buffers, windbreaks and other practices. As a conservation tool, visual simulation uses image-editing computer software to present illustrations of how systems would appear at various stages of development or with different species compositions or arrangements.

Agroforestry Notes is on the Web at http://www.unl.edu/nac/pubs.html#periodicals.