Conservation Insight—Estimated CRP Benefits to Mixed-Grass Prairie Birds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CEAP Conservation Insight Estimated CRP Benefits to July 2008 Mixed-Grass Prairie Birds Summary Findings Background 1999, Reynolds et al. 2001), few have quantified the effects of CRP on regional • The 3.4 million acres enrolled in the The Conservation Reserve Program bird populations. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (CRP) is a USDA program under which in the mixed-grass prairie regions of private landowners voluntarily establish When CRP was developed in 1985, its Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and grass and other conservation vegetation primary purpose was to reduce soil ero- Texas provide important grassland on highly erodible and other environ- sion and surplus commodity production. habitat for priority bird species associ- mentally sensitive cropland. Landowners Many CRP fields in the Great Plains ated with this landscape. receive annual rental payments on en- were planted to monocultures or mix- rolled acreage under 10- to 15-year tures of introduced grass species and • Geospatial land cover analysis tools contracts. have remained undisturbed. As a result, and species-specific habitat models CRP fields may have dissimilar vegeta- developed by the Playa Lakes Joint By 2007, nearly 3.4 million acres in the tion composition and structure relative Venture provide a means to quantify Mixed-Grass Prairie Bird Conservation the contribution of CRP habitats to to surrounding native prairie. Wildlife Region (BCR19) (see figure 1) had been meeting population goals for important habitat potential varies with CRP stand enrolled in CRP and established in grass grassland birds. characteristics. cover. Due to loss of native grass and • Species showing the greatest benefit documented declines in grassland bird In recent years, the focus of CRP has from CRP were dickcissel, eastern populations in North America (Samson expanded to include wildlife habitat as meadowlark, and grasshopper sparrow, and Knopf 1994), the CRP has great an additional program objective. Begin- where CRP contributes more than 15 potential to affect mixed-grass prairie ning in 1996, enrollments in CRP have percent of the population goal for the birds. Whereas many studies have docu- been selected to maximize erosion con- mixed-grass prairie portion of at least mented localized benefits of CRP enroll- trol, water quality, and wildlife habitat two of the four states assessed. ments to grassland birds (King and benefits through use of an Environ- Savidge 1995, Best et al. 1997, Rodgers mental Benefits Index (EBI). Addition- • Some species benefit little from CRP (e.g., Swainson’s hawk), whereas oth- ers benefit substantially. The most ex- treme example is where CRP habitat supports over 61 percent of the popula- tion goal for dickcissel in the mixed- grass prairie region in Texas. • The occurrence of CRP enrollments in the vicinity of existing grassland im- proved the quality of these existing grasslands by increasing the size of large blocks of grass. This improve- ment contributes over 6 percent of the population goal for lesser prairie- chickens in the mixed-grass prairie portion of Kansas. Recommendation • Strategically planning CRP enroll- ments spatially and managing cover on enrolled lands have the potential to improve the ability of conservationists to support priority grassland bird popu- lations in the Great Plains. Figure 1. The Central Mixed-Grass Prairie Bird Conservation Region—BCR19. ally, in recognition of the need for peri- • Great Plains GIS Partnership 1. Land cover with current CRP fields odic disturbance and management of (G2P2). A collaborative group of included in the landscape. CRP land, managed haying and grazing GIS professionals from the U.S. have been authorized as tools to improve Fish and Wildlife Service, PLJV, 2. Land cover with all current CRP the quality of CRP lands for wildlife. Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, fields converted to cropland. The The 2008 Farm Bill added provisions for Nebraska Game and Parks Commis- amount of each crop type appor- routine grazing on CRP lands. Managed sion, and Central Platte Natural Re- tioned to these cropland acres was haying and grazing that considers wild- sources District. The partnership is based on 2004 county-level data life needs are important tools that enable dedicated to the development, from the National Agricultural Sta- landowners to alter the vegetation struc- evaluation, and integration of GIS tistics Service. ture of existing CRP habitat to suit the data into biological and landscape The difference in habitat carrying capac- requirements of target species. These level planning models for the cen- ity between the two scenarios is there- changes to CRP offer potential benefit to tral Great Plains. grassland birds, considering the large fore a useful measure of the effect of current CRP enrollments on breeding CRP enrollments in the Great Plains. This project was initiated to answer the question, “How many birds does CRP habitat potential in BCR19 for each of support in BCR19?” Twelve priority the 12 bird species examined. Partnership for Evaluation bird species that are known to use CRP Four integrated components were used or cropland habitat in BCR19 and for In 2007, a partnership was formed to create and compare the two assess- which adequate population density data among the Playa Lakes Joint Venture ment scenarios: (PLJV), Natural Resources Conservation are available were selected for analysis Service (NRCS), and Farm Service (table 1). The assessment was designed 1. A seamless spatial land cover layer Agency (FSA) to conduct an evaluation to produce BCR19 estimates of— for BCR19 that depicts specific of the effects of lands enrolled in the • how many birds CRP currently sup- habitat Associations and Condi- CRP on priority bird habitats in BCR19. ports during the breeding season, tions. This Conservation Insight provides a • how many birds would be supported 2. Bird densities. brief synopsis of the assessment; full if CRP acres were converted back to 3. Bird population goals. details are available from the PLJV final cropland, and 4. The HABS database. project report posted at http:// • how those estimates compare to www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ceap/ established regional population These components provided the founda- library.html. goals for these species. tion for the four principal steps in the analysis: The PLJV led the effort, using tools and resources uniquely applicable to this Assessment Approach 1. Calculate the number of acres of assessment: each habitat, including CRP from Effects of CRP on individual priority FSA Common Land Unit data, • Species for Management Action bird species were assessed by comparing within each state-level sector of (SMA) database. A tool that com- the habitat carrying capacities of the BCR19 and determine the availabil- piles and stores conservation status following two land cover scenarios for ity and suitability of each habitat to information from multiple sources the mixed-grass prairie BCR: each bird species. CRP habitat for all bird species in the region. condition was derived from the con- servation practice used during en- • Hierarchical All Bird System rollment of each CRP contract (HABS) database. A tool devel- (PLJV 2007). oped to calculate a landscape’s ca- pacity to achieve species-specific 2. Calculate species-specific carrying population objectives for priority capacities for the two landscape species, under current land use and scenarios by linking bird species alternative future scenarios. densities to habitat area and condi- tion in each state-level sector of • A review of distribution, habitat The PLJV is a non-profit partnership of BCR19. To do this, the PLJV Land- use, and population density data Federal and state wildlife agencies, con- bird Team and Waterbird Team for the HABS Database. An ex- servation groups, private industry, and assigned priority species to habitat landowners dedicated to conserving bird haustive literature review (updated habitat in the southern Great Plains. It Associations (broad landcover frequently) that serves as a one-stop provides science-based guidance and classes) and Conditions (landcover resource guide for demographic and decision-support tools for all-bird conser- characteristics important to birds). ecological information on bird spe- vation throughout the region, as well as Species densities were determined cies in the central Great Plains outreach, coordination, and financial for each habitat Association and (Dobbs 2007). support to its partners and local groups Condition based on an exhaustive to conduct on-the-ground habitat conser- literature review (Dobbs 2007) and vation and restoration. integration of U.S. Geological Sur- 2 vey Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) Current Estimated Carrying Capacity Use of the Hierarchical All Bird System relative abundance maps. Densities (1-Absolute Value [Trend])29 (HABS) were stored in HABS and related to The HABS database is a tool developed the acreage of each habitat Associa- 4. Determine how much of the popula- by PLJV to store habitat parameters and tion and Condition to calculate car- tion goal is being addressed by CRP calculate a landscape’s capacity to rying capacities. enrollments by comparing the carry- achieve population objectives for prior- ing capacities of the two landscape ity species. The carrying capacity can be 3. Step down the national population scenarios using HABS. Each state based on current conditions (i.e., current goals of each species to each state- within the BCR was analyzed sepa- habitat availability) and/or potential fu- level sector of BCR19. The PLJV rately because bird population goals ture conditions (i.e., alternative scenar- Landbird Team developed breeding and bird-to-habitat links (i.e., densi- ios of future habitat availability resulting population goals for all priority spe- ties) are most appropriately related from conservation and management cies in BCR 19 following the Part- at this spatial scale. work). In HABS, data are stored in a ners in Flight objective of returning hierarchical manner such that each bird As many habitat parameters as possible bird populations to 1970s levels density is specific to not only a species (Rich et al.