Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program:
Status and Current Issues
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
August 24, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40051
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Summary
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program that provides technical
and financial assistance to eligible lands to improve and develop wildlife habitat and enhance
wildlife populations. Participants enter into contracts, usually 5 to 10 years in duration, with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
which pays up to 75% of the contract implementation cost. Since its initial authorization in the
1996 farm bill, WHIP has enrolled more than 4.7 million acres through 29,000 contracts. Eligible
acreage includes privately owned agricultural land, tribal land, and nonindustrial private forest
land. Some selected issues for the 111th Congress include mandatory funding levels, a change in
program eligibility requirements, a continuing backlog of unfunded applications, and species-
specific funding.

Congressional Research Service

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Contents
Program Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1
Eligibility and Program Requirements ................................................................................... 1
Program Funding .................................................................................................................. 2
Selected Issues ............................................................................................................................ 4
Mandatory Funding Levels.................................................................................................... 4
Program Eligibility................................................................................................................ 4
Unfunded Application Backlog ............................................................................................. 5
Species-Specific Funding ...................................................................................................... 6

Figures
Figure 1. FY2008 WHIP Financial Assistance Obligated ............................................................. 5

Tables
Table 1. WHIP Funding and Reductions, FY2003-FY2009.......................................................... 2
Table 2. Four Largest WHIP Allocation Recipient States, FY2003-FY2008 ................................. 3
Table 3. Funded and Unfunded WHIP Contracts, FY2003-FY2008 ............................................. 6

Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 7

Congressional Research Service

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Program Overview
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was originally authorized in Section 387 of the
1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127, 16 U.S.C. 3839bb-1) and was reauthorized and amended in both the
2002 and 2008 farm bills.1 The current WHIP authority extends through FY2012. The purpose of
WHIP is to enable eligible participants to develop habitat for upland wildlife, wetland wildlife,
threatened and endangered species, fish, and other types of wildlife of local, state, and national
significance. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) establishes national
priorities that reflect national wildlife concerns. These priorities, along with other resource
factors, are used at the national level to allocate funding to states. The current national priorities,
set in 2009 by NRCS, are as follows:
• promote the restoration of declining or important native wildlife habitats;
• protect, restore, develop, or enhance wildlife habitat of at-risk species (candidate
species, and state and federally listed threatened and endangered species);
• reduce the impacts of invasive species on wildlife habitats; and
• protect, restore, develop, or enhance declining or important aquatic wildlife
species’ habitats.
NRCS also works at the state and local levels to set wildlife priorities. Each state develops a
WHIP Plan to establish priorities and coordinate NRCS activities with those of other agencies and
groups. State technical committees advise NRCS state conservationists2 on WHIP priorities and
the state WHIP Plan. This coordination also encourages the leveraging of other state, federal, and
private sources of funding to address state and local wildlife concerns. Generally, states select two
to six priority habitat types, which consistently include one or more upland and riparian habitats.
Priorities set at the national, state, and local levels are factors in deciding which contracts will be
accepted.
Eligibility and Program Requirements
Privately owned agricultural land, tribal land, and nonindustrial private forest land may be
eligible under WHIP. Applicants must have control of the land under consideration. Applications
can come from individuals, groups, or businesses. Prior to enactment of the 2008 farm bill, WHIP
was unique among farm bill conservation programs in that eligible land was not required to be in
agricultural production. The 2008 farm bill amended the purpose of WHIP to developing wildlife
habitat on private agricultural land (see “Selected Issues” section, below). The number of acres
that can be enrolled in WHIP is not limited. However, the total amount of individual payments
made to a person or legal entity (both directly or indirectly) through WHIP may not exceed
$50,000 per year. This payment limitation was also added in the 2008 farm bill.
NRCS receives applications on a continuous basis throughout the year, but application selection
and funding dates vary by state. Applications are ranked and selected at the state level, based on
national and state priorities (as discussed above). Applicants work with NRCS to produce a

1 P.L. 107-171, Sec. 2502, and P.L. 110-246, Sec. 2602, respectively.
2 The NRCS state conservationist is a high-ranking civil servant responsible for management and direction of all NRCS
operations within a state.
Congressional Research Service
1

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

wildlife development plan. The plan assesses the condition of wildlife habitat on the land, makes
recommendations for habitat improvements through various practices, and becomes the basis of
the contract between NRCS and the participant. Examples of practices authorized under WHIP
include native grassland seeding, prescribed burns, hardwood planting, and fish passage structure
installation.
NRCS provides cost-share payments based on the implementation of practices identified in the
contract. These payments can cover up to 75% of the cost of implementing the practice. Contracts
usually vary in length from 5 to 10 years depending on the number and type of practices being
installed. In FY2008, more than 640,000 acres were enrolled through more than 3,400 contracts.
WHIP also provides additional cost-share (up to 100% of the cost) to landowners who are willing
to enter into contracts of 15 years or longer for practices affecting essential plant and animal
habitat. The 2002 farm bill limited funding for these contracts to no more than 15% of the amount
authorized annually for WHIP. This limit was increased in the 2008 farm bill to no more than
25% of the authorized annual funding. NRCS reports that, on average, it reimburses participants
approximately $16,300 for each long-term contract lasting 15 years or longer. Short-term
contracts (less than 5 years) are also allowed, but only to install practices needed for a wildlife
emergency (such as drought).3
Program Funding
The 1996 farm bill authorized WHIP funding of $10 million annually from FY1996 through
FY2002. The 2002 farm bill significantly increased the authorized funding level to a total of $345
million between FY2003 and FY2007.4 The 2008 farm bill increased the authorized funding
levels further to a total of $425 million between FY2008 and FY2012. Funding under WHIP is
mandatory (not subject to annual appropriations), and authorized amounts are received each year
under the borrowing authority of USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).5 However,
Congress has limited WHIP funding below authorized levels in the past, including a total
reduction of $140 million between FY2003 and FY2009. Total funding approved between
FY2003 and FY2009 was 27% below that of total authorized funding levels.6 Most reductions are
requested annually through the President’s budget and adopted in annual agriculture
appropriations bills. Table 1 compares the authorized and actual funding levels for WHIP.
Table 1. WHIP Funding and Reductions, FY2003-FY2009
($ in millions)
Fiscal
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total
Authorized
$30
$60 $85 $85 $85 $85 $85
$515
Funding Level
Actual
Funding $30
$42 $47 $43 $43 $85 $85
$375
Funding
Reduction
$0
$18 $38 $42 $42 $0 $0
$140
Source: CRS, based on historical Agriculture Appropriations Reports.

3 These short-term contracts can only be approved by the NRCS state conservationist.
4 See Table 1 for annual amounts.
5 The CCC is administered by a Board of Directors from agencies of the Department of Agriculture. It has no staff, and
all work on its behalf is performed by staff of agencies within USDA. For WHIP, NRCS provides staff.
6 For more information, see CRS Report R40000, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
2

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Annual funding received by WHIP is allocated to the states by NRCS using a formula based on
natural resource need, efficiency and performance measures, and regional equity. States that
receive the largest WHIP allocations vary from year to year. Table 2 highlights these states and
their funding between FY2003 and FY2008. Why these particular states receive the highest level
of funding from year to year may be due to several different factors. One factor could be the
regional equity provision in the 2002 farm bill, which mandates that each state receive annually a
minimum aggregate amount of funding for specified conservation programs.7 In FY2007, all four
states that received the highest level of funding fell under this provision. A second factor could be
the location of species-specific initiatives. Since FY2004, NRCS has conducted a series of
species-specific habitat initiatives that can increase funding in certain states.8
Table 2. Four Largest WHIP Allocation Recipient States, FY2003-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Fiscal
Highest
2nd Highest
3rd Highest
4th Highest
Total
Year
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
2003 Rhode
Island Mississippi
South Carolina
Oklahoma
$21,184
$830
$619
$619
$596
2004 California
Alaska
Rhode Island
Washington
$27,828
$1,465
$1,149
$1,029
$1,009
2005 California
Alaska
Arkansas
New Hampshire
$34,860
$1,768
$1,582
$1,565
$1,448
2006 Rhode
Island New Hampshire
Alaska
Connecticut
$32,509
$1,805
$1,687
$1,472
$1,450
2007 Alaska
Rhode Island
Hawaii
New Hampshire
$39,916
$3,491
$3,354
$2,777
$2,186
2008 California
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Texas
$57,811
$2,813
$2,574
$2,080
$1,801
Source: USDA, NRCS, WHIP Contract and Funding Information, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/.
Notes: Allocations in this table represent financial assistance allocated to states only. Technical assistance,
administrative, and technology costs are not included.
NRCS partners with local public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other technical service
providers to compound the amount of available funds for technical and financial assistance. Each
state WHIP Plan (as described in the “Program Overview” section) seeks to leverage other state,
federal, and private dollars in a coordinated effort to address wildlife habitat. In FY2007,
according to NRCS, partners contributed over $762 million to assist WHIP participants with
approved wildlife habitat improvement practices on enrolled acres.

7 The regional equity provision was first instituted in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, Sec. 2701) and reauthorized in
the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Sec. 2703). The provision affects not only WHIP but also the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, Farmland Protection Program, and Grassland Reserve Program. The 2008 farm bill increased the
minimum level of funding to each state for these combined four conservation programs from $12 million to $15
million.
8 The topic of species-specific initiatives is discussed further in the “Selected Issues” section.
Congressional Research Service
3

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Selected Issues
Mandatory Funding Levels
The 2008 farm bill reauthorized WHIP through September 30, 2012, with a maintained
authorized funding level of $85 million annually. As shown in Table 1, the authorized funding
level has remained at $85 million annually since FY2005; however, annual appropriations acts
have reduced the actual funding levels.9 With the 111th Congress facing tighter budget constraints,
similar cuts to WHIP could be considered either in the appropriations process or if budget
reconciliation is required.
Program Eligibility
The 2008 farm bill placed new limitations on lands eligible to be enrolled in WHIP, which will
likely reduce the number of eligible acres in traditionally high participation states. Language was
added requiring WHIP to be used “for the development of wildlife habitat on private agricultural
land, nonindustrial private forest land, and tribal lands.” The addition of this language reverses
the previous interpretation by NRCS, which extended eligibility to all privately owned land, tribal
land, state/local government land, or federal land.10 By previously offering support for wildlife
habitat projects on all land and aquatic areas, WHIP provided an assistance option to landowners
who were unable to meet the specific eligibility requirements of other USDA conservation
programs. The new requirement of agricultural production will likely shift financial assistance for
WHIP contracts away from the traditionally large allocation states (see Table 2 and Figure 1) to
more agriculturally intensive states. The impact of the change in eligibility cannot fully be
analyzed until NRCS releases funding obligation information for FY2009.

9 FY2008 is an exception because Congress passed several extension bills allowing the program to continue operation
at full authorized funding levels until the 2008 farm bill passed. Funding levels authorized in extensions were not
reduced by appropriations. Funding was not reduced in FY2009, though the Bush Administration did request a
reduction and the Senate-reported agriculture appropriations bill (S. 3289) reduced WHIP to $74 million. This
reduction was not included in the 2009 omnibus (P.L. 111-8).
10 State and local government land could only be used on a limited basis, and federal lands were only eligible when the
primary benefit was on private lands and the project could not meet its objectives without involving the federal land.
Congressional Research Service
4

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Figure 1. FY2008 WHIP Financial Assistance Obligated

Source: USDA, NRCS, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/FY08contract_info/m10405whip_dollar.gif.
Unfunded Application Backlog
As stated earlier, the 2002 farm bill significantly increased mandatory funding for WHIP. One
reason for this funding expansion was the sizable number of pending applications that exceed
available funding. Limitations on funding in annual appropriations have reduced this authorized
increase and contributed to the continuing backlog of unfunded applications.11 Table 3 shows the
percentage of total contracts funded for FY2003-FY2008. Though the backlog gap is narrowing,
WHIP continues to have a backlog of over 1,600 applications.12 Some considered the large
unfunded application backlog a strong argument for additional funding in the 2008 farm bill;
however, authorized levels remain at $85 million annually. If Congress again limits annual
funding through appropriations or budget reconciliation, the actual level of funding could be
significantly less than the authorized level and increase the backlog. On the other hand, the recent
eligibility changes from the 2008 farm bill will reduce the number of eligible acres for WHIP and
possibly reduce the backlog of unfunded applications.

11 The backlog of unfunded applications does not include applications that are incomplete or rejected. Applications in
the backlog represent complete and eligible applications that could be ranked and funded at the state level if funding
were available.
12 At the conclusion of FY2008, states with the highest average of unfunded applications are: Oklahoma (397), Iowa
(143), Arkansas (136), Kentucky (103), and Alabama (103).
Congressional Research Service
5

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Table 3. Funded and Unfunded WHIP Contracts, FY2003-FY2008
Total Contracts
Total Contracts
Percentage of

Funded
Unfunded
Contracts Funded
2003 2,123
3,660 37%
2004 3,017
3,033 50%
2005 3,342
2,182 61%
2006 2,717
2,178 56%
2007 2,107
3,243 40%
2008a 3,495
1,688 67%
Source: USDA, NRCS, WHIP Contract and Funding Information, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/.
a. In FY2008, WHIP was fully funded at the authorized level of $85 million. Congress passed several extension
bills allowing the program to continue operation at full authorized funding levels until the 2008 farm bill was
enacted.
Species-Specific Funding
Many wildlife organizations (e.g., Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited) focus their efforts on
certain species or habitat. Other organizations representing broader wildlife interests (e.g.,
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) are supportive of localized priority funding levels
with the occasional national species-specific focus. The interest of these organizations in
additional species-specific or habitat-specific funding was partially addressed in the 2008 farm
bill through additional language regarding priority for certain conservation initiatives. The farm
bill encourages, but did not require, USDA to give priority to WHIP projects that address issues
raised by state, regional, and national conservation initiatives.13 The farm bill’s conference report
(H.Rept. 110-627) further directed USDA to consider the goals and objectives of wildlife
conservation initiatives14 when establishing state and national program priorities, scoring criteria,
focus areas, and other special initiatives, and to work with other state and federal agencies to
complement wildlife conservation initiatives through USDA programs. The extent to which
USDA will follow this directive language remains to be seen. However, any progress will likely
be monitored by several interested wildlife organizations.

13 WHIP has a history of funding species-specific habitat initiatives beginning in FY2004 with a Salmon Habitat
Restoration Initiative. National species-specific initiatives have dropped off in recent years, while state and local level
initiatives have continued.
14 H.Rept. 110-627 listed examples of state, regional, and national conservation initiatives, including the “North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation
Strategy, the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (also referred to as the State Wildlife Action
Plans), the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, and State forest resource strategies.”
Congressional Research Service
6

.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

Author Contact Information

Megan Stubbs

Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707

Congressional Research Service
7