The Conservation Title of the 1985 Farm Bill (Food Security Act) included provisions to reduce soil erosion on highly erodible land (HEL) through conservation practices such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) plantings and reduced tillage. Land enrolled in CRP was planted to perennial, non-harvested vegetation for at least a ten-year period in exchange for annual rental payments. Soil survey data, including slope, soil texture and depth are used to identify HEL. Those producers farming on HEL-dominated fields were to employ reduced tillage practices to remain eligible for USDA commodity programs; this was known as the conservation compliance provision of the 1985 Farm Bill.

A one-time inventory of conservation practices in the South Fork watershed was conducted during 2005. We compared the distribution of no-tillage management and CRP plantings with the distribution of HEL, which occupies 12% of the watershed (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Distribution of key conservation practices for erosion control in the South Fork watershed, compared to the distribution of Highly Erodible Land. Very little (2.4%) of the watershed's cropland had been enrolled into CRP by producers, partly because this is some of the most productive rain-fed agricultural land in the U.S. While CRP has also been used to install buffers along streams and around livestock facilities, there has been apparent success in targeting of CRP towards HEL. That is, the proportion of HEL in the watershed in CRP is 4.6%, as opposed to only 2.2% of non-HEL (Table 2). Table 2 Comparative distributions of CRP and no-tillage conservation practices on highly erodible and non-highly erodible lands in the South Fork watershed, along with conventional tillage practices. Management HEL (12%) Non- HEL (88%) Total (100%) Conservation Reserve Program 4.6% 2.2% 2.4 No-tillage 11.3% 6.7% 7.2 Conventional tillage 28.0% 30.0% 29.8 The same is true of no-tillage practices that are highly effective in controlling erosion: although relatively few producers in this watershed have implemented no-tillage, largely due to concerns about planting delays during wet, cool spring conditions, a greater proportion of HEL (11.3%) is under no-tillage than is non-HEL (6.7%). There is little comparative data to evaluate whether these practices are better targeted towards HEL in this watershed than in other areas. However, targeting success may also be indicated if conventional tillage practices that increase soil susceptibility to erosion have shifted away from HEL as these conservation practices were implemented. This does not appear to be the case, as conventional tillage occupies nearly the same proportion of HEL and non-HEL cropland, to within 2%. It is important to note that in 1985, when current policies where initiated, most of this watershed was probably tilled conventionally. This inventory offers only a snapshot of conservation practices. Current conservation policies, which have had a goal of controlling soil erosion from the most sensitive soils for 20 years, have encouraged better management on the most vulnerable lands in the watershed. Yet, the least desirable tillage practices apparently have not preferentially shifted away from HEL. This raises questions about social-behavioral responses to conservation policies, which are made by individual producers, yet in sum determine the impact of those policies in each watershed.