How Upstream Conservation Efforts Benefit the Chesapeake Bay

April 3, 2026

Many programs help to restore the Bay, its water quality, and wildlife through common goals focused on education, advocacy, and implementation of practices that improve larger landscapes and offer benefits to private landowners

The Chesapeake Bay historically supported an abundance of wildlife within a diverse ecological community. An abundance of blue crabs, oysters, menhaden, rockfish, ospreys, and many other wildlife species have made this region a home and a valued destination for as long as humans have occupied the continent. The Bay region has long supported a diverse culture, a productive food resource, and an outdoor recreation paradise.

But over time, Bay productivity has declined. While still a diverse ecosystem, the overall health of the Chesapeake has been affected by human impacts that have degraded water quality. Development, contaminated stormwater, runoff from agricultural operations, abandoned mines, and deforestation have all contributed to declines in fish and wildlife populations via water quality impacts.

While the Bay itself begins just below Pennsylvania’s southern border, the headwaters of the watershed begin far to the north, near Cooperstown, New York. Flowing through central Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna River Basin drains a significant portion of Pennsylvania’s waterways into the Bay. Land use practices throughout this region contribute to the transportation of excessive sediment, nutrients, and pollutants downstream. As a result, Bay water quality has become impaired and the productive ecosystem that once existed requires significant landscape-level restoration efforts.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed. Credit: Natural Resources Conservation Service

Not only has Chesapeake Bay health declined, but local waterways throughout the watershed have also suffered. Excessive organic nutrient loads, sediment discharges, and pollutants impact local water quality, degrading their value for local fish and wildlife species. Many migratory species like ducks and geese rely on these waterways during their annual migrations. Trout, insects on which they feed, and other aquatic organisms that reside in local waterways year-round require cool temperatures, high dissolved oxygen, and rocky substrates that can become impacted by sedimentation, turbidity, and nutrient loads. These inputs directly impact the quality of hunting and fishing opportunities throughout the watershed.

Fortunately, a diverse group of partners, including hunting and fishing-focused organizations, have worked together to develop programs to work toward restoration of the Bay and its expansive watershed. These programs have many common goals, focusing on education, advocacy, and implementation of practices that improve landscapes throughout the watershed. Water quality programs are implemented by multiple government agencies and non-governmental entities, and funds are distributed to a diverse array of groups that are committed to restoration efforts. Improving water quality by applying conservation practices directly benefits fish and wildlife species and those of us that enjoy recreating throughout the watershed. As hunters and anglers, these programs – highlighted below – directly benefit the outdoor traditions that we cherish.

*Water quality initiatives benefit Chesapeake Bay wildlife, including migratory waterfowl like this canvasback the author was fortunate to harvest on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.*

The Chesapeake Bay Program: A Collaborative Commitment to Bay Restoration

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a regional partnership that brings together a coalition of groups with the common goal of restoring and protecting the Bay. Started in 1983, the program uses the Bay Agreement as a framework to guide Bay ecosystem restoration. Multiple funding programs exist that deliver resources to meet the goals of the Bay Agreement, including Innovative and Sediment Removal Grants (INSR), Small Watershed Grants (SWG), and Most-Effective Basins Grants (MEB). These program funds provide organizations with the resources to implement practices that benefit local waterways throughout the Bay Watershed, ultimately improving the health of the Bay itself. Funding has also been provided for NOAA to focus on oyster restoration, menhaden research, and invasive blue catfish mitigation. Through education, advocacy, and implementation, this program aims to restore healthy landscapes, clean water, and a resilient ecosystem for fish and wildlife species.

Upstream water quality initiatives benefit local waterways and the health of the Chesapeake Bay, improving conditions for native game fish species like striped bass (or rockfish, depending on where you’re from). Credit: Tyler Nonn

PADEP Funds for Clean Water Projects

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently awarded over $3 million to conservation projects in eight Pennsylvania counties. These funds are delivered through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program, which directs federal dollars to states, territories, and Tribes for projects that improve water quality and restore impaired waterways. These projects implement practices that are outlined within local Watershed Implementation Plans to reduce non-point source pollutants like agricultural nutrients, sediment, and stormwater runoff. Funds are awarded to County Conservation Districts, Trout Unlimited Chapters, and other nonprofit groups to implement projects like floodplain restoration, riparian forest buffers, abandoned mine reclamation, and stream stabilization. While some of these projects exist outside the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the same concept applies to restoration of the Delaware and Ohio River Watersheds of Pennsylvania.

*Fly fishing for trout in northcentral Pennsylvania. Forested riparian zones provide shade, bank stability, and a buffer from nutrient runoff.*

Growing Greener Fund Supports Conservation Projects in Pennsylvania

As part of Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Program, DEP is also providing over $17 million that will used for 89 different water–quality-focused projects in the Commonwealth. This funding will be made available to conservation districts, local municipalities, and nonprofit conservation organizations to support a diversity of projects, including stream stabilization, manure storage, stream restoration, fish habitat structures, stormwater management structures, and many others. The Growing Greener Fund is the largest single investment of state funds dedicated to environmental resources in Pennsylvania.

*A riparian forest buffer planted along a recently completed stream restoration project in Lancaster County, PA.*

PFBC Funds Improve PA Waterways

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission annually awards funds for restoration projects through the York and Lancaster Counties Habitat Improvement Grant, which goes directly to watershed conservation projects in these two counties. Lancaster County is often targeted for conservation dollars, due to its fertile farmland and intensive agricultural production. Many of the watersheds in the county have been impaired by centuries of intensive agricultural production, carrying sediment and nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay. The PFBC-funded projects include Agricultural Best Management Practices on farms, stream restoration projects, floodplain restorations, fish habitat structure installations, and/or dam removals – which benefit many native aquatic organisms by restoring natural flow, reducing stream temperatures, and supporting fish passage.

*Dam removal projects restore stream flow and allow fish passage.*

NFWF Small Watershed Grants

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation provides Small Watershed Grants through a program that also aims to restore water quality and habitats throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. These grants include improvement, restoration, and protection components. Another diverse funding program, SWG grants can be applied to a multitude of practices that further increase the health of the Bay ecosystem. NFWF is currently accepting applications for organizations that are interested in utilizing this funding.

Farm Bill Programs

Much of the land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is privately owned. On this land, voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs are incredibly important for creating both habitat and access. These programs are governed and funded through Title II of the Farm Bill. Landowners can enroll in programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) a – just to name a few. These programs support practices like planting forest or grassland buffers on field edges, managing fertilizer applications, managing livestock grazing, and diversifying forests.

Programs and practices vary, but their shared goal is to provide resources that help landowners better manage their land. By addressing soil, water, and wildlife issues, landowners can use these programs to create more resilient and productive landscapes, resulting in better quality habitat for fish and wildlife. The large scale of our private lands and the personal cost associated with their management underscores the importance of Farm Bill conservation programs. Landowners interested in private land conservation can contact their local NRCS office for information on Farm Bill programs.

*A CREP grassland practice that incorporates native wildflowers to provide habitat for upland wildlife and pollinator species.*

Support Bay Restoration

The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed create an incredibly diverse setting for extraordinary hunting and angling opportunities not that far from civilization. While human land use practices have negatively impacted Bay health, there is hope for recovery. With your support, continued restoration through funding programs and the work of conservation organizations ensures that this resource can be protected for generations to come.

Banner image of Chesapeake Bay: Credit Timothy Pohlhaus

The Hunter & Angler’s Guide to the Farm Bill

We know it can be challenging to break through the alphabet soup of program acronyms to understand why the reauthorization and improvement of Farm Bill conservation programs is a top priority. In The Hunter & Anglers Guide to the Farm Bill, we demystify the Farm Bill and the crucial conservations programs that sportsmen and women should care about.

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

Click here to cancel reply.

by: Ryan DuLaney

posted in: Conservation Funding

April 1, 2026

State Funding Decline Threatens Tennessee Outdoor Recreation Opportunities

Tennesseans can help protect wildlife and recreation access by supporting dedicated state funding for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Tennessee’s wildlife resources mean more to the state than heritage alone. They are a cornerstone of our culture, lifestyle, and economy. In Tennessee, hunting, fishing, and wildlife-related recreation generate nearly $12 billion annually and support 200,000 jobs, while contributing to over $1 billion in state and local tax revenue. These revenues are especially important in rural communities.

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership recognizes the need for hunter and angler engagement with the growing cost of conservation as a significant challenge for state wildlife agencies in today’s world, including in Tennessee and the Lower Mississippi River Valley. Right now, two bills are being considered in the state that would dedicate funding to wildlife resources and help prevent increases in license fees and lower hunter participation.

The Situation

Currently, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) is facing a growing financial crisis. Inflation has raised the agency’s operating costs by more than 30 percent in the last decade, placing stress on the management of properties such as the popular waterfowl hunting Wildlife Management Areas, fisheries programs, and essential maintenance of recreation access infrastructure. To make matters worse, the agency is facing an additional $18.5 million in state-mandated expenses that remain unfunded. Hunters and anglers currently fund 81 percent of TWRA’s budget. While state-mandated expenses rise, it is unsustainable to rely on hunters and anglers alone to cover all these costs through license sales alone.

TWRA has acted responsibly, holding positions vacant, deferring maintenance, and trimming programs. But the agency cannot absorb rising costs while fulfilling unfunded mandates, particularly ones that do not tie directly to hunting and fishing. Without dedicated financial support, habitat management and access improvements will suffer. This will inevitably threaten the quality and quantity of hunting and fishing opportunities across the state. The investments made by TWRA into management of the state’s natural resources are critical to the economic growth of the state. The agency’s continuing maintenance and infrastructure investments will provide nature-based solutions to Tennessee’s diverse landscapes benefiting people and wildlife alike – solutions like wetland restoration, active forest management, and stream improvements that benefit water quality and fisheries.

Dedicated General Fund Support as a Solution

Perhaps the best way to restore full funding to the TWRA is through the state’s General Fund. In virtually all states, General Funds are the primary and most flexible accounts for paying for a state’s everyday operations and are funded chiefly through existing taxes. General Funds, unlike most other funds, are not earmarked for specific purposes, allowing lawmakers the authority to allocate them differently over time for everything from education to healthcare to general government functions. And in a situation like Tennessee is currently facing, they can be a lifeline for key programs to support wildlife and habitat management and the economic benefits they return to the state.

Dedicating a portion of the state’s General Fund to the TWRA is necessary for many reasons:

Wildlife is a public resource that is available to all taxpayers, and funding should reflect that.
This offers dedicated funding mechanisms that can account for inflation and provide consistency.
Many other states provide General Fund support to keep license fees affordable, allowing hunters to maintain active participation in the outdoors.
TWRA has been successful at managing its budget efficiently; dedicated funding would supplement, not replace, sportsmen funding.
Hunters and anglers already fund most of TWRA through licenses and federal excise taxes, and shouldn’t be required to pay more.
License fee hikes are not a solution—they only reduce participation and revenue.
Funding ensures federal matches, stabilizes programs, and safeguards access for all Tennesseans.

Two bills are now being considered in Tennessee that would require a percent of payments retained by the state from the Tennessee Valley Authority for the General Fund to be allocated to the wildlife resources fund and used for boating and wildlife resources purposes, easing the strain on hunters and anglers who already pay their fair share.

TRCP encourages all Tennessee hunters and anglers to reach out to their state legislators requesting their votes to pass House Bill 2138/Senate Bill 2183 to provide dedicated General Fund support, distribute costs equitably, and protect one of Tennessee’s strongest economic engines while securing hunting and fishing access for future generations. We encourage you to draw your comments from the bulleted list above.

Tennessee’s wildlife resources are one of the most diverse in our country. To leave them vulnerable to funding deficits would be failure as sportsmen and sportswomen.

All images courtesy Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

The TRCP is your resource for all things conservation. In our weekly Roosevelt Report, you’ll receive the latest news on emerging habitat threats, legislation and proposals on the move, public land access solutions we’re spearheading, and opportunities for hunters and anglers to take action.

Click here to sign up today.

by: Ryan Lockwood

posted in: Conservation Funding

March 18, 2026

Preventing the Decline of a Top Louisiana Fishery

TRCP’s Chris Macaluso recently fished in Louisiana’s famous Atchafalaya Basin to target a local favorite catch and share updates and thoughts on the quintessential swamp’s restoration needs

The Atchafalaya Basin is the largest river-basin swamp in the U.S., offering a quarter-million acres of cypress and black gum forests and productive bayous and lakes that ultimately feed into the Gulf. Louisiana sportsmen and women have long explored the fertile Basin waters to target sac-a-lait, bass, bluegill, and other freshwater fish. (Sac-a-lait is the Louisiana term for white or black crappie, considered the state’s premier panfish because they offer white, flaky fillets). The Basin is also the number one producer of wild caught crawfish in the U.S.

TRCP’s Chris Macaluso recently joined prominent angler and online influencer Todd “Marsh Man” Masson to target sac-a-lait and other panfish on a sunny winter day. Watch as they land a lot of fish (but release them all, since they forgot to bring a cooler) and talk about the importance of the Atchafalaya Basin’s fishery to anglers and the local economy and culture.

Though the Basin offers one of the nation’s top fisheries, its productivity has declined over the past three decades as sediment from the Atchafalaya, Mississippi, and Red rivers is filling in and shallowing the bayous, canals, and other waters of the Basin. Low dissolved oxygen is limiting bass size and productivity here, especially during summer months when stagnant, impounded water temperatures increase, causing bass to stop hunting for food. Aquatic invasive species like giant salvinia, water hyacinth, and Asian carp also impact the fishery.

“I think one of the biggest things is the water just doesn’t move the way it needs to in a lot of these places like it did 50, 60 years ago,” said Chris Macaluso, TRCP director, Center of Fisheries and Mississippi River Program.

As part of larger efforts to restore the waters and habitats of the Mississippi River Basin, TRCP and partners continue to support the progress and funding for one potential solution for the Atchafalaya. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of completing the $25 million Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study, a multi-year study authorized by Congress to examine potential changes for Mississippi River management from southern Missouri to the Gulf. The study is set to conclude late next year and could provide the basis for federally approved projects that affect the Atchafalaya Basin and other Mississippi River floodplains for a generation to come.

by: Tristan Henry

posted in: Conservation Funding

March 5, 2026

Oregon Legislature Passes Landmark “1.25 Percent for Wildlife” Act

After three legislative sessions and more than a decade of advocacy, a bipartisan coalition secures Oregon’s most significant conservation funding victory in a generation

Yesterday, the Oregon legislature passed HB 4134, the “1.25 Percent for Wildlife” act, which will generate approximately $38 million annually for fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation across the state. The bill now heads to Governor Kotek’s desk to be signed into law. The measure passed the Senate with bipartisan support after clearing the House on a 36–22 vote, marking the culmination of more than a decade of work by hunters, anglers, landowners, conservation organizations, and community leaders.

The legislation was championed by Representatives Ken Helm (D–Beaverton), Mark Owens (R–Crane), and Senator Todd Nash (R-Joseph) among others, who built bipartisan support across both chambers to advance the proposal.

“This is what happens when sportsmen and sportswomen, ranchers, conservation organizations, and community leaders refuse to give up,” said Tristan Henry, Oregon field representative for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has worked to advance this funding in some form for three sessions now. Today, Oregonians reaffirmed our commitment to the fish, wildlife, and landscapes that define this state. Hunters and anglers have shouldered the financial load of conservation for over a century. This bill asks the broader public, and the visitors who come here to enjoy what we’ve helped build, to share in that investment.”

HB 4134 ensures that visitors contribute to sustaining the resources they come to Oregon to experience. (James Wicks)

Where the Money Comes From

HB 4134 increases Oregon’s statewide transient lodging tax by 1.25 percentage points, from 1.5 percent to 2.75 percent, beginning January 1, 2027. Oregon will remain among the lowest lodging tax states in the nation after the increase. Roughly two-thirds of the tax is paid by out-of-state visitors. For Oregonians, the cost amount rises to roughly $1.25 to $2.50 on an average overnight stay.

The new revenue is dedicated to nine clearly defined conservation and natural resource programs through predictable funding that does not depend on biennial budget negotiations or one-time General Fund deposits.

Where the Money Goes

The scale of this investment is best understood in context. ODFW’s entire biennial budget is approximately $562 million, funded primarily through a combination of hunting and fishing license revenue, federal grants, and limited General Fund support. Before this bill passed, the agency had zero dedicated funding for implementing Oregon’s State Wildlife Action Plan, the science-based blueprint that identifies 321 species of greatest conservation need and 11 habitat types requiring proactive restoration. One-time General Fund deposits of $10 million per biennium had been used in prior budget cycles, but those are phased out entirely in the current 2025–27 budget.

HB 4134 changes that picture. The largest allocation, approximately $27.4 million per year, flows to the newly renamed Recovering Oregon’s Wildlife Fund Subaccount to implement the State Wildlife Action Plan and Oregon Nearshore Strategy. allocating 0.9% of Oregon’s transient lodging revenue for habitat restoration, species recovery, and conservation strategy implementation. For an agency that has been forced to cut $1.3 million from anti-poaching campaigns, $1.9 million from fish research and monitoring, and $1.5 million from hatchery operations in recent budgets, this is not incremental. It is transformative. The remaining [approximate] $10.6 million per year is allocated across eight additional programs.

Oregon Conservation Corps (0.10% [of transient lodging revenue]): Stable funding for wildfire risk reduction, community resilience, and natural resources workforce development. This investment supports young Oregonians working in land management careers while building fire-adapted communities across the state.

ODFW Wildlife Connectivity Program (0.050%): Funding for wildlife crossing structures, passage improvements, and research to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and reconnect fragmented habitats. Oregon’s highway system intersects critical migration corridors for elk, mule deer, and other species, and connectivity work is among the highest-return conservation investments available.

Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division (0.050%): New resources for the troopers on the front lines against poaching, a persistent threat to Oregon’s fish and wildlife that directly undermines the work of hunters and anglers. ODFW’s most recent budget included a $600,000 cut to OSP enforcement funded by the agency. This allocation more than reverses that reduction and provides a durable funding base.

Wolf Management Compensation and Proactive Trust Fund (0.050%): Dedicated funding for livestock loss compensation, nonlethal deterrence tools, and conflict reduction programs. For ranching families in Eastern Oregon who have borne the costs of wolf recovery with limited and uncertain state support, this delivers on a long-standing commitment.

Oregon Conservation and Recreation Fund (0.050%): Community-based conservation and recreation grants that engage Oregonians in hands-on outdoor stewardship. This fund, established by the legislature in 2019 but chronically underfunded, will finally have a sustainable revenue source.

Wildlife Stewardship Program (0.020%): Support for wildlife rehabilitation facilities and stewardship priorities statewide.

Invasive Species Response (0.005%): Resources for detection, prevention, and removal of harmful invasive species that threaten native fish, wildlife, and habitat.

Department of Justice Anti-Poaching (0.010%): Stabilized capacity within DOJ to support prosecution of wildlife crimes.

The new revenue is dedicated to nine clearly defined conservation and natural resource programs through predictable funding that does not depend on biennial budget negotiations or one-time General Fund deposits. (Jim Davis)

A Decade in the Making

The passage of HB 4134 is the product of persistent, bipartisan advocacy that stretches back more than a decade. Representative Ken Helm (D-Beaverton) and Representative Mark Owens (R-Crane) have served as the bill’s chief sponsors, building support across party lines in both chambers. The concept was first introduced as a legislative concept and advanced in varying forms through prior sessions. The TRCP has worked to advance this funding mechanism for three consecutive legislative sessions, helping to build the hunting and fishing coalition that gave the bill credibility with lawmakers in both parties and from every corner of the state.

The broader coalition behind HB 4134 spans more than 60 organizations, from the Oregon Hunters Association and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers to Oregon Wild and the Nature Conservancy, from the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association to the League of Women Voters of Oregon. More than 2,000 pieces of public testimony were submitted during the legislative process, with over 84 percent in support. That breadth of support reflects a simple truth: Oregonians across the political spectrum understand that healthy fish, wildlife, and habitat are the foundation of the state’s identity, economy, and quality of life.

What This Means for Oregon

Oregon’s outdoor recreation economy generates $16 billion in consumer spending, supports 192,000 jobs, and accounts for 2.6 percent of the state’s GDP. Ninety percent of visitors come to Oregon to enjoy the state’s natural landscapes and wildlife. HB 4134 ensures that those visitors contribute to sustaining the resources they come here to experience.

For ODFW, this bill represents the most significant new funding stream in the agency’s modern history. The TRCP thanks the representatives and senators who supported this bill, the conservation organizations that engaged their members and provided testimony, and the thousands of Oregon hunters and anglers who sent emails, made phone calls, and championed this measure. For all this work, a brighter future for our hunting, fishing, ranching, and outdoor heritage has been secured.

Feature Image: James Wicks

by: Aaron Field

posted in: Conservation Funding

New Farm Bill Advances in House Committee: Key Impacts for Hunters and Anglers

The House Agriculture Committee has advanced the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, launching the next phase of negotiations over conservation programs that will impact wildlife habitat and hunting and fishing access.

It’s been nearly two years since we had a Farm Bill proposal to evaluate, but that changed on February 13, when House Ag Committee Chairman G.T. Thompson introduced the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. A lot has happened in agricultural conservation policy since the 2018 Farm Bill. Key programs have been extended and received major funding boosts, first through the Inflation Reduction Act and then made permanent in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But without a Farm Bill, there has been no opportunity to improve the underlaying structure that makes these programs work.

On March 4, the House Ag Committee debated this bill, proposed amendments, and ultimately advanced it to the House floor on a 34-17 vote. Given the importance of the Farm Bill to hunters and anglers—and the difficulty of moving legislation of this scale—we are encouraged to have a bill to review and formal committee action toward passing it.

Before we summarize the key provisions of this bill, there are a few important dynamics to keep in mind.

With tight margins in both the House and Senate, bipartisanship will be essential. Although this bill could have advanced through Committee on a party-line vote, passing a fully partisan on the House floor would be highly unlikely. Nearly 30% of Ag Committee Democrats voted to advance this bill, indicating substantive bipartisan support. However, major sticking points remain, including earlier changes within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, policy around pesticide labeling, and state authority to regulate swine production. These issues fall outside of TRCP’s primary focus, but they will influence whether conservation priorities ultimately advance.

Work on this Farm Bill began as soon as, or even before, the 2018 bill was signed. Although six or seven years seems like ample time to resolve differences, significant negotiations remain. This markup, and advancing the bill out of committee, is an important step, but further debate will occur as the bill moves to the House floor. In the Senate, Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are working on their own proposal. As a result, this means that any individual provision in Chairman Thompson’s bill has additional hurdles to clear, and elements are likely to change.

Extended Farm Bill negotiations are not new, but after more than seven years without a comprehensive bill—and with bipartisan legislation increasingly difficult to move—Congress is fast approaching uncharted waters. At the same time, the Conservation Title is in better shape than usual. Investments in Title II programs through budget reconciliation packages in 2022 and 2025 extended most USDA conservation programs through 2031 and strengthened their long-term funding, providing some stability as Congress debates program changes. However, reconciliation rules allow funding adjustments but not policy reforms, meaning updates to conservation programs are still needed. Additionally, because the Conservation Reserve Program is limited by acreage rather than funding, CRP did not receive a funding increase or long-term reauthorization through reconciliation.

Policy and funding changes in this Farm Bill will impact fish and wildlife habitat and hunting and fishing access for the next five years and beyond. You can find explanations about how Farm Bill programs support hunters and anglers here.

Keeping these dynamics in mind, what exactly is in this bill? Farm Bills cover a wide range of issues—from nutrition assistance and agricultural research to trade, risk management, and livestock disease—so a comprehensive analysis of the entire 800-page bill is beyond the scope of this blog. Instead, we focus on several provisions most likely to affect habitat and access for hunters and anglers. Let’s dig in.

Key Conservation Provisions in The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 would:

Shift Funding Among Title II Programs

This bill has been informally called “Farm Bill 2.0”, in recognition that many priorities were accomplished through the budget reconciliation process last summer. As part of that package, Congress made the remaining conservation funding from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act permanent. This represented a major investment in Title II programs and shifted the balance among several programs, particularly the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). However, Chairman Thompson’s team has consistently stated their intention to reallocate those resources to support policy improvements and new programs in this Farm Bill. Priority programs differ among members of the hunting and fishing community—and even more among the broader ag conservation community— but TRCP’s priority throughout this process has been ensuring that conservation funding remains conservation funding, and this bill meets that criterion.

Reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program

Chairman Thompson’s 2024 bill included major changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), some of which were clearly beneficial to habitat and others potentially problematic. This time CRP is simply reauthorized for five years. This puts the program back on the same reauthorization schedule as the rest of Title II and avoids complications associated with repeated expirations and extensions. However, it is also a missed opportunity to make needed improvements to the program. Ideally, the bill would increase payment limitations, restore cost share for mid-contract management, and remove rental rate limitations, among other improvements. Still, leaving CRP largely unchanged gives the Senate significant latitude to pursue these updates, many of which have already been proposed in the bipartisan CRP Improvement and Flexibility Act. Congressman Jim Costa (D-Calif.) offered an amendment reflecting this legislation with support from Representatives Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), Sharice Davids (D-Kan.), and Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa), but it was withdrawn after the Chairman committed to continuing work toward solutions.

Support Voluntary Conservation Easement Programs

This bill would have substantial impacts on conservation easement programs. One of the most significant is the creation of a new Forest Conservation Easement Program with mandatory funding filling a gap in current easement opportunities and supporting working forest conservation. The bill also makes several adjustments that expand management opportunities on new and existing wetland easements, helping ensure these wetlands continue to provide quality habitat for generations.

Simplify the Regional Conservation Partnership Program

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) has tremendous potential to deliver conservation in innovative, partnership-driven ways, but the program has long been hampered by barriers that frustrated partners and limited its impact. Chairman Thompson’s bill returns the RCPP to an earlier structure, that more closely connects projects to “covered programs” like EQIP. It also aims to shorten approval timelines and reimburse partner administrative expenses. While the covered program model has both advantages and drawbacks, efforts to streamline the RCPP are welcome, as is the addition of wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity to the program’s purposes.

Encourage Habitat Connectivity Across Programs

In addition to the language within RCPP, the bill encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to “encourage the use of conservation practices that support the development, restoration, and maintenance of habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors” in all conservation programs. The impact of this provision will vary depending on the priorities of any given Secretary but given the importance of corridors for species like Western big game, the direction is encouraging.

During the markup itself, Congressman Gabe Vasquez (D-NM), offered an amendment based on the Habitat Connectivity on Working Lands Act he is leading with Congressman Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.). The amendment includes several provisions supporting migration corridors and habitat connectivity. One of the most significant aims to codify the USDA’s ability to use EQIP or the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) on the same acres, but for different purposes, as Grassland CRP. This approach – often referred to as a “program stack,” where multiple conservation programs can be used together on the same acreage – is a key component of the Migratory Big Game Initiative, which has proven successful in Wyoming and elsewhere. The amendment was adopted by voice vote and generated positive comments from members of both parties including Chairman Thompson and Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK). It was also great to hear Ranking Member Craig comment on the importance of “developing conservation programs with an eye toward restoring wildlife habitat and habitat connectivity.”

Leave Access Funding Unchanged

Chairman Thompson has long been an advocate for the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP). In 2024, the committee tried to include $150 million for the program, a funding level called for by the Voluntary Public Access Improvement Act and dozens of conservation organizations. However, this current bill does not include funding for VPA-HIP. Fortunately, thanks in large part to Chairman Thompson’s efforts, VPA-HIP received $70 million over seven years in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer. While important, that funding level is unlikely to expand the program’s impact.

Strengthen Tools for Enhancing Forest and Watershed Health

The bill provides several new tools aimed at improving forest health and watershed function, with benefits for water quality, fish and wildlife, and resilience to wildfire and drought. Notable provisions include reauthorization of the U.S. Forest Service’s Water Source Protection Program, expanded use of good neighbor agreements, and additional improvements to watershed health and drinking water sources within the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.

Include Potentially Problematic Fire Management Restrictions

While proactively addressing wildfire risk is important, the bill also includes provisions that could limit the U.S. Forest Service’s ability to manage wildfire effectively. These include requirements to suppress certain fires within 24 hours of detection and additional limitations on prescribed fire. Although these provisions apply only in certain areas and conditions, relying primarily on suppression has not historically been an effective wildfire strategy, and experienced land management professionals are better equipped than Congress to make these decisions.

There are many other provisions in this bill that we will continue to follow, and there is still a long road before its impacts are felt on the ground. The TRCP thanks both House and Senate Agriculture Committee leadership for their work toward a bipartisan Farm Bill that supports habitat and access.

Hunting & Fishing Access

MAPping Public Access

Unlocking Public Lands

Public Land Access

Brian Flynn, Two Wolf Foundation's Story

Key Issues for America’s Hunters

Chronic Wasting Disease