Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program: Status and Current Issues

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

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 million acres through 25,600 contracts. Eligible
acreage includes privately owned agricultural land, tribal land, and nonindustrial private forest ^th
land. Some selected issues for the 111 Congress include mandatory funding levels, a change in
program eligibility requirements, a continuing backlog of unfunded applications, and species-
specific funding.

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
Figure 1. FY2007 WHIP Financial Assistance Obligated...............................................................5
Table 1. WHIP Funding and Reductions, FY2003-FY2008............................................................3
Table 2. Four Largest WHIP Allocation Recipient States, FY2003-FY2008..................................3
Table 3. Funded and Unfunded WHIP Contracts, FY2003-FY2008...............................................6
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................7

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 ¹

2002 and 2008 farm bills. 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 in an environmentally
beneficial and cost-effective manner. 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 2008 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 level to set wildlife priorities. Each state develops a WHIP
Plan to establish priorities and coordinate NRCS activities with those of other agencies and ²
groups. State technical committees advise NRCS state conservationists 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.
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
¹
^P^.^L^.¹⁰^7-¹⁷¹^,^Se^c^.²⁵^02,^aⁿ^d^P^.^L^.¹¹^0-²⁴^{6, Se}^c^.²⁶^02,^r^e^s^p^e^c^tiv^e^l^y^.
²^T^h^e^N^R^C^S^s^t^a^t^e^c^ons^e^r^v^a^tionis^tⁱ^s^a^hig^h^-^r^a^nk^ing^cⁱ^v^{il s}^e^r^v^aⁿ^{t r}^e^s^pons^ib^le^f^o^r^m^a^nag^e^m^e^{nt a}^{nd dir}^e^c^tion^of^a^{ll N}^R^C^S
^ope^ra^tio^{ns w}^{ithin a}^sta^t^e^.

national and state priorities (as discussed above). Applicants work with NRCS to produce a
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 ³
installed. In FY2008, more than 646,000 acres were enrolled through more than 3,000 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 $14,900 for each long-term contract lasting 15 years or longer. Between FY2004
and FY2007, long-term contracts totaled close to 500, accounting for almost 4% of WHIP
contracts and 10% of WHIP acreage. Short-term contracts (less than 5 years) are also allowed, but ⁴
only to install practices needed for a wildlife emergency (such as drought).
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 ⁵
million between FY2003 and FY2007. 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 receives authorized amounts each year ⁶
under the borrowing authority of USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). However,
Congress has chosen to limit WHIP funding below authorized levels to a total of $279 million
between FY2003 and FY2008. Total funding approved between FY2003 and FY2008 was 35% ⁷
below that of total authorized funding levels. Most of these 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. At the start of FY2008, the authority
for WHIP expired pending the passage of the 2008 farm bill. Congress passed several extension
bills allowing the program to continue operation at full authorized funding levels until the 2008
farm bill was enacted in May 2008.
³
^U^S^D^A^{, N}^RCS,^FY-²⁰⁰^{8 W}^ild^lif^e^H^abit^a^{t I}ⁿ^c^eⁿ^tiv^e^s^Pr^ogr^am^All^o^c^a^ti^ons^{, O}^b^lig^ati^ons^,^a^{nd U}ⁿ^fuⁿ^d^e^d^A^pplic^atio^ns^,
^De^c^e^m^b^e^r^{4, 20}^08,^htt^p^://w^ww^.nrc^s.usda^.g^ov^/prog^r^a^m^s/^w^h^ip/FY08^c^ontra^c^t^_i^nf^o/w^h^ipfy^08c^ontra^c^tin^f^o^.htm^l.
⁴^T^h^e^s^e^s^hor^t-^te^r^m^c^ontr^a^c^t^s^c^aⁿ^only^be^a^ppr^ov^e^d^by^the^N^R^C^S^s^t^a^t^e^c^ons^e^r^v^a^tionis^t^.
⁵^S^ee^Ta^b^l^{e 1}^f^o^r^a^nnua^{l a}^m^ounts^.
⁶^T^h^{e CCC is ad}^mⁱⁿⁱ^stered^b^y^{a B}^o^ard^o^f^Directo^r^{s f}^r^o^m^ag^en^{cies o}^f^th^{e Dep}^a^rt^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Ag^ricu^ltu^{re. I}^t^h^a^{s n}^o^staf^f^,^an^d
^a^{ll w}^o^r^k^{on its}^be^ha^lf^is^pe^r^f^or^m^e^{d by}^s^t^a^f^f^o^f^a^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^w^{ithin U}^S^D^A^{. For}^W^H^I^P^{, N}^R^C^S^pr^ov^ide^s^s^t^a^f^f^.
⁷^Fo^{r m}^o^{re in}^f^o^rm^atioⁿ^,^{see CRS}^Rep^o^r^{t R}⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰^,^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^e^a^nd^Re^late^{d A}^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^:^FY²⁰⁰⁹^Ap^pr^o^p^rⁱ^ati^ons^.

Table 1. WHIP Funding and Reductions, FY2003-FY2008
^{($ in mill}^ions)
^Fiscal^Year²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰^{4 200}⁵²⁰⁰^{6 200}⁷²⁰⁰⁸^Total
^Authorized^$30^{$60 $85}^{$85 $85}^$85^$43⁰
^{Funding Level}
^Actual^Funding^$24^{$38 $46}^{$43 $43}^$85^$27⁹
^Funding^$6^{$22 $39}^{$42 $42}^$0^$15¹
^Reduction
^Source:^{USDA, NRCS,}^Summary^{of Authorized and Actua}^{l Fundi}^{ng L}^{evels for 2002 Farm Bill Programs}^.
Annual funding received by WHIP is allocated to the states by NRCS using a formula based on
natural resource need, efficiency and performance measures, and regional equity. States that
receive the largest WHIP allocations vary from year to year. Table 2 highlights these states and
their funding between FY2003 and FY2008. Why these particular states receive the highest level
of funding from year to year may be due to several different factors. One factor could be the
regional equity provision in the 2002 farm bill, which mandates that each state receive annually a ⁸
minimum aggregate amount of funding for specified conservation programs. In FY2007, all four
states that received the highest level of funding fell under this provision. A second factor could be
the location of species-specific initiatives. Since FY2004, NRCS has conducted a series of ⁹
species-specific habitat initiatives that can increase funding in certain states.
Table 2. Four Largest WHIP Allocation Recipient States, FY2003-FY2008
^{($ in thousands)}
^Fiscal^Highest²^nd^Highes^t³^rd^H^ighest⁴^th^Highes^t^Total
^Year^Allocation^Allocation^Allocation^Allocation^Allocation
²⁰⁰³^{Rhode Island}^Mississippi^{South Carolina}^Oklahoma^$21,1⁸⁴
^$83⁰^$61⁹^$61⁹^$59⁶
²⁰⁰^{4 California}^Alaska^{Rhode Island}^Washington^$27,8²⁸
^$1,46⁵^$1,14⁹^$1,02⁹^$1,00⁹
²⁰⁰^{5 California}^Alaska^Arkansas^{New Ham}^pshire^$34,8⁶⁰
^$1,76⁸^$1,58²^$1,56⁵^$1,44⁸
²⁰⁰^{6 Rhode}^Island^{New Ham}^pshire^Alaska^Connecticut^$32,5⁰⁹
^$1,80⁵^$1,68⁷^$1,47²^$1,45⁰
²⁰⁰^{7 Alaska}^{Rhode Island}^Hawaii^{New Ham}^pshire^$39,9¹⁶
^$3,49¹^$3,35⁴^$2,77⁷^$2,18⁶
²⁰⁰^{8 California}^Massach^usetts^Wisconsin^Texas^$57,8¹¹
^$2,81³^$2,57⁴^$2,08⁰^$1,80¹
^Source:^{USDA, NRCS,}^{WHIP Contract and F}^{unding In}^formation^{, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/}^whip/^.
^Notes:^Al^locati^{ons in this table r}^eprese^{nt fina}^{ncial assistance allocated to states only. Technical assistance,}
^{administrative, and technology costs are not incl}^uded.
⁸
^T^h^e^re^gⁱ^ona^{l e}^quity^prov^isio^{n w}^a^{s f}ⁱ^{rst institute}^dⁱⁿ^the²⁰^{02 f}^a^rm^{bill (}^P^.L^{. 10}^7-1⁷¹^,^Se^c^.²⁷^{01) a}ⁿ^d^re^a^u^thor^iz^e^dⁱⁿ
^the²⁰⁰⁸^f^a^r^m^{bill (}^P^.L^{. 1}^10-²⁴^6,^Se^c^.²⁷^03).^T^h^e^prov^isio^{n a}^f^f^e^c^t^{s not}^on^ly^WHIP^b^u^{t a}^l^so^the^Envⁱ^r^onm^eⁿ^ta^{l Qua}^lity
^Inc^eⁿ^tiv^e^s^P^r^og^ra^m^,^Fa^r^m^la^{nd P}^r^ote^c^tion^P^r^og^ra^m^,^a^{nd G}^r^a^s^s^l^a^{nd Re}^s^e^rve^P^r^og^ra^m^.^T^h^e²⁰⁰⁸^f^a^r^m^{bill i}ⁿ^c^r^e^a^s^e^d^the
^mⁱⁿⁱ^m^u^m^le^v^e^{l of}^f^unding^to^each^st^at^{e f}^o^{r t}^h^{ese co}^m^bⁱⁿ^ed^f^o^u^r^co^nservatⁱ^oⁿ^p^r^o^g^ram^s^f^r^o^m^$12^m^ill^{ion to $1}⁵
^m^illion.
⁹^T^h^{e t}^o^pⁱ^c^o^f^sp^eci^es-sp^eci^fⁱ^{c i}ⁿⁱ^tⁱ^atⁱ^v^{es i}^s^dⁱ^scu^ssed^f^u^rt^h^e^{r i}ⁿ^t^h^{e “}^S^el^ect^ed^Issu^{es” sect}ⁱ^oⁿ^.

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.

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 ¹⁰^th
have reduced the actual funding levels by almost one-half. With the 111 Congress facing
tighter budget constraints, similar cuts to WHIP could be considered either in the appropriations
process or if budget reconciliation is required.
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 ¹¹
land, state/local government land, or federal land. 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 a revision of WHIP rules and policy.
¹⁰
^F^Y²⁰⁰⁸ⁱ^s^an^excep^tⁱ^oⁿ^b^ecau^se^Coⁿ^g^{ress p}^a^ssed^several^e^x^t^eⁿ^sⁱ^oⁿ^bⁱ^l^l^s^al^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e^p^r^o^g^ram^t^o^coⁿ^tⁱⁿ^u^e^op^eratⁱ^oⁿ
^a^t^f^u^{ll a}^u^th^oriz^e^d^f^und^ing^le^v^e^{ls u}ⁿ^{til t}^h^e²⁰⁰⁸^f^a^r^m^{bill pa}^sse^d.^Fu^ndi^ng^le^v^e^{ls a}^u^thori^z^e^d^{in e}^x^te^nsi^{ons w}^e^re^not
^r^e^duc^e^d^by^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^.
¹¹^Sta^t^e^a^nd^loc^a^l^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt la}^nd^c^ould^oⁿ^ly^be^us^e^d^oⁿ^a^lim^ite^{d b}^a^sⁱ^s^,^a^{nd f}^e^de^r^a^{l la}^nds^w^e^r^e^only^e^lig^ible^w^h^eⁿ^the
^pr^im^a^r^y^be^nef^{it w}^a^s^{on pr}^iv^a^t^e^la^nds^aⁿ^{d t}^h^e^pr^oje^c^t^c^oul^d^not^m^e^{et its}^o^b^je^c^tiv^e^s^w^{ithout i}ⁿ^v^o^lv^ing^the^f^e^de^r^a^{l la}^nd.

Figure 1. FY2007 WHIP Financial Assistance Obligated
^{Source: USDA, NRCS}^{, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/}^{whip/FY07contract_info/}
^WHIP_fy20^{07_Contract.ht}^ml.
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 ¹²
increase and contributed to the continuing backlog of unfunded applications. Table 3 shows the
percentage of total contracts funded for FY2003-FY2008. Though the backlog gap is narrowing, ¹³
WHIP continues to have a backlog of over 1,600 applications. 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.
¹²
^T^h^e^ba^c^k^log^of^unf^unde^{d a}^pplic^a^tions^doe^s^not^inc^l^ude^a^p^plic^a^tioⁿ^s^tha^t^a^r^e^inc^o^m^p^le^te^or^r^e^je^c^t^e^d^.^A^pplic^a^tionsⁱⁿ
^the^ba^c^k^log^r^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^{t c}^o^m^p^le^te^a^{nd e}^lig^ib^le^a^ppl^ic^a^tions^tha^t^c^o^ul^d^be^r^a^nk^e^d^aⁿ^{d f}^unde^{d a}^t^t^h^e^s^t^a^t^e^le^v^e^{l if}^f^unding
^w^e^r^e^av^ai^l^a^b^l^e.
¹³^A^t^the^c^onc^lusⁱ^on^of^FY²⁰⁰⁸^{, s}^t^a^t^e^s^w^{ith the}^hig^h^e^s^{t a}^v^e^r^a^g^e^o^f^unf^unde^{d a}^pplic^a^tⁱ^ons^a^r^e^:^O^k^la^ho^m^a⁽³⁹⁷⁾^,^I^o^w^a
⁽¹⁴³⁾^,^A^r^k^a^ns^a^s⁽¹³⁶⁾^{, K}^e^nt^uc^k^y⁽¹⁰³⁾^,^aⁿ^{d A}^l^a^b^a^m^a⁽¹⁰³⁾^.

Table 3. Funded and Unfunded WHIP Contracts, FY2003-FY2008
^{Total Contra}^cts^{Total Contra}^cts^{Percentage of}
^Funded^Unfun^ded^Contra^{cts Funded}
²⁰⁰^{3 2,12}³^3,66⁰^37%
²⁰⁰^{4 3,01}⁷^3,03³^50%
²⁰⁰^{5 3,34}²^2,18²^61%
²⁰⁰^{6 2,71}⁷^2,17⁸^56%
²⁰⁰^{7 2,10}⁷^3,24³^40%
²⁰⁰⁸^a^3,49⁵^1,68⁸^67%
^Source:^{USDA, NRCS,}^{WHIP Contract and F}^{unding In}^formation^{, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/}^whip/^.
^a.^{In FY20}^{08, WH}^{IP was f}^{ully funde}^{d at the aut}^{horized level of $85}^mill^{ion. Congress passed seve}^{ral extension}
^{bills all}^{owing the program to con}^{tinue operation at}^{full authorized funding levels}^{until the}²⁰⁰⁸^far^{m bill was}
^enacted.
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 ¹⁴
raised by state, regional, and national conservation initiatives. The farm bill’s conference report
(H.Rept. 110-627) further directed USDA to consider the goals and objectives of wildlife ¹⁵
conservation initiatives 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.
¹⁴
^W^H^IP^ha^s^a^his^t^ory^of^f^unding^s^p^e^cⁱ^e^s^-s^pe^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^ha^bita^{t in}^itia^tiv^e^s^be^gⁱⁿⁿⁱ^ng^{in FY}²⁰⁰⁴^w^{ith a}^Sa^lm^{on H}^a^bi^ta^t
^Re^s^t^ora^{tion I}ⁿ^itia^tiv^e^.^N^a^ti^ona^{l s}^p^e^cⁱ^e^s^-s^pe^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^initia^tiv^e^s^ha^v^e^droppe^d^of^f^{in r}^ecen^t^years,^w^hⁱ^l^e^st^at^{e an}^d^l^o^cal^l^e^vel
^initia^tiv^e^s^ha^v^e^c^onti^nue^d^.
¹⁵^H.Re^pt.¹¹^0-6²⁷^liste^{d e}^x^a^m^ple^s^of^sta^t^e^,^re^gⁱ^ona^l,^aⁿ^d^na^ti^ona^{l c}^o^nse^r^v^a^{tion in}^itia^tiv^e^s^{, inc}^l^udi^ng^t^h^e^“^N^orth
^A^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ^Wa^te^r^f^ow^{l Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^nt^P^l^aⁿ^{, t}^h^e^N^a^tio^na^{l Fis}^h^H^a^bita^t^A^c^{tion Pla}ⁿ^{, t}^h^e^G^r^e^a^t^e^r^Sa^ge^-^G^r^ous^e^C^o^ns^e^r^v^a^tion
^Stra^te^gy^{, the}^Sta^t^e^Com^p^re^he^nsiv^e^W^ildlif^e^Conse^r^v^a^{tion St}^ra^te^gⁱ^e^s^(a^{lso re}^f^e^rre^{d to a}^s^the^Sta^t^e^Wⁱ^l^d^lif^e^Ac^tion
^P^l^aⁿ^s⁾^{, t}^h^e^N^o^r^t^he^rⁿ^B^obw^hite^C^o^ns^e^r^v^a^{tion I}ⁿⁱ^tia^tiv^e^,^a^nd^Sta^t^e^f^o^r^e^s^t^r^e^s^our^c^e^s^t^r^a^te^gⁱ^e^s^.”

^M^e^ga^{n St}^ub^b^s
^Aⁿ^a^l^ystⁱⁿ^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^l^t^ur^a^l^Co^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n a}ⁿ^d^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l
^Re^so^ur^c^e^{s P}^o^lic^y
^m^s^t^u^bbs@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7-}⁸⁷⁰⁷