POLICY
CRP
A look at our nation's most popular conservation program
By Tim Putnam
Providing annual payments to Washington farmers and
landowners of more than $82 million dollars, the Conservation
Reserve Program’s (CRP) impact goes beyond
our state’s economy and includes wildlife habitat and the
stability of our marginal soils.
Enrollment in CRP is voluntary. The 2008 Farm Bill
capped the amount of land allowed in CRP at 32 million
acres. Current enrollment nationally is at 29,564,781 acres
(as of October 2011).
The sign-up
During the competitive general sign-up, land is scored
on a variety of factors known as the Environmental
Benefits Index. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) compares
these scores nationally to fill the pool of land available
under the program.
“Producers receive more points if they choose to plant
native grasses with a shrub or legume component that is
necessary for good wildlife habitat,” said Geremy Nelson,
FSA county executive director for both Garfield and Asotin
counties. “This practice ensures that sensitive ground
is being maintained in a conservation conscience practice
while providing producers annual rental payments for
enrolling the land.”
In addition to the general sign-up, FSA also has a continuous
sign-up that allow producers whose lands meet
specific high priority conservation practices—such as filter
strips, riparian buffers and wetlands—to enroll at any
time during the year without competition.
“I consider CRP, in a dryland area, my only viable
alternative crop,” said Adams County wheat farmer Steve
Taylor, who has about 13 to 14 percent of his land in CRP.
“It’s a way for me to economically go into conservation.”
Often referred to as a program that pays farmers to idle
marginal land for conservation, CRP also helps stabilize
farmers’ bottom line. An application of supply and
demand, CRP raises commodity prices by reducing crops
taken to market.
“My sense is it is partly about conservation and partly
about keeping farmers’ incomes up,” said former USDA
Economist Michael Roberts. Roberts is also a North Carolina
State University associate professor and an affiliate
at the Center for Environmental and Resource Economic
Policy. “I think it’s sincerely about both. It’s one issue
where environmentalists and farmers’ interests are on the
same page.
“Probably the best benefit of the program for farmers
is the higher commodity price,” continued Roberts. “The
gains to farmers far outweigh the rental payments they
receive from the government, because removing land from production helps drive up commodity prices, which increases
profits even for farmers not participating in CRP.”
An alternative for poor soils
“The original intent of CRP was to take highly erodible
ground out of production and provide wildlife habitat and
soil control,” said Lincoln County farmer Chris Laney,
who has about 12 percent of his farm in CRP, “While still
compensating the owner who purchased the land for
production.”
One method of accomplishing this intent was planting
grasses on lower quality soils. Initially, CRP land
was planted in a grass seed native to a larger region. For
example, areas in Douglas County were seeded in grasses
native to the Eastern Washington region, not so much the
county.
“The original program—a monotype planting of nonnative
species—was not very beneficial to the wildlife,”
said Dennis Beich, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife Region 2 regional director. “Over the course of
the land being in CRP for 10 to 20 years, though, the native
plants have re-established themselves.”
Nelson said CRP stands are now planted with several
native grasses, sage brush and other shrubs beneficial to
the wildlife that thrive in these stands.
“In this county, we have close to 25 percent of the
eligible cropland enrolled,” said Dick Erickson, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) resource conservationist
in Adams County. “You’ve got to figure that’s
holding a lot of dust down.” Erickson stated the NRCS’s
role in the CRP process includes providing technical recommendations
on seedbed preparation and suitable seed
mixes to plant depending on rainfall and soil types.
“CRP gives producers an alternative for poor soils,” said
David Lundgren, Lincoln County Conservation District’s
district manager. “If you take light soils that are hard areas
to protect and put them in grass, that’s where CRP makes
sense for us.”
With about 4 percent of his land in CRP, Lincoln County
farmer John Rustemeyer looks at CRP as solution to manage
critical areas on his farm. “I think we’re using the
program to the benefit that fits our needs and helps with
certain areas as well on the ground.”
Laney stated that another benefit to CRP is risk management.
By putting qualified land into CRP, he has income
security from the guaranteed annual rental. One benefit
of this was the ability to use this guaranteed income from
some steep land in CRP to purchase his neighbor’s land
that was more efficient for him to farm.
Increasing wildlife habitat
“In the past ten to fifteen years,” said USDA Farm Service
Agency Program Chief Rod Hamilton, “CRP has seen
a significant shift in focus from erosion control to environmental
benefits such as wildlife habitat.”
“The program has been remarkably successful in wildlife
habitat,” said Laney. “When the 8,000 acres around
here were in CRP, the bird and deer populations just
exploded.”
A regional CRP wildlife success story is the threatened
populations of Sage Grouse and Sharp-Tail Grouse in
Douglas County, both of which are state, but not federally,
protected. “CRP may be one of the reasons the Sage
Grouse is not listed as an Endangered Species federally,”
said Beich.
Region 2 is comprised of Adams, Chelan, Douglas,
Grant and Okanogan counties. About 80 percent of the
CRP land in Region 2 is in Douglas County. It’s this CRP
land that Beich directly attributes to the increase of the
Sage Grouse.
Along with the Sage Grouse, Beich has seen an increase
in population with the Sharp-Tail Grouse and numerous
other species that live in Douglas County’s shrub steppe
environment.
“There are hundreds of obligate species that need the sage brush community to survive,” said Beich. “In this
region, we have lost 70 percent of the shrub steppe landscape
to agriculture, development and—more recently—
wind power.”
He compares this loss of habitat to that of the old growth
forests.
“We are approaching the same issues that hit old
growth forests when it got down to the last 10 percent
remaining,” cautioned Beich. “Once you get that close,
species begin disappearing off the face of the earth.”
Targeting specific conservation issues
CRP subprograms designed to solve specific conservation
issues include Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP), a federal/state partnership focusing on
specific environmental objectives through targeted enrollments;
Farmable Wetland Program, a program for enrolling
small, nonflood-plain wetlands, and the State Acres
for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) program which has the
specific purpose of addressing state and regional highpriority
wildlife objectives.
As of October of last year, Washington State has 37,496
acres in the SAFE program.
Beich notes that when the 2008 Farm Bill reduced the
land allowed in CRP by 4 million acres, the reductions in
Douglas County could have threatened the population of
species if not for SAFE. Lands under SAFE do not count
against CRP’s 25 percent cap per county. With SAFE,
35 percent of Douglas County’s land—most of it former
wheat land—is enrolled in CRP.
“I look at SAFE as the new and improved CRP,” said
Beich. “Planners look at native soil to see what would be
best planted there, sort of a mini-farm plan for that piece
of ground.”
Washington State also has a CREP targeting salmon
habitat. As part of this initiative, the FSA participated in
planning about 12,000 acres of forested riparian buffer
along salmon streams.
“These plantings could be no wider than 180 feet,” said
Hamilton, “So you can imagine how much stream bank
that covered.”
The local economic toll
“From a conservation standpoint, it works really well,
there is no question,” said Rustemeyer, who farms with
his father Andy. “But from an agronomics standpoint, the
local economies get hit really hard.”
Laney notes that when CRP broadened its criteria to
allow full farms under the program, the effect devastated
his area. Having these full farms out of production hit
local fuel and chemical sales hard, as well as intake at the
local grain elevator.
“It was hard on the local economy,” said Rustemeyer
about whole farms going into CRP. “The schools got hurt because there were fewer people out
here farming. These towns all used
to have a grange that sold fertilizer
and fuel—they’re gone.”
Rustemeyer believes the sentiment
amongst most farmers is that they
would like to see the good land still
farmed. He added that good ground
taken out of production means
someone is not farming.
“And there is clearly some steep
ground, some erodible ground
where CRP has worked very well,”
said Rustemeyer about the role CRP
should play on a farm. “The initial
premise behind the original idea
was a good one and remains a good
one.”
Dealing with weeds
As part of the conservation plan to
put land into CRP, the NRCS requires
noxious weeds be controlled
by the landowner. Compliance is
monitored by FSA spot checks of 10
percent of the land in CRP each year
and by neighbors who don’t want
noxious weeds to spread.
“Weeds are always a big issue.
Controlling weeds in CRP when you
initially seed the grass is a huge undertaking,”
said Rustemeyer. “The
chemicals you would use to control
the weeds, if you have legumes in
your seed mix, will kill (the legumes)
as well. You mow it and keep
control, and eventually the grass will
take control.”
“CRP is notoriously known for
noxious weeds,” said Kevin Hupp,
weed coordinator for the Lincoln
County Noxious Weed Control Board. “During the first year of CRP planting, we see everything. As the grass
and forbs take hold, they overtake most of the usual nasties.”
Hupp says that when forbs were added to planting, the weed problem got
worse. This results from taking longer for the planting to overtake the weeds
and the reduced ability to use herbicides. Though he likes the grass, forbs and
shrub planting mixture, Hupp recommends not planting it all at once. Rather,
farmers should be allowed to plant the grass first in order to overtake the weeds
and add the other plantings in one or two years.
“At least in our county, these guys are good guys,” said Hupp. In the past 14
years, Hupp remembers only two occasions where he had to go to the FSA to
discuss a farmer being nonresponsive about weed issues. “Most know where
the weeds are and take care of them.”
Nelson stated that where noxious weeds are an issue, the FSA shares the cost
of approved maintenance practices to resolve the problem.
Lands in CRP also provide—at the landowner’s discretion—recreational areas
for hiking, hunting and fishing.
“CRP does not require public access,” said Beich. “If a landowner wishes to
allow hunting, they can. There is a fair amount of both hunting and wildlife
watching occurring on CRP land.”
Sign-up uncertainty
Of Washington State’s 1,461,969 acres enrolled in CRP as of October of 2011,
more than 275,000 acres are scheduled to expire this year. Additionally, another
254,229 acres are scheduled to expire in 2013. Based on October 2011 enrollment, these expirations represent 35
percent of contracts and 36 percent
of the acreage under CRP.
With the uncertainty of a spring
sign-up and CRP rental rates in our
state averaging $56.30/acre, these expirations
offer a potential to impact
the economy, as well as the environment
they were set aside to protect.
“The biggest mystery of the upcoming
farm bill is, will there be a
sign-up?” said Britt Dudek, district
manager at the Foster Creek Conservation
District, “Because sometimes
there isn’t a sign-up.”
Dudek said the political uncertainty
around sign-ups is frustrating as
it makes it difficult to plan for land
management for 17 endangered or
critical species or those being monitored
on CRP lands in the District.
USDA’s Hamilton noted the FSA
was told the sign-up is in the President’s
budget, but, at the time of this
story, was not given a timeline about
when it may occur.
“Producers who have contracts
that expire may want to consider
what they are going to do with the
land,” said Chris Bieker, outreach
coordinator at the FSA in Spokane.
“They should be considering a
transition program such as putting
the land into grazing or back into
production.”
She adds that another option is
leasing land coming out of the CRP
to beginning farmers. The FSA encourages
this practice by paying the
landowners two more years of rent if
they lease the former CRP land to a
beginning farmer.
All told, there have been 41 signups
(general and continuous) since
the 1985 Farm Bill initiated the program.
But continued high commodity
prices may reduce the acreage
offered during the next CRP.
“Historically,” said Roberts, “Land
going into CRP decreases when
prices are high and increases when
prices are low.”
In their February 2011 USDA
publication, The Influence of Rising
Commodity Prices on the Conservation
Reserve Program, ERR-110, Daniel
Hellerstein and Scott Malcolm
explored the potential of commodity
prices remaining high to reduce the
landowners’ willingness to enroll in
CRP. During an interview for this
article, Hellerstein noted that “over
the last few years of high commodity
prices, we seem to be getting
fewer offers to put land into CRP.”
“CRP will still get offers if maximum
rental rates go up enough,”
said Roberts. “These rates have gone
up with commodity prices. It mainly
comes down to political will in tight
budget times.”
In the Northwest, though, Hamilton
notes he has seen more acreage
interest during the past two
sign-ups.
The increased interest could be
due to increased maximum rental
rates in the Pacific Northwest. Maximum
rental rates on the land are
tied to estimates of county average
rates, adjusted for soil quality as
well. Roberts participated as a consultant
to develop a supplementary
environmental impact statement for
the USDA that examined the likely
effects of using a new survey of cash
leases, recently undertaken due to
concerns by Congress that earlier
CRP rental rates were biased.
“For most areas, the rates in a new
USDA survey turned out lower than
the expert opinion rates, sometimes
by a lot,” said Roberts. “But in the
Pacific Northwest, the survey rates
sometimes turned out slightly
higher. So when they started using
the new survey-based rates rather
than the expert-opinion-based rates
for setting maximum rates in the
CRP, that change should have discouraged
offers in the Midwest and
South and procured an advantage to
Pacific Northwest offers.”
The future of CRP
“With a new farm bill on the horizon,” said FSA’s Nelson, “There is much
uncertainty amongst producers as to what the future of the CRP program might
be.”
“The CRP has been shrinking since 2007,” said Hellerstein. “And if the FSA’s
budgets don’t grow and commodity prices stay high, this shrinkage could
continue.”
“The number one issue is cost,” said Hamilton of the new farm bill’s potential
approach to CRP. Hamilton explained CRP is unique in that it has an acreage
cap, but not a budget cap. “There is a lot of discussion about cutting the cap. I
have heard a variety of options, including cutting up to 20 million acres.”
One suggested idea for adjusting the CRP is a greater emphasis on continuous
rather than general sign-ups to focus more on specific issues that need to be
addressed regionally. Another alternative is developing long-term easements to
replace 10-year rental agreements.
“I’m suggesting a degree of linkage between CRP expirations and ongoing
working lands conservation programs that currently doesn’t exist,” said Ralph
Heimlich of the Agricultural Conservation Economics and a former deputy
director of USDA’s Economic Research Services. “The easement is really an alternative
way to buy use rights from existing (or new) CRP landowners.”
In a 2008 RFF Weekly Public Commentary, Heimlich
wrote about the potential benefits of recasting the CRP
as a smaller, tighter, permanent conservation easement
program. His premise is that these easements, though difficult
to achieve because of the up-front costs, might allow
for better targeting of priority lands, reduce the risk of the
land being removed from conservation and keep more
farmable land in production.
This sort of program will require transition help for
those lands leaving CRP for noncropland uses, such as
grazing, forestry and wildlife habitat, that will retain the
benefits of conservation cover long after payments end. He
suggests a permanent easement could be cost shared.
“For a large parcel of CRP land to be used in a grazing
operation, there may be some need to change the mix of
grasses and install fencing to control cattle movements,”
said Heimlich. “Some help to the producer from Environmental
Quality Incentives Program or other working lands
programs would help make that transition of uses possible
and keep marginal land (both environmentally and
economically) from going back into crop production as a
default use.”
Lundgren of Lincoln County would like the CRP to increase
its flexibility to ensure that deserving soils, such as
Lincoln County’s, that have low precipitation and are not
necessarily blow soils have a better chance to be eligible
for enrollment. Even so, he is supportive of retaining the
program and stated that he would like to see it “kept off
the chopping block.”
“I have heard for years that CRP has a bad rep,” said
Dudek, referencing the bad reputation a minority of farmers
have given CRP by neglecting their land. “But for us, it
has been very straightforward and is very popular among
landowners in Douglas County.
“A lot of farmers are good stewards of the land,” continued
Dudek. “They are not just being paid not to farm, they are farming habitat and doing a good job of it.”
Taylor of Adams County notes that part of the reason he
uses the program is the observations he made while travelling
abroad, both to regions that practice conservation
and those where good farmland is now gone, and sees the
benefit for our society.
“Maybe CRP is an insurance for society,” said Taylor.
“Society benefits from what we’re doing, and they pay for
it too.”