Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Transcription

1 April 2008 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Program Assessment A Report from the Soil & Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense Fund

2

3 April 2008 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Program Assessment A Report from the Soil & Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense Fund 1 Foreword (July 2008) 2 Executive Summary 5 Introduction 5 Background 5 History 6 Continuous CRP 6 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 6 Farmable Wetlands Program 7 CRP Enrollment 7 Overview 7 Eligibility Requirements and the Environmental Benefits Index 10 Current CRP Enrollment Nationwide 11 Continuous CRP Eligibility Requirments and Enrollment 13 CREP Enrollment and Eligibility Requirements 17 Contract Expiration and Re-Enrollment 18 CRP s Environmental Impact 18 Soil Erosion 19 Water Quality 22 Air Quality 23 Wildlife 26 The Importance of Mid-Contract Cover Management 26 Managed Haying and Managed Grazing 29 Carbon Sequestration 30 Slippage 31 Getting the Most Out of CRP 31 Improving General Signups 32 Continue to Increase Enrollment Opportunities and Acreage Enrolled in Continuous CRP and CREP 33 Active Management for Land in CRP Contracts 34 Permanence 36 Looking Ahead 37 References 40 Appendixes iii

4 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Program Assessment April by the Soil & Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense Fund All rights reserved Environmental Defense Fund and the Soil & Water Conservation Society would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Their contributions underwrote the research, writing, and publication of this report. Soil and Water Conservation Society 945 SW Ankeny Road Ankeny, IA The Soil and Water Conservation Society is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization that serves as an advocate for natural resource professionals and for science-based conservation policy. Our mission is to foster the science and art of soil, water, and environmental management on working land the land used to produce food, fiber, and other services that improve the quality of life people experience in rural and urban communities. Environmental Defense Fund 257 Park Avenue South New York, NY Environmental Defense Fund is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people, including the right to clean air, clean water, healthy food and flourishing ecosystems. Guided by science, we work to create practical solutions that win lasting political, economic, and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost effective, and fair. iv

5 Conservation Reserve Program Assessment Foreword (July 2008) Things have changed significantly since we began collecting and analyzing data related to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), highlighting the program s past and current environmental successes, and formulating recommendations for the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to make further improvements in its implementation of CRP to maximize the environmental benefits the program delivers to farmers and the public in the future. First, the 2008 farm bill has now been enacted. Some of the recommendations we made in this assessment should be advanced by changes that Congress made to CRP, depending on how FSA implements those changes. For example, the final version of the farm bill includes new language to require participants in CRP, to undertake management of the land as needed throughout the term of the contract to implement the conservation plan. This change is consistent with our recommendation that FSA require more active management of CRP lands, and we hope that FSA will use the new language to ensure that CRP contracts include a schedule for management activities and that those contract provisions are enforced. The farm bill also added a new provision to CRP that will facilitate better management of forested CRP land, which should benefit wildlife and other resources. In addition, it expanded the Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP) in a way that should make this CRP subprogram more effective in achieving water quality goals of regional and national significance. Unfortunately, the farm bill also scaled CRP back by 7 million acres. While today s very high commodity prices mean it was unlikely that CRP enrollment would have reached the former cap of 39.2 million acres without a significant increase in rental payments under the program, it was disappointing that Congress chose to scale back the program to 32 million acres (effective beginning in 2010) without making other changes to ensure that CRP will remain an attractive option in the current price climate for owners and operators of marginal, environmentally sensitive land. Thus, while CRP enrollment currently stands at almost 35 million acres, we will see it drop to no more than 32 million acres by 2010, and unless action is taken to increase payments under the program, considerably below that level as contracts expire in the next few years. Second, current commodity prices and the pressure to significantly increase crop production to meet the demand for both food and fuel mean that CRP is at a crossroads. Enrollment in the CRP program is expected to suffer greatly due to these factors, yet with the expansion of production particularly onto more marginal, environmentally sensitive lands we need effective conservation programs, including CRP, now more than ever. Climate change also threatens to undo many of the conservation gains that have been associated with CRP in the past two decades. Changes in precipitation patterns associated with climate change are likely to result in increased soil erosion and increased water pollution associated with runoff from agricultural lands impacts CRP can and should play an important role in helping to mitigate (see, e.g., SWCS Planning for Extremes report [2007]). As our assessment of CRP makes clear, this program has been very successful, since its inception in 1985, in producing significant benefits to soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources. If CRP is to continue to achieve meaningful results in the face of significant new challenges, payment levels must be increased, enrollment must target the most environmentally sensitive lands and the most cost-effective practices, new incentives must be developed, and other strategies must be pursued in order to ensure that CRP plays an even more effective role in the future in addressing the changing environmental impacts associated with agricultural production. We look forward to working with policymakers in the coming months and years to ensure that CRP maintains and builds on successes already achieved.

6 Conservation Reserve Program Assessment Executive Summary This assessment of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of four assessments of the major USDA conservation programs developed jointly by Environmental Defense Fund and the Soil & Water Conservation Society. The intent of these assessments is to better understand how these programs are working today and how they may be improved. CRP has been in place since 1985, so researchers have had time to study its effects. Thus, in addition to analyzing current program data obtained from the FSA, this assessment cites numerous other analyses of CRP in evaluating the program and recommending changes to improve its performance in the future. The data presented in this report has been checked for accuracy by FSA. The conclusions and recommendations, however, are solely the responsibility of Environmental Defense Fund and the Soil & Water Conservation Society. FSA s much appreciated cooperation with this assessment should not be taken as an endorsement of our conclusions and recommendations. CRP plays a key role in the portfolio of USDA conservation programs as the nation s largest, most geographically widespread land retirement and restoration program. Through general signups, continuous enrollment, the FWP and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), CRP is providing tremendous conservation benefits. CRP does more than any other reserve program to reduce erosion, improve water quality, and improve wildlife habitat for grassland and migratory birds, ducks, and other wildlife. It is strongly in the nation s interest to maintain and strengthen this program and further its legacy of innovation and partnerships. CRP provides payments to participants for taking environmentally sensitive farmland out of production for a period of 10 to 15 years, as well as for conducting conservation activities on that land. As of April 2008, there were almost 35 million acres enrolled in CRP. Acres are enrolled in CRP through general signups or continuous enrollment, CREPs, or through enrollment in the FWP. General signups are held periodically, and offers compete against each other based on the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). Continuous enrollments, including CREP and FWP, are on-going enrollment opportunities and are not subject to the EBI. CRP has created many benefits for wildlife habitat, soil quality, water quality, air quality, and water quantity. This report analyzes the data on the environmental benefits that have been created by CRP to date and makes recommendations for maximizing the environmental benefits that can be created by this program in the future. FSA has made great strides in increasing the environmental benefits generated by CRP. However, there are still several areas where CRP can be improved to generate greater, more costeffective environmental benefits: Improve the criteria used to select land during general CRP signups Increase opportunities to enroll and enrollment levels in continuous CRP (CCRP) and CREP Ensure more active management of vegetation and cover throughout the course of a CRP contract Create more opportunities for long term and permanent protection of land Improving the Criteria for Selecting Participants during General Signups CRP should be enrolling the land that can make the greatest contribution towards meeting conservation goals and addressing environmental challenges. The EBI ranks applicants to CRP based on the environmental benefits they are predicted to provide in the areas of wildlife habitat, soil quality, water quality, and air quality. The EBI is based on scientific indices to the extent possible, but the ranking of applicants is in many ways more an art than a science due to the limits of available data and technology. FSA has modified the EBI over the years to increase the accuracy with which applicants are ranked, but improvements can and should be made to ensure that CRP is enrolling the applicants who can generate the most environmental benefits in a cost effective way. In order to enroll the most valuable land in CRP, the EBI should be modified by increasing the weight given to land with high potential environmental merit in each resource category. In the case of soil quality, high scores should only be given to 2

7 applicants with the most erodible cropland. In the case of water quality, applicants should only be given a high score if the field is delivering sediment, nutrients or other pollutants directly into a water body, or if the offered land serves as a buffer between land which is a source of pollution and a water body. Wildlife criteria should differentiate more carefully between at-risk species habitat, exceptional habitat in general, good habitat, and land that provides cover but little specific habitat value. Due to the unique needs of different types of wildlife, particularly threatened or endangered species, these criteria should be relevant to the location of the applicant. There are many cases where the CCRP signup may be a more effective way to meet particular environmental goals. This will be addressed further in the next section. The EBI should also distinguish more clearly between native and appropriate vegetation and non-native vegetation used for erosion control and should prioritize applicants who plan to install appropriate cover. The EBI already uses Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to incorporate some information about an offered parcel s location in the landscape, but more should be done to assess which parcels are in the best location to provide environmental benefits, either because they will reduce the contribution of runoff and sediment to a polluted water body or because they can expand existing wildlife habitat or fill key wildlife needs at a particular stage of life or season. These changes could make the EBI more effective at discriminating between high and low value applicants. Increase Enrollment Opportunities and Levels in the Continuous Signup and CREP Programs FSA uses continuous signup CRP to provide producers with the option of enrolling land on an on-going basis in certain conservation practices that are deemed to be of such high environmental value that they do not need to be subject to the competitive bidding process of a general signup. In many cases the lands enrolled in CCRP are smaller parcels, such as filter strips, riparian buffers, or grassed waterways that can create big environmental benefits. FSA has also used CCRP to carry out important new initiatives that focus on addressing critical environmental issues, such as hypoxia or high priority wildlife habitat. Examples of such initiatives include the Bottomland Hardwood, Northern Bobwhite Quail, Longleaf Pine, Duck Nesting Habitat, and State Acres for Wildlife (SAFE) habitat initiatives. FSA also deserves praise for partnering with states to create CREPs that address major environmental issues at the state level, such as restoring the health of the Illinois River, reducing water consumption from the Ogallala Aquifer, and restoring critical tallgrass prairie and oak savanna habitat that benefit threatened and endangered species and rapidly declining grassland birds. Both CCRP and CREP are important tools for expanding and improving the environmental benefits produced by CRP. Further expanding the eligibility of lands with high environmental value for continuous enrollment and CREP is therefore important to ensuring that the program maximizes environmental benefits while also increasing producer access to CRP. We applaud FSA for increasing its emphasis on special signup initiatives like the SAFE initiative. This initiative, established last year, allows states and others to submit proposals to establish continuous enrollment opportunities for a certain number of acres of high priority habitat restoration within a targeted area to benefit threatened and endangered species, candidate species, rapidly declining species or species of economic significance, such as game species. It is significant that FSA is not only pursuing significant at risk species habitat goals, it is also working with local stakeholders to meet local needs. FSA should provide states with the opportunity to create additional SAFEs in future years as well as considering additional continuous initiatives, such as a wetlands initiative to address hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. FSA should also seek to increase the use of compatible CREPs to address issues that cross state lines, such as hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico or pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. For instance, the states of Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio are working with FSA to expand CREP coverage to the entire Western Lake Erie Basin watershed. As of April 2008 there were 2,714,000 acres enrolled in CCRP and 1,117,000 acres enrolled in CREP. Enrollment in these programs is lagging due to insufficient outreach by FSA, and in some cases, insufficient incentives for landowners. Given the high environmental value of land enrolled in these programs, FSA should significantly expand outreach efforts for CCRP and CREP. Congress should ensure that sufficient resources are available both to support the necessary outreach and to provide the signing incentive payments and practice incentive payments that spur enrollment in these initiatives. Active Management of Land in CRP More active management of land in CRP contracts would result in major improvements for wildlife habitat, particularly for migratory and grassland birds. Farmers should establish the best possible locally appropriate cover, invest more time in the variety of maintenance activities required to maintain that cover, avoid inappropriate plantings and control invasive plant species. FSA can encourage this by giving applicants who plan to manage enrolled cropland with locally appropriate vegetation a higher ranking in the EBI. Contracts should detail a plan and schedule for management activities, and inappropriate plantings should be prohibited.

8 FSA should also implement scientifically based grazing and haying guidelines to ensure these activities happen at a rate that is appropriate for the region and the specific type of cover. Grazing in particular can be an important management tool if it is done at appropriate stocking rates and in accordance with the timing of nesting season. FSA currently allows haying and grazing to occur once every 10, 5, or 3 years depending on the location. Haying and grazing are permitted at the same frequency, despite the fact that there are some regions where grazing can and should be used more frequently than haying. The current schedule for haying and grazing is the result of a settlement agreement between USDA and the National Wildlife Federation. FSA should conduct environmental impact assessments as soon as possible in order to determine and implement the appropriate grazing and haying schedules for areas impacted by the settlement. Managed grazing can be an important component of active management of land in CRP. Producers should not be penalized with a reduced rental rate for using grazing as a management tool if it is used as part of scheduled maintenance of CRP land. Grazing of land in CRP is not permitted until the end of nesting season, when the forage is less valuable, so the reduction in the rental rate can often be greater than the income generated by grazing. FSA permits producers to use haying and grazing on an emergency basis during periods of drought or excess precipitation. In some regions of the country, emergency haying and grazing has been permitted in 10 out of the past 20 years a rate which can be extremely detrimental to grassland bird habitat and the local ecology. FSA should reduce the frequency that emergency haying and grazing is made available or place limits on the amount that an individual can take advantage of this in order to ensure that the emergency haying and grazing does not negate the environmental benefits of CRP. Perpetuating the Environmental Benefits of CRP Biofuels and CRP The rising price of corn and soybeans is already creating an incentive for farmers to take land out of CRP and put it back into production. Prior to the recent Re-enrollment and Extension (REX) process, CRP contracts on 16 million acres were set to expire in Over 80% of these acres have been re-enrolled or extended through REX, but many of these contracts were only extended for 2-5 years. After REX, there are still 18.3 million acres that are set to expire between 2008 and Rental rates for CRP land will need to remain competitive in order to provide producers with an incentive to keep this land in CRP. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the benefits created by CRP in face of these rising commodity prices and the growing demand for corn as feedstock for ethanol production. There have already been several proposals to allow land in CRP out of contracts without penalty in order to boost production or to use land in CRP to create a biomass reserve. The rush to use CRP land to bolster production either specifically to address the demand for biofuels or as a response to higher prices resulting in part from the demand for biofuel feedstocks is premature, and could have unintended environmental consequences. Taxpayers have invested many billions of dollars in annual rental payments to secure important environmental benefits through short term land retirement. The value of their investment can be quickly eroded if large amounts of environmentally sensitive land enrolled in CRP are brought back into production. Both the increased cost of CRP and the increased difficulty of keeping producers in the program make it even more important to target enrollment in CRP to the most environmentally sensitive lands, whether enrolled through general sign-up or continuous-crp, FWP or CREP. As noted above, rental rates and other payments offered through CRP will have to be adjusted in order to accomplish this. Easements More than half of the land that is currently enrolled in CRP through general signup is in its second or third CRP contract. Over the long term, the annual rental of land is not the most cost effective way to maintain environmental benefits. In some CREPs, states have provided participants with permanent conservation easement and/or contract extension options. The next farm bill should provide FSA with the authority to use federal funding to offer producers a long term or permanent easement option that would purchase the cropping rights to the land and specify the appropriate use and management of cover on the land. This would be a more cost effective way to achieve and sustain the environmental benefits created by land retirement. The recommendations in this report are intended to help spur further improvements in the management of the CRP and increase the substantial environmental benefits it provides.

9 INTRODUction This assessment of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of four assessments of the major USDA conservation programs developed jointly by Environmental Defense Fund and the Soil & Water Conservation Society. The other three assessments review the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Security Program (CSP), and the programs designed to provide technical assistance to producers participating in USDA conservation programs. The intent of these assessments is to better understand how these programs are working today and how they might be improved. Because CRP has been in place since 1985 researchers have had more time to study its effects. Thus, in addition to analyzing current program data obtained from FSA, this assessment cites numerous other analyses of CRP in evaluating the program and recommending changes to improve its performance in the future. Another factor in evaluating CRP is that longer term benefits have had an opportunity to manifest themselves. History Background First established by the 1985 farm bill (Food Security Act of 1985) modern CRP provides participants (owners of eligible land) with payments for retiring highly erodible or other environmentally sensitive cropland from crop production for years. Payments are calculated on a per-acre basis based on the average dry land rental rate for the area and the productivity of the soils enrolled. Participants also receive payments to cover up to half of the cost of establishing a permanent cover (usually grass or trees) on the land enrolled in the program, as well as per-acre maintenance payments for conservation practices. The US has periodically instituted programs to retire cropland beginning with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, originally with the goal of removing land from production and therefore reducing supply. Many of these supply control programs have been long term measures, and at the end of the program the land would usually go back into production. Some supply control programs have just required producers to enroll on a yearly basis. In either case, the environmental benefits of taking the land out of production were fleeting. As soon as the need for supply control ended, the land would go back into production and the environmental benefits would be lost. The Soil Bank was phased out entirely by 1972, but multi-year land retirement programs continued into the 1990s. The Acreage Reduction Program (ARP) was expressly a supply control program based in later years on commodity supply/use ratios. It was eliminated by the 1996 farm bill (Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act). The 1970s were a period of booming growth in US agriculture, and farmers were encouraged to plant fencerow to fencerow. Not surprisingly, the problem of erosion began to grow. The newlycreated Natural Resources Inventory provided comprehensive data on the growing erosion problem, and political pressure began to build for the creation of a program to reduce soil erosion (Berg 1994). When crop surpluses again became a serious problem in the early 1980s, the political conditions became ripe for the creation of a more cost-effective program that would help solve the soil erosion problem and lower production at the same time. The CRP was created in the Food Security Act of 1985 with the intention of meeting both supply control and erosion reduction goals by enrolling between 40 and 45 million acres of highly erodible land. Much of the new program s political support came from advocates for a new supply control program. Enrollment was initially restricted to acres where erosion was the most severe, but after the first sign up period more money was allocated to CRP, and USDA opened up enrollment to all cropland that was considered to be highly erodible. At the end of the 1990 crop year, 33.9 million acres had been enrolled. Although CRP s stated goals focus on conservation, its supply control objectives were important drivers to developing and obtaining political support and funding for the program. The 1990 farm bill (Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act) extended the program through calendar 1995 and expanded its goals to include a greater emphasis on improving water quality and wildlife habitat in addition to reducing soil erosion. An additional 2.5 million acres were enrolled in CRP under the 1990 farm bill, bringing total enrollment to 36.4 million acres by Subsequent appropriations legislation capped CRP enrollment at 38 million acres. The 1996 farm bill reauthorized the CRP through 2002 and set the enrollment cap at 36.4 million acres. The 2002 farm bill increased the overall enrollment cap to its present level of 39.2 million acres. Under the 2002 farm bill, no more than 25% of the cropland in any one county could be enrolled in CRP or the Wetlands Reserve Program, but this cap can be waived by the secretary. CRP is administered by USDA s FSA. As of April 2008, there were 34.7 million acres enrolled in CRP. The program had outlays of approximately $1.9 billion in fiscal year As is discussed more fully below, CRP consists of general sign-up CRP, CCRP, CREPs, and the FWP. FSA initiated CCRP in 1996, reserving 4,000,000 acres for enrollment, and authorized USDA to partner with states, local governments, or tribes to create joint land retirement -conservation programs (CREPs). FSA began using CREP agreements in FWP was initiated in 2001 under the Agricultural Appropriation Act and expanded under the 2002 farm bill. The role of CRP has evolved over the years as Congressional leaders, USDA, the conservation community, agricultural leaders, and others have recognized the potential to make changes to the program to increase the environmental benefits from targeting cropland for enrollment.

10 Political support for CRP is now focused more on the program s critical role in conserving the nation s soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources than on any effect that CRP may have on the supply of agricultural commodities. Continuous CRP Targeted parcels of cropland that are used as filter strips, windbreaks, or other conservation buffers can generate big environmental benefits from a small area of land. In order to make it easier for farmers to enroll these high value areas that were likely to be accepted under the general signup, FSA modified the CRP rule in 1996 to allow farmers to enroll buffers through a continuous signup process, rather than making them wait for a designated sign up period. The justification for establishing a continuous, automatic enrollment process was that the relatively small acreage devoted to these high-value practices would provide a significant positive environmental impact for a much larger area. USDA launched the National Conservation Buffer Initiative (NCBI) when the continuous sign up option was created with a goal of enrolling 2 million miles of buffers by The NCBI became the primary outreach effort to encourage producers to use more buffers and to raise their awareness of the availability of the CCRP option. CCRP applicants are offered a set peracre payment for implementing eligible practices on eligible land. If they meet the eligibility criteria and accept the offer, the land is immediately accepted. Continuous signup practices include grass filter strips, riparian buffers, wildlife habitat buffers, wetland buffers, wetland restorations, shelter belts, living snow fences, grassed waterways, field windbreaks, salt tolerant vegetation, bottomland hardwoods, and shallow water areas for wildlife, in addition to land in wellhead protection areas. A complete list of practices can be found later in this assessment, in the section on CCRP enrollment to date. As discussed in greater detail below, FSA has pioneered continuous signup initiatives that address significant ongoing environmental issues such as hypoxia or high priority wildlife habitat. As with general signups, in addition to the per-acre payment, 50% cost sharing for conservation activity installation and a per-acre maintenance payment are also provided. Participants who restore wetland hydrology also receive a 25% hydrology practice incentive. Unlike general signups, CCRP participants can also receive up to $100 per acre as a signing incentive payment (SIP) for agreeing to install certain conservation practices, and an additional 40% of the installation cost for specified practices as a practice incentive payment (PIP). Producers who are re-enrolling in CCRP are not eligible for SIPs or PIPs, but maybe eligible for cost-share if significant changes in vegetation are needed. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program In 1997, FSA entered into the first CREP Agreement. CREPs combine federal CRP funding with state, city or tribal resources to target specific environmental objectives of state or national significance [See 7 CFR Pt (b)]. CREPs offer a unique opportunity to tailor CRP enrollment criteria with incentives to meet local needs to address nationally significant environmental issues and to leverage the federal investment with non-federal funding. Often conservation organizations partner with state and federal agencies to provide funding for bonuses for high value practices or permanent easements or assist with outreach and/or technical assistance. State agencies and non-profit groups provide substantial assistance to FSA and NRCS with outreach for CREP programs. To create a CREP program, states, cities or tribes develop a CREP proposal for approval by FSA, and provide at least 20% of total program cost. Landowners and producers can enroll in CREPs at any time. FSA provides a higher rental rate for land in the CREP (i.e., dryland rental rate plus a bonus), cost sharing for maintenance of the land, an up-front signing incentive (SIP) to encourage participation and practice incentive payments (PIP) for high value practices. FSA provides irrigated rental rates in some CREPs that create water savings for conservation. States also typically provide CREP participants with payments for such things as participation in high value practices, contract extensions, permanent easements, or retiring irrigated water rights. When states create a new CREP program, they set an acreage cap for enrollment in the program. Farmable Wetlands Program The FWP is another CRP sub-program designed to restore up to 1,000,000 acres of farmable wetlands and associated buffers by improving the land s hydrology and vegetation. Producers in all states can enroll eligible land in the FWP through the continuous signup process. FWP is limited to no more than 1 million acres (including buffers around the wetlands), and no more than 100,000 acres in any one state. Producers can receive FWP contracts for 10 to 15 years in exchange for annual rental payments, CRP signing incentive payments, practice incentive payments, and cost-sharing for installing necessary practices. Under the 2002 farm bill, acreage eligible for FWP included farmed and prior converted wetlands that had been impacted by farming activities. The maximum acreage for enrollment of wetlands and buffers was 40 acres per tract. Actual wetlands enrolled were to be 10 acres or less, with only the first 5 acres eligible for payment. Participants agreed to restore the hydrology of the wetland to the maximum extent possible. As this assessment was being finalized, Congress was considering whether to make changes to FWP in the 2008 farm bill, including an expansion of eligible land.

11 CRP Enrollment Overview Most CRP enrollment has occurred during specified offer periods known as general signups. During a general signup, farmers make offers to enroll land in the program, and these offers are evaluated by FSA based on an EBI. The ranking process and the EBI have changed over time, but generally this competitive process is intended to ensure that CRP general signups enroll the most environmentally sensitive and/or highly erodible land, and to give producers an incentive to install conservation cover to benefit wildlife and lower their bids in order to increase their EBI score. There have been 19 general signups for the program, starting in The EBI can be a useful tool for ranking applicants, but as discussed above, some categories of enrollments are known to be of such high environmental value that they are not subjected to this competitive bidding process and are instead enrolled through CCRP or CREP. Continuous signup has been available since 1997 and CREP enrollment is generally available on a continuous basis after a CREP agreement is signed. As of April 2008, there were 34.7 million acres enrolled in CRP. Table 1 shows the type of each sign up (general or continuous) and the number of acres enrolled as of The continuous sign up category also includes acres enrolled in CREP and FWP. Eligibility Requirements and the Environmental Benefits Index Table 1. Acres Enrolled in CRP, Year* Sign-up Number Type Acres Enrolled General 753,668 2 General 2,771,660 3 General 4,703, General 9,478,599 5 General 4,442, General 3,375,364 7 General 2,604, General 2,462,382 9 General 3,329, General 475, General 998, General 1,027, General 683, Continuous 556, General 16,440, General 5,809, Continuous 214, General 4,705, Continuous 266, General 2,224, Continuous 117, Continuous 202, Continuous 461, Continuous 441, Continuous 258, General 1,814, Continuous 185, Continuous 255, General 1,120, Continuous 399, Continuous 350, Continuous 154,000 * General CRP sign up periods are usually open for 2 to 4 weeks, while continuous CRP sign up periods are open for the entire year. Acreage for sign-ups 1-12 based on initially approved contracts (sums to million acres). Acreage for sign-ups after signup 12 based on active contracts as of February CRP was originally intended to enroll the most highly erodible cropland. In the first year of CRP implementation, USDA based eligibility on the Land Capability Class and the predicted annual erosion

12 rate. (The predicted annual erosion rate takes into account sheet, rill, and wind erosion. It does not account for gully, scour, or other types of erosion.) Land capability classes are used to evaluate the suitability of land for agricultural production and are numbered from I-VIII. Land in Class I is very well-suited cropland; land in Class VIII has extreme limitations for use as cropland. In 1986, land rated in class VI or higher was eligible for CRP. Alternately, land that was predicted to have a soil erosion rate greater than 3T was also eligible. (T stands for the soil loss tolerance factor, which is derived from the Universal Soil Loss Equation. T is the maximum rate of annual soil loss that will still permit agricultural production on the land for an indefinite period, so 3T indicates that the land is experiencing soil erosion at 3 times the maximum tolerable rate.) The number of acres enrolled in CRP during the first two sign ups in 1986 was far below the target for enrollment, however. As a result, the FSA broadened the eligibility requirements in the following year in order to allow more land to be taken out of production. The 1990 farm bill put greater emphasis on water quality, wildlife, and other resource concerns in addition to soil erosion. In order to accommodate these new goals, the USDA developed the EBI to screen bids with a goal of ensuring that only the land with the highest potential for environmental improvement was accepted in each signup. The EBI was instituted for the 10th signup in 1991, and enrollment of the remaining 2.5 million acres under the enrollment cap served as a pilot for the process. The complete list of eligibility requirements for each signup is available in Appendix A. While some parts of the EBI were based on scientific information, the relationship between competing objectives (e.g., soil erosion versus wildlife versus water quality) and the assignment of points between these objectives is more subjective and was decided by the USDA and other Federal agency experts. The EBI was modified substantially prior to the massive reenrollment of existing CRP acres in general signups 15 and 16 in 1997 and has been adjusted somewhat for nearly every signup. Table 2 shows how the weights given to different factors in the areas of water quality, wildlife, air quality, and cost effectiveness have changed throughout different sign up periods. The accuracy with which the EBI evaluates the relative environmental benefits of CRP applications is difficult to assess, although various studies have analyzed its performance and suggested changes that were thought to improve it. (See Barbarika et al. 1994; Feather et al. 1999; Goodwin and Smith 2003) The EBI is structured to look at the cross section of benefits that an offered parcel can provide, without giving priority to any one benefit. Thus the EBI essentially favors the enrollment of acres that are deemed to provide some water quality, erosion, and wildlife benefits in areas that are the least expensive to enroll. Providing exceptional wildlife benefits alone is not enough to achieve acceptance of an offer under the current EBI. This means that CRP may be missing the opportunity to enroll some of the most environmentally sensitive land with respect to an individual environmental concern that is particularly important in a given location. The EBI has evolved as a tool, but there are some areas where it could be further improved. By increasing the point differences between low and high value applications in each category and by providing the flexibility to enroll offers that score exceptionally well in one resource category in addition to enrolling offers that score well in all resource categories, the EBI could more effectively select the most valuable fields for enrollment in CRP. For instance, the wildlife criteria should recognize a wider range of habitat values, differentiating between at-risk species habitat, exceptional wildlife habitat, good wildlife habitat, and cover that serves primarily as erosion control. These criteria would need to be specific to the location, especially in the case of at-risk species. The EBI could also be improved by incorporating better measures of water quality impacts. One option FSA may be considering is modeling edge-of-field nutrient and sediment loss estimates. The EBI should also more pointedly favor vegetation that is appropriate to the local ecosystem. In the case of soil erosion, significantly higher points could be assigned to land that cannot be cropped without threat to long term productivity regardless of the cropping system. Cost Effectiveness and CRP When funding is limited, the relative cost effectiveness of applications to any conservation program should be an important consideration in deciding who gets a contract. In the early years of CRP, the cost effectiveness of a given application was determined by dividing the applicant s total EBI score by the cost of the application per acre. This is a simple way to determine which applications offer the most environmental benefits per dollar invested. However, the cost of a CRP application per acre is dependant on the local cropland rental rate, which can vary widely. This formula favored producers in areas where the rental rate was low and eliminated producers in areas where rental rates were particularly high, even if they could provide extensive environmental benefits. For this reason the FSA switched to using the formula in Table 2 above. The current method of evaluating cost effectiveness reduces the disparities created by varying rental rates, but it makes it more difficult to assess whether CRP funds are being used in the most cost effective manner. This will be addressed further later in this report. 8

13 Table 2. Environmental Benefits Index Factor Possible Points by General Signup EBI Factor Wildlife Benefits Signup 15 (1997) 16 (1997) 18 (1998) 20 (2000) 26 (2003) 29 (2004) Cover (N1a) T&E species n.a. 1 n.a. Proximity to water or wetland n.a. n.a. Wildlife priority zone n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a Proximity to protected area n.a. n.a. Contract size n.a. n.a n.a n.a Wildlife enhancements n.a. n.a Upland to wetland ratio n.a. n.a. Formula (N1a/50)*(sum of factors) (sum of factors) Total Water Quality Benefits Water quality area/zone Ground water quality Surface water quality Associated wetlands n.a n.a Total Soil Erosion Benefits (Erodibility index) Total Enduring (post-contract) Benefits Total Air Quality Benefits Wind erodibility Wind erosion soils n.a Air quality zone n.a Carbon Sequestration n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a Total Conservation Priority Area Benefits 3 Total n.a. n.a. Cost Effectiveness Rental payment amount 1 a=190 a=125 a=125 a=125 a=125 a=125 NAME? b=165 b=165 b=165 b=165 b=185 b=185 Cost-share Amount below maximum n.a rent 5 Total Total EBI Points Environmental components Environmental + cost components n.a. refers to categories where points were not made available. 2. Producers received these points for enrolling larger tracts of land. Category was discontinued because it discriminated against small farms. 3. Conservation Priority Area benefits were incorporated with the applicable benefit category after signup Producers receive these points if they forgo the cost-share option. 5. Producers receive points in this category if they submit a bid below the set rental rate.

14 These changes could make the EBI more effective at discriminating between high and low value offers. In order to ensure that the parcels that have the potential to provide the highest environmental benefits are enrolled in CRP in any case, the top 10% of offers in any category could be automatically accepted. The EBI has evolved in the past and is likely to continue to evolve. This is particularly true given the increasing capabilities new software and computer models are beginning to provide, such as a clearer understanding of relevant locational characteristics for wildlife habitat. In some cases existing data and technology limitations may make it difficult to effectively and accurately incorporate some of these suggested changes to the EBI today. But FSA has a history of incorporating new data and technologies into the EBI as it becomes available, and should continue with this in the future in order to ensure that CRP addresses the most important environmental challenges. Current CRP Enrollment Nationwide The distribution of CRP acres differs among different enrollment types and cover practices. Figure 1 illustrates where CRP enrollments were in 2007, broken down by type of practice (grass, tree, streamside buffer, or wetland). Figure 1. CRP enrollment: (a) streamside buffers, (b) wetland practices, (c) grass plantings, and (d) tree plantings (A) (B) (C) (D) 10

15 Continuous CRP Eligibility Requirements and Enrollment As mentioned previously, the continuous- CRP allows producers to enroll land at any time in high value practices without waiting for a general sign-up and going through the competitive bidding process. The practices that continuous CRP participants can sign up for are listed below. Practices marked with an asterix are only available in certain areas or in conjunction with specific CREP agreements. CP1: Establishment of Permanent Introduced Grasses and Legumes* CP2: Establishment of Permanent Native Grasses* CP3: New softwood trees (not longleaf pine)* CP3A: Hardwood Tree Planting* CP4B: Permanent Wildlife Habitat (Corridors)* CP4D: Permanent Wildlife Habitat* CP5A: Field Windbreak Establishment CP8: Grass Waterways CP9: Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife CP15: Contour Grass Strips CP16: Shelterbelts CP17: Living Snow Fences CP18: Salinity Reducing Vegetation CP21: Filter Strips CP22: Riparian Buffer CP23: Wetland Restoration, Non- Floodplain CP24: Cross Wind Trap Strips CP27: Farmable (Wetlands) CP 25 Rare and Declining Habitat CP28: Farmable Wetland (Upland) CP29: Marginal Pastureland Wildlife Habitat Buffer CP30: Marginal Pastureland Wetland Buffer CP31: Bottomland Timber Establishment on Wetlands CP33: Upland Bird Habitat (quail) buffers CP36: Longleaf Pine CP37: Duck Habitat (Prairie Pothole area) Table 3 below shows the acres enrolled in the continuous sign up through April In order to encourage greater enrollments in continuous signup categories, the FSA began using incentives for continuous signup participation in These included an up-front Signing Incentive Payment (SIP) of $100 to $150 per acre (depending on the length of contract) for filter strips, riparian buffers, grassed waterways, field windbreaks shelter belts and living snow fences; a Practice Incentive Payment (PIP) equal to 40% of the cost of installing practices for certain continuous signup practices (meaning that continuous signup practices effectively receive 90% cost-share); increased maintenance payments for certain practices; and updated marginal pastureland rental rates to better reflect the market value of such lands. SIPs are now capped at $100 per acre. Appendix B has a list of current SIPs and PIPs as of April Experience has shown that these additional payments are critical to ensuring sufficient farmer participation in continuous CRP. Many continuous Table 3. Continuous CRP Enrollment (excluding CREP) Through April 2008 Fiscal Year (Sign up number) and CREP practices can be expensive to install, and even with 50% cost-share they can entail large out-of-pocket costs for the participant. This can be discouraging for potential participants who may be enrolling a low number of acres and would receive a small payment without additional SIPs or PIPs. When SIPs and PIPs have not been used with continuous enrollment categories, enrollment has lagged (such as with the Bottomland Hardwood Tree Initiative). The total acreage enrolled in a continuous CRP contract is often low, because many of the practices eligible for continuous enrollment, such as grassed waterways or filter strips, cover only small portions of a crop field. A 100-foot filter strip along 1 mile of stream, for example, is only 12 acres. At $100 per acre, the producer would only receive $1,200 annually for retiring the land. In many cases, this is insufficient incentive for participation in the program, so the SIPs and PIPs are an important way to involve more producers in continuous CRP. These incentives can bring the payments a farmer receives up to better reflect the environmental benefits that are being produced by the retired land. FSA also continues to develop special continuous signup initiatives to facilitate enrollment of high priority lands to Continuous CRP (Acres) 1997(14) 555, (17) 199, (19) 217, (21/22) 253, (23) 293, (24) 227, (25/27) 294, (28) 167, (30) 228, (31) 199, (35) 381, (36) 92,000 Total 2,714,000 11

16 Examples of Continuous CRP Signup Initiatives Bottomland Hardwood Tree Initiative: In 2003, the FSA announced a new initiative to enroll 500,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forest under the continuous signup. Bottomland hardwoods are trees that grow in floodplains. The initiative protects against future flood damage by slowing the flow of water and shoring up soil, and it restores each site to an ecologically diverse forest type. It is also intended to improve water quality, contribute towards the reduction of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, restore wildlife habitat, and provide significant carbon sequestration. While farmers and ranchers within most states were eligible, the initiative was targeted toward areas in the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio River valleys and the southern coastal plain. Eligible land must be located within a 100-year floodplain and be comprised of primarily wetland soils. Program participants receive 50% of the cost to establish the trees, an annual rental payment for 14 to 15 years, and technical assistance to plant the trees. Participants will also retain their right to sell or market their carbon-sequestered gains (also called credits), or other environmental credits, to energy companies or whomever they choose. Enrollment has increased from 346 acres at the end of 2003 to 41,674 acres in April 2008 (USDA FSA 2008a). Northern Bobwhite Quail Habitat Initiative: In 2004, the USDA announced the Northern Bobwhite Quail Habitat Initiative, aimed at creating 250,000 acres of habitat for the northern bobwhite quail and other upland birds. The initiative is a partnership between the FSA, landowners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 32 state fish and wildlife agencies, Quail Unlimited, the Southeast Quail Study Group, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wild Turkey Federation, and other conservation groups, including local conservation districts. The Northern bobwhite quail population has declined from an estimated 59 million birds in 1980 to about 20 million in Their habitats are disappearing due to urbanization, increased grassland cultivation, and succession of grassy fields into forests. The initiative helps create 250,000 acres of early successional grass buffers along agricultural field borders. Enrollment was targeted to specific geographic areas in 35 states that have the greatest potential to restore bobwhite quail habitat. Program participants must apply Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds (CP33) around the field edges of eligible cropland to provide food and cover for bobwhite quail in cropland areas. Buffer species may include native warm-season grasses, legumes, wild flowers, forbs, and limited shrub and tree plantings. Participants receive Signing Incentive Payments (SIP) of up to $100 per acre, Practice Incentive Payments (PIP) of up to 40% of the eligible establishment cost, annual rental payments for the length of the contract, an additional amount up to $5 per acre per year as an incentive to perform maintenance obligations, and cost-share assistance of up to 50% of the eligible reimbursable practice costs. These buffers increased from 201 acres in October, 2004, to 195,499 acres in April, 2008 (USDA FSA 2008a). Longleaf Pine Initiative: In 2006, the FSA announced a new Longleaf Pine Initiative in which it established a goal of increasing longleaf pine forest by 250,000 acres throughout nine southern states. To accomplish this, FSA announced it would enroll lands within parts of these states (specifically, lands located within the Longleaf Pine National Conservation Priority Area) in CRP through continuous enrollment. FSA will offer additional incentive payments to ensure adequate participation. Longleaf pine forests once covered 70 to 90 million acres across the south, but only about 3 million acres remain today. The restoration and appropriate management of longleaf pine forest ecosystem will have significant benefits for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, such as gopher tortoise and red-cockaded woodpeckers, as well as game species, such as bobwhite quail and turkey. Much of the wildlife benefit depends upon appropriate midcontract management, particularly periodic prescribed burns. Longleaf pine restoration will also benefit the southern economy, producing valuable forest products for decades to come. As of April 2008, longleaf pine acreage enrolled through both the general and continuous signups stood at 269,314 acres (USDA FSA 2008a). The continuous signup initiative aims to add 250,000 additional acres of longleaf pine habitat in addition to that. State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE): SAFE is a new continuous CRP signup initiative designed to enroll up to 500,000 acres that address specific, locally identified habitat restoration needs for wildlife. SAFE is the first continuous CRP initiative that allows all states, local governments, and non-profits the flexibility to use CRP to address high priority wildlife habitat, including habitat for threatened and endangered species, at risk species, other priority wildlife identified in State Wildlife Action Plans, and game species. Species that could thrive on restored habitat on former cropland, such as native bees, butterflies, grassland birds, wetland wildlife, ocelots, gopher tortoises, and many others that have been identified as being at-risk, could benefit significantly from this program. FSA will provide up to 90% cost share for habitat restoration, 50% cost share for ongoing habitat management, and an annual rental payment for retiring the land. In addition, participants will receive an up front $100/acre signing incentive payment to encourage participation. Acreage is allocated to states based on the state s weighted average cropland, but additional acreage has been reserved to address special requests for additional acres needed for projects that will address at-risk species. As of April 2008, about 4,000 acres were enrolled in SAFE, with many more acres offered and pending approval or not yet recorded (USDA FSA 2008a). 12

17 address key needs, such as resolving hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico or restoring wildlife habitat for at risk species in CRP. Initiatives that the FSA has introduced include the Bottomland Hardwoods initiative, the Northern Bobwhite Quail initiative, the Nonfloodplain Wetlands and Playa Lakes initiative, the Duck Nesting Habitat initiative, the Longleaf Pine initiative, and most recently the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) initiative. FSA is also working on an initiative to reduce nutrient flows into the Gulf of Mexico through targeted constructed wetlands to treat water from agricultural drainage systems. The expansion of continuous enrollment to include these initiatives is an example of how CRP can be used effectively to achieve specific environmental results, particularly when it is done with specific acreage goals in targeted areas. We applaud FSA for using such continuous signup initiatives to enroll environmentally valuable acres in CRP. Through initiatives like SAFE, FSA is not only seeking to enhance environmental benefits, it is furthering state and federal partnerships and leveraging federal investment by seeking state-level proposals for enrollment of high priority wildlife habitat. However, most continuous signup initiatives could still enroll a great many more acres before reaching the enrollment goals set for these initiatives. This could be accomplished with increased outreach on the part of FSA, increased use of partnerships with state and local agencies and other partners, and increased financial incentives. The growth in CCRP enrollment opportunities exemplifies the spirit of adaptive management in this program. For example, the longleaf pine initiative (described in the box on page 12) grew out of a request from a broad coalition of local landowners, forestry, hunting, and conservation groups, conservation districts and state forestry and wildlife agencies, and from consideration of studies of the need for disturbance (prescribed burns) in longleaf pine ecosystems and the importance of this ecosystem for bobwhite quail and other native wildlife, including endangered species like the gopher tortoise. Similarly, the State Acres for Wildlife (SAFE) initiative grew out of requests from a broad range of individuals, from sportsmen to state wildlife agency biologists to conservationists, who saw opportunities to couple the careful targeting of CCRP enrollments with adjustments to conservation practices and/or management to provide significant benefits for threatened, endangered, and other at risk species, important game species and other species of significant social or economic value. CREP Enrollment and Eligibility Requirements CREP leverages state and local resources to tailor CRP to unique local conditions, while still tackling issues of national environmental significance. States, cities, or tribes can develop a proposal for a CREP to address priority resource concerns. All producers who are located within the specified geographic area for the CREP and could implement the practices the CREP is targeting are eligible to apply for the program. As of January 2008, there were 39 approved CREP agreements in 30 states, and 6 more are pending approval. The map in figure 2 shows the states with existing CREP programs across the country. Table 4 shows the acres enrolled in CREP signups nationally through April There were 1,117,000 acres enrolled in CREP as of April In a CREP proposal, a state may generally designate up to 100,000 acres in specific areas as eligible to enroll in the program. This acreage cap can be increased if the state requests an amendment to the cap in their CREP proposal. CREP proposals must be designed to meet specific state goals, such as improving water quality, conserving water quantity, or restoring high priority wildlife habitat, such as endangered species habitat. As part of their contribution of resources, states provide cash contributions for such things as enhanced cost-sharing to minimize outof-pocket costs for participants, lumpsum signing incentive payments, bonuses for high-value practices (such as forested riparian buffers), voluntary permanent easements and multi-year contract extensions, and the purchase of irrigation water rights. It is particularly beneficial when states use their match to provide things that FSA cannot provide, such as voluntary permanent easements. In CREPs such as the Colorado Republican River CREP, FSA has provided irrigated rental rates in CREPs in which water rights are retired to create water savings for conservation. State CREP programs focus on a wide variety of issues, including restoring the health of the Illinois River through floodplain restorations; improving drinking water in Iowa through constructing wetlands at the end of drainage tile lines; conserving water supplies in Colorado by converting irrigated cropland to grassland and dedicating irrigated water rights to conservation; and recovering prairie chicken populations in Wisconsin through restoring native grasslands and oak savanna. Given the wide variety in CREP goals, it is not surprising that the practices, incentives, contract lengths and acreage targets vary greatly from CREP to CREP. The Illinois CREP, for example, is authorized to enroll up to 232,000 acres, whereas the highly focused Iowa CREP only seeks to enroll up to 9,000 acres. CREPs can offer advantages over continuous CRP if they create local, state, and federal partnerships that are effectively focused on local needs. CREPs can offer permanent easements, increased incentive payments, and variations in practice standards to meet local environmental needs. Another advantage of CREPs is that, if done correctly, they can provide increased funding through state, local, and NGO partners, and offer increased outreach and technical assistance. Several CREPs, including those in Illinois, Maryland, Wisconsin, the Scioto River in Ohio, and North Carolina, offer state or 13

18 NGO-funded permanent conservation easements. It is also significant that states or, with sufficient economic justification, USDA can offer increased incentives to maximize environmental gains. For example, Environmental Defense Fund and the State of Ohio are offering a contiguous forested riparian buffer bonus in part of the Lake Erie CREP. The purpose of this bonus is not only to increase enrollment in this vitally important practice (in some parts of this CREP target area there are entire square miles without trees), but also to increase water quality benefits by increasing the amount of contiguous stream miles that are buffered by riparian trees. These types of bonuses are not currently available through regular continuous CRP signups but could be a useful added incentive to increase the implementation of important practices. CREPs can be very useful for implementing innovative practices and demonstrating their effectiveness and practicality. CREP programs are also effective at addressing environmental issues that cross state boundaries, such as multi-state watershed issues. Environmental Defense Fund is currently working with Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana to provide CREP coverage for the entire Western Lake Erie Basin watershed. These CREP programs will be a key tool in the multi-state and federal effort to reduce sedimentation and restore the health of Lake Erie. However, in some cases, efforts to address multi-state environmental issues, such as the problem of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, are hampered by the inability or unwillingness of states to participate in such initiatives. These regional environmental issues may be better addressed through creation of new continuous enrollment initiatives. Enrollment levels in CREP programs vary widely. Nationwide about half of the acres CREPs are authorized to enroll are being used; 1,117,000 out of a potential 2,000,000 acres have been enrolled as of April Some CREPs, such as the Scioto CREP and Illinois CREP, have strong enrollment. (See case study on the Scioto River CREP.) Others have either Figure 2. States with current or pending CREP agreements as of January 2008 Table 4. CREP Enrollment Through April 2008 Fiscal Year Acres , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Total 1,117,000* * This number does not total due to rounding error. This number represents actual CREP enrollment as of April

19 had slow enrollment or inconsistent enrollment. The Lake Erie CREP, for example, had strong enrollment in the first two years it was authorized, but then enrollment drastically dropped off. Ohio found that the Lake Erie CREP was suffering from low enrollment due to a variety of factors, including glitches in state funding. Enrollment was particularly poor in the practices of highest environmental value (e.g., forested riparian buffers) primarily due to inadequate incentives. FSA and the State of Ohio recently amended the Lake Erie CREP to address impediments to enrollment and to include new practices to address the special water quality issues of this flat, highly agricultural area that relies heavily on drainage ditches and tile lines. It is also important to note that CREP enrollment can vary strongly from county to county. Sometimes this reflects different economic circumstances or issues such as local development pressure, but often it reflects differences in personnel, on-the-ground partnerships, and personalities. The strong track record of enrollment in Defiance County, Ohio in the Lake Erie CREP, for example, is a clear reflection of the strong commitment of the Defiance County Soil and Water Conservation District and its smooth working relationships with the local NRCS and FSA offices. In addition, states often face difficulties in obtaining the matching funds for a CREP program from their state legislatures. Some state CREP programs encounter further difficulties because they fail to plan for sufficient funds for outreach, technical assistance, and monitoring for the program, which can undermine its success. CREP success can, and in some cases, has been undermined when CREP partners fail to fully honor commitments they have made to contribute resources. Effective and sustained outreach and marketing are essential to realizing the full promise of CREP. Providing federal assistance (through FSA TA funds) in addition to requiring stronger, more specific state outreach commitments could help increase enrollments in CREP. Case Study: Scioto River CREP The Scioto River CREP was authorized in 2004 to enroll up to 70,000 acres of wetlands, grasslands and other riparian and floodplain practices to improve water quality, restore threatened and endangered species habitat, and reduce soil erosion in the Scioto River Watershed in Ohio and to help address hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. The project is a collaborative effort between FSA, NRCS, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Pheasants Forever, Environmental Defense Fund, local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), and the City of Columbus. Intensive row crop agriculture is the dominant land use in the 4.1 million acre Scioto River watershed. The Scioto River and its tributaries are the source of drinking water supply for the City of Columbus and many smaller towns, and the Scioto drains into the Ohio River. The Scioto River is Ohio s longest and most biologically productive free-flowing river system. Water quality issues in the watershed have a direct impact both on local drinking water supplies, and on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. The Scioto is the largest contributor of nitrogen to the Ohio River, Ohio s largest contributor of nitrogen to the Mississippi River and ultimately, to the Gulf of Mexico itself. The Scioto CREP provides landowners with incentives to restore wetlands, bottomland hardwood floodplain forest, forested riparian buffers, and native warm season grasses in the floodplain of the Scioto River and its tributaries. These practices are primarily designed to intercept runoff and reduce erosion, thus reducing the flow of sediment and phosphorus into the river. It is estimated that when this CREP reaches full enrollment, these conservation practices will help reduce nutrient and sediment flow into the Scioto River by 20% to 30%, which will, in turn, reduce loadings to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The project s other major thrust is to restore wildlife habitat for 33 threatened or endangered fish and mussel species as well as rapidly declining grassland birds, migratory waterfowl, game species, and other species. There has been very strong participation in this CREP since its implementation in As of April 2008, 60,501 acres have been enrolled in the Scioto CREP, with an enrollment goal of 70,000 acres. Most of this enrollment is in CP2, establishment of native warm season grasses and forbs. This practice accounts for 34,875 acres. The second most popular practice is CP21, establishment of riparian grass filterstrips. There are 18,946 acres enrolled in CP21 in the Scioto CREP. It is estimated that over 3,831 miles of buffers have been installed along the Scioto and its tributaries as a result of the program. Table 5 shows the practices available, the cost-share amount for each practice, and the number of acres enrolled in that practice through April FSA, local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) and ODNR have handled most of the outreach for the Scioto CREP. Most outreach was conducted at the beginning of the CREP, when public meetings were held and articles were placed in local newspapers and farm journals. Since the program has started, though, FSA, NRCS, the SWCDs, and ODNR have been struggling to keep up with extremely heavy demand for enrollment, particularly in the second year of enrollment. Shortly after the program was started, a long waiting list formed for producers wanting to get into the program. Thus outreach efforts were reduced in order to keep applications at a manageable level. In five critical subwatersheds, including the Big and Little Darby creeks, Scioto CREP participants have the option of signing up for a permanent easement on stream buffers. These creeks have been designated State and National Scenic Rivers, a Last Great Place by TNC, and are home to over 100 freshwater species, including federally listed endangered fish and mussels. TNC has agreed to provide up to $50,000 annually for up to five years towards the cost of easement acquisition. 15

20 Table 5. CREP Practices, Cost-Share Amounts, and Number of Acres Enrolled Practice Avg. CCC Cost-share ($ per acre) Acres Enrolled (approved CRP-1 contracts) CP1 Establishment of Permanent Introduced Grasses & Legumes $ CP2 Establishment of Permanent Native Grasses $98 34,875 CP3 Tree Plantings $ CP3A Hardwood Tree Planting $ CP4D Permanent Wildlife Habitat $ CP9 Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife $ CP10 Vegetative Cover-Grass-Already Established $6 119 CP21 Filter Strips $99 18,946 CP22 Riparian Buffer $326 1,500 CP23 Wetland Restoration $ CP23A Wetland Restoration (non-floodplain) $ CP25 Rare & Declining Habitat $ CP29 Marginal Pastureland Wildlife Habitat Buffer $131 1,932 CP30 Marginal Pastureland Wetland Buffer $1, CP31 Bottomland Timber Establishment on Wetlands $ Avg. CCC Cost-share per acre $121 Total CCC Acres Enrolled 60,501 TNC, NRCS Resource Conservation and Development offices, ODNR, and local SWCDs have also joined together to apply for grants for easement acquisition and have so far received over $500,000 in funding from the state s Clean Ohio grant program. There have been roughly 30 serious inquiries from producers who are interested in a permanent easement, and four producers have signed easement agreements in three priority subwatersheds. These agreements have protected a total of 689 acres and over 8 miles of stream and associated riparian corridors. In addition to providing financing, TNC, local SWCDs, and RC&D have provided technical assistance and performed site visits for producers who are interested in the easement option. A substantial benefit of the Scioto CREP easement program is the expansion of conservation partner capacity and willingness to hold permanent conservation easements. To date at least four Soil and Water Conservation Districts are now holding easements due to encouragement, training, and facilitation through Scioto CREP. Funding and technical assistance have been the biggest challenges for program implementation. It has been a struggle for ODNR to meet state matching requirements, due to tight state budgets and rising practice costs for the program. The second year of the program achieved explosive enrollment. Applications buried FSA and NRCS staff in paperwork. The Soil and Water Conservation Districts played an important role in helping to meet demand. In addition, through a contribution agreement with NRCS and assistance from Environmental Defense Fund s Center for Conservation Initiatives, Pheasants Forever hired four farm bill biologists to assist producers with enrolling in the program and planting native warm season grasses, which helped to meet the demand for TA. The pace of enrollment, while still strong, has diminished some, which has also helped the agencies meet the demand. The Scioto River CREP is a dramatic example of strong farmer and landowner participation as well as state, local and federal public and private sector partnering to provide significant water quality and wildlife benefits in the watershed and beyond. The CREP partners worked closely together to design this program and worked together to overcome implementation challenges and to become a strong and successful collaboration of federal, state, local, and non-profit groups, achieving enrollment of over 60,000 acres of conservation practices in less than four years. Each group has played an important role in program funding and implementation. In its 2007 annual report on the Scioto CREP, the ODNR estimates that the program removes an average of 23,711 tons per year of sediment, 36,499 tons per year of phosphorus, and 72,914 tons per year of nitrogen. ODNR and FSA plan to use new GIS data on land in the watershed, data on CREP and CRP practices, TMDL (total maximum daily load) data, and input from program partners to target the areas where future enrollment will be most effective at reducing sediment and phosphorus loading. These areas will be the focus for outreach efforts to enroll the remaining 9,500 acres in this CREP. At the current rate of enrollment, which is still strong despite today s high commodity prices, the Scioto CREP may reach its full enrollment goals in less than three years. 16