![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="0.9791666666666666in"}

**Conservation RESERVE PROGRAM**

**AND CONSERVATION RESERVE**

**ENHANCEMENT Program**

***Background***

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP) are voluntary programs for agricultural
landowners or operators that provide annual rental payments and
cost-share assistance. The 1985 farm bill authorized CRP, including
CREP. The purpose of CRP and CREP is to help agricultural producers
safeguard environmentally sensitive lands by planting long-term,
resource-conserving covers that would control soil erosion, improve
water and air quality, and enhance wildlife habitat.

USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) makes annual rental payments
based on the agricultural rental value of the land. It provides
cost-share assistance at up to 50 percent of the participant's costs in
establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in CRP
and CREP contracts for 10 to 15 years. CCC administers the program
through the Farm Service Agency (FSA), which receives technical support
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); private sector
or other non-Federal advisors; the Cooperative State Research, Education
and Extension Service; and State forestry agencies; as well as local
soil and water conservation districts.

[Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)]{.underline}

To be eligible to enroll in CRP, land must be either: (1) cropland that
is planted or considered planted to an agricultural commodity 4 of the
previous 6 crop years; or (2) certain marginal pastureland that was
converted to wetland or established as wildlife habitat, or is suitable
for similar water quality purposes such as a riparian buffer. In
addition to the eligible land requirements, cropland must meet one of
the following criteria: (a) have a weighted average erosion index of
eight or higher; (b) be expiring CRP acreage; (c) be located in a
national or State CRP conservation priority area; or (d) meet a number
of other technical criteria designed to accomplish program goals.

Generally, offers for CRP contracts are ranked according to the
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). FSA uses the following EBI factors
to assess the environmental benefits for the land offered: wildlife
habitat benefits resulting from covers on contract acreage; water
quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching; on-farm
benefits from reduced erosion; benefits that will likely endure beyond
the contract period; air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion; and
cost effectiveness.

In the 20 years the program has been in existence, it has reduced soil
erosion by an estimated 450 million tons per year, thereby increasing
air quality due to less airborne contamination. CRP has reduced sediment
and nutrient runoff into rivers and streams. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service estimates that CRP is increasing duck populations by more than 2
million per year. CRP is estimated to have increased ring-necked
pheasant populations in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Ohio
by 200 percent. The program is credited with the reappearance of the
long-absent prairie chickens in Texas. CRP is helping the Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse recover while Western State populations of big game
elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn antelope are
increasing.

Over 28 million acres of CRP land will expire between September 30,
2007, and September 30, 2010. USDA announced that the top 20 percent of
the contracts (based on Environmental Benefit Index score) would be
re-enrolled, and the remaining 80 percent would be extended for either a
5-, 4-, 3-, or 2-year period. Up to 5.6 million acres will be eligible
for re-enrollment, and 22.4 million acres will be extended beyond
September 30, 2009.

The 2002 farm bill authorizes 39.2 million CRP acres through 2007. As of
December 2005, a total of 720,380 CRP contracts covered about 35.9
million acres, averaging about 50 acres per contract. Annual rental
payments amounted to about \$1.7 billion, or \$48.62 per acre.

[Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)]{.underline}

CREP is a voluntary land retirement program that allows applicants to
receive incentive payments for installing specific conservation
practices. The program is a partnership among producers; tribal, State,
and Federal governments; and, in some cases, private groups. USDA uses
CRP funding to pay a part of the program's cost, while State, tribal
governments, or other non-Federal sources provide the balance of the
funds.

CREP differs from CRP in four important ways. First, CREP is targeted to
specific geographic areas and is designed to focus conservation
practices on addressing specific environmental concerns of a high
priority.  Second, CREP is a joint undertaking among States, the Federal
Government, and other stakeholders who have an interest in addressing
particular environmental issues.  Third, it requires States to establish
measurable objectives and conduct annual monitoring to measure progress
toward implementation of those objectives.  Fourth, it is flexible,
within existing legal constraints, and can be adapted to meet local
conditions on the ground. 

A specific CREP project begins when a State, Indian tribe, local
government, or local private entity identifies an agriculture-related
environmental issue of State or national significance. These parties and
USDA then develop a project proposal to address particular environmental
issues and goals in a specific geographic area. Like CRP, CREP contracts
require a 10- to 15-year commitment to keep lands out of agricultural
production. CREP provides payments to participants who offer eligible
land. A Federal annual rental rate is offered. Federal cost-share
assistance of up to 50 percent of the eligible expenses to install
practices is available.

Since its inception in 1997, continuous CREP enrollment has exceeded
760,000 acres from 34 agreements reached in 27 participating States. As
of January 1, 2006, some 45,000 contracts on 30,000 farms have been
enrolled in CREP. States have committed more than \$1.02 billion in
State matching funds toward enrollment goals of more than 2.86 million
acres. Target acres must benefit rivers, streams, and water bodies that
support the statutory intent of the Conservation Reserve Program by
addressing water quality, soil sedimentation, and wildlife issues.

***General Opinions Expressed***

-   Respondents generally agree that CRP and CREP should continue and be
    fully funded or expanded.

-   Some suggested that CRP should be reduced to make available more
    farmland for farmers.

-   Comments suggest that CRP is good for hunters.

-   Many agree that CRP should focus on environmentally sensitive land
    and best practices for long-term conservation.

-   Several stressed that CRP has social and economic benefits.

-   A few recommend that haying/grazing on CRP land should continue
    during drought.

-   Several commenters suggested that CRP payment rates should be
    adjusted for inflation.

-   Overwhelming support was registered for CRP contract re-enrollment
    and extensions.

-   Several commenters suggested that the CRP should target land with
    the highest soil erosion potential.

-   Some commenters suggested promoting a better understanding of
    environmental challenges that face the agriculture industry.

-   Several commenters suggest that conservation easement programs like
    CRP work to benefit rural economies.

-   Some commenters suggested increasing the 25 percent county CRP cap.

-   Opinions were expressed that CRP should enroll only cropland used
    for the production of agricultural crops, and not pastureland.

-   Some commenters suggested that land prices and lease prices have
    been artificially increased by high CRP payments.

-   A few commenters suggested that CRP hinders economic growth.

-   Some commenters suggested that CRP should be changed so farmers can
    get out of their contracts a year earlier without penalty.

-   Some commenters commended CRP for cleaning up rivers, streams, and
    ponds.

-   Some commenters emphasized the importance of stressing endangered
    species and wildlife habitat in CRP.

-   Some commenters supported continuing initiatives for farmers who
    support CRP practices.

    ***Detailed Suggestions Expressed***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Make the CRP signup simpler with less guesswork.

-   Remove the cap on acres allowed to be enrolled in CREP.

-   Eliminate whole-farm CRP enrollment and match CRP rental rates to
    local cash rental rates.

-   Support approval of the Hawaii CREP.

-   Allow haying every 5 years on CRP land instead of every 3 years.

-   CRP carbon sequestration goals need to be better defined or be made
    more compatible with wildlife and other natural resource needs.

-   Crop acreage base history of CRP should not be removed when
    enrolled. Reinstate base history back to what was there in 1996.

-   Provide incentives to stimulate new markets for biomass, including
    use of CRP land for biomass without reduction in payments and tax
    credits for co-firing biomass with coal to produce electricity.

-   Raise the statutory cap to allow up to 45 million acres in CRP.

-   CRP needs to be less restrictive on how acreage can be re-entered
    into the program.

-   Allow marginal lands to be enrolled into programs to prevent erosion
    and filter pollutants from watersheds.

-   Offer farmers voluntary incentives for CRP.

-   Eliminate the Conservation Reserve Program. The program places the
    Government in competition with farmers and increases rental costs
    for farmers.

-   Maintenance requirements of CRP should be tweaked in order to weed
    out those farmers who seem to always have an emergency to hay or
    graze those acres.