Selected Effects of the Conservation Reserve 

Program on Program Participants: 

A Report to Survey Respondents 

Open File Report 02-476 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Selected Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on 

Program Participants: A Report to Survey Respondents1

By 

Mark W. Vandever 

Arthur W. Allen 

and 

Natalie R. Sexton 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Fort Collins Science Center 

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. C 

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118 

Open File Report 02-476 

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey 

editorial standards. Any use of trade product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and 

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The analysis and recommendations in this 

paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. Geological 

Survey, the Department of the Interior, or the Department of Agriculture. 

 

1

This study was funded by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Suggested citation: 

Vandever, M.W., Allen, A.W., and Sexton, N.R., 2002, Selected effects of the Conservation Reserve Program 

on program participants: A report to survey respondents, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science 

Center, Fort Collins, CO: Open File Report 02-476, 21 p. 

ii
Contents

Page 

Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 

The Survey.................................................................................................................................................. 1 

The Results.................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Characteristics of Survey Respondents and their CRP Land...................................................................... 3

Respondents’ Use of CRP Lands................................................................................................................ 3 

Environmental/Social Effects of the CRP................................................................................................... 8 

CRP Emphasis on Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 8 

Management Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 12 

Appendix................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Comments on the CRP Design and Administration.................................................................................. 15 

 Pacific Region....................................................................................................................................... 15 

 Mountain Region .................................................................................................................................. 16 

 Northern Plains Region......................................................................................................................... 16 

 Southern Plains Region......................................................................................................................... 17 

 Lake States Region ............................................................................................................................... 17 

 Cornbelt Region.................................................................................................................................... 18 

 Delta Region ......................................................................................................................................... 19 

 Southeast Region .................................................................................................................................. 20 

 Appalachian Region.............................................................................................................................. 20 

 Northeast Region .................................................................................................................................. 21 

Summary................................................................................................................................................... 21 

Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 21 

iii 
Selected Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on 

Program Participants: A Report to Survey Respondents 

Introduction 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) established under the 1985 Food Security Act was initially

designed to provide the agricultural community economic assistance while protecting highly erodible 

cropland. Many of the environmental benefits to soil, water, and wildlife resources have been documented 

(Dunn and others, 1993; Ryan and others, 1998; Flather and others, 1999; Heard and others, 2000). However,

the personal and social effects of the program on CRP participants (or contractees) had not been formally

documented. Information had been limited to anecdotal comments from individual participants, such as: 

“since establishment of the CRP the streams have surface water in them” or “the CRP grasses capture drifting 

snow, making winter feeding of cattle easier.” The Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) wanted to have a better picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the program,

according to those most affected by it. In addition, policy makers wanted to get input from program

participants on the growing emphasis of the program on long-term management and wildlife habitat 

requirements. 

As a result, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was asked to survey CRP contractees on these issues. 

Preliminary results from this study have been furnished to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

are being considered as new conservation and management policies for the CRP are being developed (as part

of the recently passed Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002). This report includes preliminary

results of the study and is being sent to survey respondents. A formal publication of survey results is also 

being prepared and should be completed by the winter of 2002. 

The Survey 

In the summer of 2001, we drew a random sample of 2,212 persons holding active CRP contracts across

all USDA Farm Production Regions (Fig. 1). Because we wanted information from people intimately familiar

with the program’s effects on their land and communities, we did not send surveys to contracts held in the 

name of trusts, banks, or other non-personal ownership (49 contracts). To carry out the survey, we followed a

dependable step-by-step process designed to maximize the quality and quantity of responses for mail surveys 

(Dillman 1978, 2000). As a result, the overall response rate for the survey was 65% (Table 1). Of the 35% 

who did not respond, only 1% (29 people) formally refused to participate. 

The Results 

We were able to summarize the survey results nationally and by USDA Farm Production Region (Fig. 1). 

Tables 1–15 summarize the survey’s first 14 questions. Answers to the final question, an optional opportunity 

for individuals to comment on how the CRP can be designed or administered in the future, are summarized in

an appendix. 

1
Fig. 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture farm production regions (FPR) and percentage of Conservation Reserve Program contracts within the FPRs.

2
Table 1. Response rates for CRP survey by region and nationally. 

Survey response rates 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Total delivered 107 669 104 299 160 102 412 105 114 140 2,212

Undeliverable 4 7 0 2 1 1 2 1 4 1 23

No response or 

refusal 41 217 39 75 59 39 145 41 44 48 748

Responded 59 441 64 219 100 59 259 61 62 88 1412

Response rate (%) 57.3 66.6 61.5 73.7 62.9 58.4 63.2 58.7 56.4 63.3 64.5

Characteristics of Survey Respondents and their CRP Land 

From a national perspective, retired farmers embodied the largest category (52%) of survey respondents, 

while 43% were owners actively involved in farming (Table 2). Renters of CRP land accounted for 3.1% of 

respondents. Two percent of the respondents were trustees or non-farming owners (e.g., churches, airports, 

local governments) of CRP land. Nationally, the number of CRP acres owned by survey respondents ranged 

from 0.3 to 3,825 acres with an average of 156 acres (Table 3). Over half (55%) of the respondents 

characterized their CRP land as being dominated by native grasses, followed by non-native grasses (31%), 

and trees (14%; Table 4). Nearly 85% of respondents reported that the CRP covers on their land were 

successfully established at the first planting (Table 5). Drought was the most frequent cause of failure of 

initial planting of CRP covers. 

Respondents’ Use of CRP Lands 

Nationally, only 15% of respondents stated that they had ever used their CRP lands for haying or grazing 

under emergency conditions (Table 6a–6d). Of those who answered yes, 64% indicated they had used these 

lands only one time under emergency use, 27% had used them two times, and 7% had used them three times. 

Only 3% of the respondents indicated that they had used CRP lands under emergency conditions more than 

four times in the life of their contract. 

When asked what types of management, use, or disturbance had taken place on their CRP acres, control 

of weeds was the most common answer (Table 7). Nearly twice as many respondents reported mowing as a 

means of weed control (62%) as compared to spot treatment of weeds using herbicides (35%). Twelve percent

of respondents reported that, to their knowledge, no known management/disturbance had occurred on their 

CRP lands. 

3
Table 2. Which of the following best describes your relationship to the CRP (% of respondents)? 

Relationship 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

S

o

uthern

Plains 

 National 

Owner but 

not active 66.7 49.0 62.9 63.1 41.2 62.7 43.2 34.4 66.1 55.8 52.0

Owner/ 

operator 31.6 45.6 35.5 34.6 52.6 32.2 50.6 54.1 27.4 40.7 43.0

Renter/ 

operator 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.4 4.1 5.1 4.6 8.2 1.6 1.2 3.1

Trustee 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.5 2.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 2.3 0.9

Other 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.3 3.2 0.0 1.1

Table 3. How many acres do you have enrolled in the CRP? 

Average number 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Acres 67.2 58.5 120.5 54.4 561.9 37.3 177.8 626.3 87.9 276.9 156.0

Table 4. How would you describe the vegetation on your CRP acres (% of respondents)? 

Vegetation cover 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Mostly native grasses 48.3 56.0 31.7 61.1 46.9 71.2 65.9 44.1 20.0 54.9 55.1

Mostly non-native 

grasses 

29.3 37.4 0.0 22.7 51.0 13.6 29.5 52.5 6.7 45.1 31.3

Mostly trees 22.4 6.6 68.3 16.1 2.1 15.3 4.7 3.4 73.3 0.0 13.6

4
Table 5. Did any vegetative covers fail or need to be re-established when your land was first enrolled in the CRP? If so, 

what was the cause (% of respondents)? 

Results 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Successful at first 

planting 85.7 82.5 81.3 88.0 80.6 82.5 87.5 81.4 88.3 83.8 84.5

Failed due to drought 8.9 8.4 15.6 2.9 15.3 14.0 7.8 10.2 8.4 16.2 9.1

Failed due to 

insect/weeds 3.6 3.4 0.0 1.9 2.0 3.5 1.6 5.1 0.0 0.0 2.3

Failed due to flooding 1.8 3.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

Failed/other reasons 0.0 2.1 3.1 4.3 2.0 0.0 0.8 3.4 3.3 0.0 2.0

Table 6a. Have you hayed or grazed your CRP lands under emergency provisions (% of respondents)? 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

S

o

uthern

Plains 

National 

No 87.9 88.4 95.3 89.8 64.6 96.6 76.2 89.8 93.4 79.0 85.0

Yes 12.1 11.6 4.7 10.2 35.4 3.4 23.8 10.2 6.6 21.0 15.0

Table 6b. If yes to 6a, what percentage of acres were hayed or grazed?

% hayed 

or grazed 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

S

o

uthern

Plains 

National 

0–20 42.9 31.3 100.0 15.8 24.2 0.0 19.3 33.3 75.0 6.3 24.4

21–45 14.3 22.9 0.0 15.8 15.2 50.0 29.8 66.7 25.0 37.5 25.4

46–60 14.3 20.8 0.0 36.8 36.4 50.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 18.8 25.9

61–100 28.6 25.0 0.0 31.6 24.2 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 37.5 24.4

5
Table 6c. If yes to 6a, how many times have these acres been hayed or grazed?

Number of 

times 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

S

o

uthern

Plains 

National 

1 71.4 72.3 100.0 75.0 62.5 100.0 52.6 66.7 33.3 60.0 63.7

2 28.6 19.1 0.0 25.0 31.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 20.0 26.8

3 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 7.0 0.0 33.3 13.3 6.8

4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.1

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Table 6d. If yes to 6a, how many times has your land been eligible for emergency use (numbers in %)? 

Number of 

times 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

S

o

uthern

Plains 

National 

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

1 60.0 44.2 100.0 70.6 20.0 100.0 30.0 66.7 50.0 30.8 39.8

2 20.0 32.6 0.0 23.5 50.0 0.0 30.0 33.3 25.0 15.4 31.6

3 0.0 20.9 0.0 5.9 20.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 25.0 23.1 16.4

4 20.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 7.0

5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 2.3

7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

6
Table 7. To the best of your knowledge, what types of management, use, or disturbance has taken place on all, or part, 

of your CRP acres? (Totals are percents and may not total 100% because more than one answer may have been 

chosen.) 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Spot treatment of weeds by

mowing 70.7 76.7 34.4 69.6 32.3 57.6 61.1 39.0 39.3 57.3 62.2

Spot treatment of weeds by

herbicides 8.6 32.0 7.8 30.9 42.4 8.5 53.7 83.1 19.7 24.4 34.7

Additional seeding 8.6 21.4 7.8 10.6 22.2 11.9 12.8 32.2 8.2 19.5 16.4

Burning, intentional 3.4 13.9 6.2 6.0 5.1 1.7 24.5 22.0 14.8 11.0 12.9

None, there has been no 

known disturbance or use of 

the CRP acres 

24.1 1.8 34.4 18.9 21.2 40.7 0.4 11.9 24.6 19.5 12.1

Haying authorized under 

emergency use 

6.9 8.6 1.6 8.8 22.2 1.7 20.2 3.4 4.9 6.1 10.5

Establishment of firebreaks 

by mowing or plowing 3.4 5.5 32.8 5.1 5.1 5.1 7.8 20.3 45.9 9.8 9.6

Fertilization 6.9 10.7 9.4 3.7 3.0 3.4 3.1 1.7 6.6 7.3 6.4

Flooding 1.7 8.9 4.7 5.5 1.0 3.4 7.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 5.6

Grazing authorized under 

emergency use 

5.2 3.0 0.0 1.8 21.2 0.0 5.8 8.5 3.3 12.2 5.2

Thinning of volunteer pine, 

hardwood trees or shrubs 3.4 4.1 3.1 3.2 0.0 1.7 6.2 3.4 3.3 1.2 3.7

Burning, accidental 1.7 2.7 3.1 1.4 1.0 1.7 3.5 10.2 3.3 9.8 3.2

Thinning of pine, hardwood 

trees or shrubs planted as 

part of the program

1.7 1.1 18.7 2.3 0.0 1.7 0.8 0.0 24.6 0.0 2.9

Grazing, accidental 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.5 3.0 0.0 2.7 8.5 3.3 2.4 2.0

Use of pesticides for insect 

control 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.8 2.0 0.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 0.0 1.0

7
Environmental/Social Effects of the CRP 

Respondents voiced both positive and negative aspects of the CRP to their farm or community. When 

asked about specific benefits of the CRP, enhanced control of soil erosion (85%) was identified as the greatest

benefit (Table 8). The importance that CRP participants placed on wildlife was characterized by 73% 

reporting increased populations of wildlife associated with enrolled lands. Although respondentsreported that

the CRP provided more opportunities to hunt (38%) and increased prospects to lease land for hunting (12%),

nearly 60% of the respondents thought opportunities to observe wildlife was an important benefit of the 

program. 

Improvements in water (39%) and air quality (29%) were also acknowledged as environmental benefits. 

Over 30% of survey respondents noted improved control of drifting snow as well as greater permanence of 

surface waters (24%) because of the CRP. Improvement in the scenic quality of agricultural landscapes was 

cited as a CRP benefit by 37% of the respondents. Nearly 17% of the respondents saw the CRP as 

contributing to their future income. 

Not all perceptions concerning environmental and social effects of the CRP were positive (Table 9). 

Nationally, 29% of respondents viewed CRP lands as a source of weeds. Similarly, 13% of respondents 

perceived the CRP as making their farm, or landscape, appear untidy or poorly managed. The CRP was 

viewed as a potential fire hazard by 19% of those responding to the survey. In relation to wildlife, 9% 

indicated that the CRP had caused problems due to unwanted wildlife on their land. In addition, 18% of 

respondents attributed an increase in unwelcome requests for permission to hunt to the presence of the CRP. 

CRP Emphasis on Wildlife 

Nationally, 73% of respondents felt that wildlife receives an appropriate level of consideration in the 

CRP (Table 10). Sixteen percent advocated more attention be given to wildlife while 11% felt that wildlife 

receives too much consideration. 

When asked about the amount of assistance participants receive to maintain or improve wildlife habitat,

most (82%) believed it is about right (Table 11). About 16% thought that not enough assistance was 

furnished. Only 2% of respondents believed that USDA furnishes too much assistance relative to wildlife. 

With CRP enrollment, specific types of cover practices are encouraged to maintain or improve wildlife 

habitat. Almost 55% of the survey respondents felt that they had been well informed about the reasons why

particular practices were encouraged (Table 12). In contrast, 38% felt that they had been partially informed 

and 7% believed they had not been informed at all. 

In some situations, to qualify for re-enrollment in the CRP, USDA requires that vegetation in part of the

field be destroyed and replanted to other species to increase the value of the field for wildlife. When asked 

about these requirements, 75% of the survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that CRP benefits to 

wildlife were important (Table 13a). Nearly 62% either agreed or strongly agreed that requirements to 

enhance vegetation composition to maintain long-term quality of wildlife habitat were reasonable 

(Table 13b). In contrast, 16% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment. Of those who answered this 

question, 22% expressed no opinion. However, 82% agreed that if CRP covers are well established, there 

should be no requirements to modify them (Table 13c). Only 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed, believing it 

reasonable to disturb established vegetative covers to furnish improvements in wildlife habitat quality. 

Fourteen percent had no opinion about these requirements. 

8
Table 8. What are the benefits of the CRP acres on your farm or community, observed by you or your family? Totals 

are percents and may not total 100% because more than one answer may have been chosen (% of respondents). 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Improved control of soil 

erosion 88.1 89.3 79.4 76.6 87.9 74.1 84.9 93.4 85.2 90.7 85.4

Positive changes in wildlife 

populations 69.5 72.7 75.8 75.2 69.7 62.1 77.1 82.0 68.9 67.4 73.2

Increased opportunities to 

observe wildlife 61.0 58.6 67.7 72.0 50.5 60.3 55.8 62.3 57.4 45.3 59.4

Improved water quality 45.8 48.2 23.8 36.2 28.3 27.6 38.0 45.9 37.7 22.1 38.8

Increased opportunities to 

personally hunt 32.2 37 61.9 40.8 22.2 41.4 42.8 27.9 37.7 24.4 37.6

Improved scenic quality of 

farm or landscape 45.8 37.3 42.9 40.8 33.3 29.3 35.3 37.7 45.9 30.2 37.4

Improved control of drifting 

snow 

11.9 22.3 0.0 34.9 56.6 8.6 51.2 41.0 0.0 33.7 30.5

Improved air quality 32.2 21.6 30.2 21.1 40.4 15.5 31.4 54.1 45.9 45.3 29.2

Increased permanence of 

surface water 23.7 27.3 20.6 19.7 21.2 27.6 19.8 36.1 18.0 25.6 23.7

Potential increase in future 

income (e.g., sale of timber) 33.9 9.8 65.1 15.6 8.1 13.8 8.9 8.2 73.8 9.3 16.7

Increased opportunities to 

lease land for hunting 13.6 6.6 23.8 8.7 9.1 10.3 19.4 9.8 19.7 15.1 11.9

No positive effects 1.7 0.9 1.6 1.4 2.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 1.1

9
Table 9. What are the negative effects of the CRP to your farm or community, observed by you or other members of 

your family? Totals are percents and may not total 100% because more than one answer may have been chosen (%

of respondents). 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Source of weeds 26.3 33.6 14.1 32.2 23.7 21.1 29.7 34.5 13.6 22.8 28.8

Potential fire hazard 10.5 8.9 17.2 19.6 46.4 1.8 24.7 44.8 15.3 30.4 19.3

Attracts unwanted 

requests for permission 

to hunt 

15.8 23.3 14.1 12.6 12.4 7.0 20.5 20.7 13.6 16.5 18.0

Makes farm appear 

unkempt or poorly

managed 

22.8 14.2 18.7 18.7 9.3 14.0 6.2 12.1 8.5 11.4 13.1

Attracts unwanted 

wildlife 7.0 11.0 4.7 7.9 8.2 5.3 7.7 10.3 3.4 11.4 8.7

Negative effects on local 

economy

3.5 3.9 4.7 3.7 23.7 3.4 11.2 20.7 1.7 16.5 7.8

Too much cropland taken 

out of production 3.5 3.4 7.8 3.3 8.2 5.3 3.1 3.4 5.1 5.1 4.1

No negative effects 47.4 13.3 54.7 40.7 24.7 52.6 7.7 25.9 39.0 40.5 25.4

Table 10. Please give your evaluation of the amount of attention given to wildlife habitat in CRP 

enrollment requirements (% of respondents). 

Amount of 

attention 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Appropriate 76.8 71.9 76.6 75.6 68.0 86.2 71.9 73.8 75.4 68.2 73.2

Not enough 12.5 19.4 17.2 19.8 3.1 12.1 14.1 4.9 16.4 15.3 15.6

Too much 10.7 8.7 6.3 4.6 28.9 1.7 14.1 21.3 8.2 16.5 11.1

10
Table 11. Was the amount of assistance you got from the Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources 

Conservation Service to plan, maintain or improve CRP acres for wildlife habitat... (% of 

respondents)? 

Amount of 

assistance 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Appropriate 80.7 83.5 81.3 87.2 81.4 81.

0 78.5 85.0 78.7 77.6 82.2

Not enough 17.5 15.3 18.7 11.9 12.4 19.

0 18.0 11.7 19.7 18.8 15.7

Too much 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.9 6.2 0.0 3.5 3.3 1.6 3.5 2.1

Table 12. How well have you been informed by the Farm Service Agency/Natural Resources Conservation 

Service during enrollment or contract renewal about why specific types of cover practices are encouraged

(% of respondents)? 

How well 

informed 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Well informed 57.9 54.3 53.2 46.9 59.8 52.5 57.0 61.7 51.7 62.8 54.8

Somewhat 

informed 35.1 38.2 35.5 46.0 38.1 39.0 34.0 31.7 40.0 33.7 37.9

Not at all 

informed 7.0 7.5 11.3 7.1 2.1 8.5 9.0 6.7 8.3 3.5 7.3

Table 13a. In some situations, to qualify for re-enrollment in the CRP, USDA requires that part of the field 

have clover/alfalfa interseeded into existing grasses or that native grasses be planted to replace existing 

grasses. This is most often done to increase the fields’ value as wildlife habitat. Which of the following 

answers best describe your feelings about these requirements? 

CRP benefits to wildlife are important (% of respondents) 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Strongly agree 42.9 34.8 36.1 40.0 12.5 31.0 28.9 23.0 27.1 25.3 31.8

Agree 26.8 42.3 41.0 45.6 51.0 51.7 42.2 42.6 55.9 39.8 43.6

Neutral 21.4 15.6 13.1 9.3 18.8 12.1 18.0 21.3 15.3 14.5 15.4

Disagree 7.1 4.8 8.2 4.2 11.5 5.2 7.8 8.2 0.0 10.8 6.3

11
Strongly disagree 1.8 2.5 1.6 0.9 6.3 0.0 3.1 4.9 1.7 9.6 3.0

Table 13b. USDA requirements to enhance CRP covers to maintain long-term benefits to wildlife are 

reasonable (% of respondents). 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Strongly agree 27.8 17.7 18.3 19.7 5.3 17.2 11.8 8.2 8.5 12.2 15.3

Agree 33.3 47.0 60.0 54.5 45.3 50.0 40.6 29.5 62.7 40.2 46.5

Neutral 25.9 20.0 13.3 16.4 28.4 24.1 28.7 26.2 20.3 20.7 22.1

Disagree 9.3 12.4 6.7 7.5 13.7 6.9 13.0 24.6 6.8 14.6 11.7

Strongly disagree 3.7 2.8 1.7 1.9 7.4 1.7 5.9 11.5 1.7 12.2 4.4

Table 13c. If CRP covers are well established, there should be no requirements to disturb or enhance them to

renew acres in the program (% of respondents). 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Strongly agree 40.0 44.5 37.3 39.8 46.9 33.3 50.8 60.7 29.3 59.0 45.1

Agree 36.4 36.2 44.1 42.7 36.5 40.4 32.0 34.4 44.8 28.9 36.8

Neutral 12.7 16.1 8.5 13.3 13.5 19.3 12.5 3.3 19.0 9.6 13.6

Disagree 10.9 2.5 6.8 3.8 2.1 5.3 3.5 1.6 5.2 0.0 3.4

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.7 3.4 0.5 1.0 1.8 1.2 0.0 1.7 2.4 1.0

Management Alternatives 

Over half (58%) of respondents thought that mowing would be the most suitable method for managing 

CRP lands (if periodic management was needed [Table 14a]). Shredding of vegetation was favored by 36%. 

Roughly one quarter (26%) thought application of herbicides, prescribed burning (25%), and grazing (21%) 

were effective methods for management. Disking or plowing of CRP ground was the least desirable 

management practice with only 8% of respondents selecting this option. 

Thirty-four percent stated that periodic management of CRP acres is not desirable, primarily because 

they oppose disturbing CRP grasslands (Table 14b). Over 14% stated that they did not have the equipment to

implement management. A small number of respondents (4%) simply did not want to manage their CRP land. 

12
Table 14a. If periodic management of CRP grassland acres were encouraged to maintain desirable 

characteristics of vegetation, which method(s) would be most suitable to your operation? Check all that 

apply. (Totals are percents and may not total 100% because more than one answer may have been chosen.) 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

Mowing 49.1 68.6 33.9 75.0 34.0 76.3 57.6 31.1 33.3 31.0 57.7

Shredding/brushhogin

g 

63.2 42.0 57.6 37.3 16.5 49.2 15.7 21.3 43.9 38.1 35.4

Herbicides 7.0 26.9 15.3 23.1 21.6 5.1 35.7 49.2 10.5 25 25.5

Burning 5.3 25.1 18.6 18.9 18.6 8.5 39.6 41.0 26.3 15.5 24.7

Grazing 12.3 9.8 10.2 9.4 62.9 8.5 29.4 42.6 22.8 38.1 20.9

Disking/plowing 7.0 6.2 15.3 9.4 5.2 0.0 9.8 13.1 17.5 8.3 8.3

Table 14b. Periodic management of CRP acres is not desirable, because, (% of respondents). 

Answer 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

I oppose disturbance 

of CRP grassland 

fields 

28.1 33.6 21.7 31.6 34.7 20.3 40.2 41.0 15.8 51.2 34.0

I do not have 

equipment 21.1 10.5 20.0 18.4 18.4 13.6 14.1 9.8 22.8 11.9 14.5

I do not desire to 

manage field 7.0 1.6 5.0 7.5 5.1 5.1 4.7 1.6 10.5 1.2 4.2

The final question related to management asked participants to choose the most acceptable scenario for 

managing CRP lands. Nationally, nearly half (49%) of respondents indicated that they wanted to see no 

changes in CRP management criteria (Table 15). In this scenario, CRP lands could only be hayed or grazed 

under emergency conditions with a reduction in rental payment for the acres used. The second most popular 

alternative (32%) offered increased management practicesto maintain the long-term quality of wildlife habitat 

with an increase in CRP rental payments to cover related expenses. A less popular scenario was one involving 

limited haying or grazing, preferred by 12% of respondents. Under this scenario CRP land could be used for 

limited haying or grazing without reduction in rental payments. Emergency use of the used portion of the 

field would be prohibited for 2 years. Periodic haying or grazing with a 25% reduction in rental paymentsfor

the acres used was preferred by only 7% of the respondents. 

13
Table 15. In relation to periodic management of CRP land, which of these choices are most appealing to you? 

(% of respondents) 

Choices 

Appalachian 

Cornbelt 

Delta 

Lake States 

Mountain 

Northeast 

Northern 

Plains 

Pacific 

Southeast 

Southern 

Plains 

National 

No change 43.6 52.5 54.5 53.5 39.8 52.7 43.1 50.0 41.5 51.9 49.1

Increased management 

practices w/increased 

payments 

34.5 32.9 34.5 38.1 23.5 34.5 27.7 26.7 45.3 26.6 32.1

Limited haying/ 

grazing w/same 

payments 

20.0 8.8 7.3 6.9 19.4 7.3 14.2 18.3 13.2 13.9 11.5

Periodic haying/ 

grazing w/reduced 

payments 

1.8 5.8 3.6 1.5 17.3 5.5 15.0 5.0 0.0 7.6 7.3

14
Appendix 

Comments on the CRP Design and Administration 

The final question on the survey was an optional opportunity for respondents to tell us how the CRP 

might better meet their needs. Over 41% of respondents provided comments. The majority of these remarks 

was short and could be characterized as sweeping expressions of satisfaction with the CRP and a strong desire 

to see the program continued without substantial change. Although the focus of the survey was on wildlife 

and related management, respondents described a wide range of environmental and social benefits resulting 

from the program. One participant’s remark reflects a feeling expressed by many who furnished written 

observations: 

“While the CRP is a benefit to wildlife, its most important function is to keep land idled in 

useable condition in this disastrous farm economy. The program serves an important national

security purpose as an investment against an uncertain future.” 

Across several regions, however, issues of obvious concern included greater financial assistance to cover

management costs, distress about destruction of existing cover to meet re-enrollment requirements, desires to

implement periodic use of grasslands, and a need for more technical assistance and education related to 

wildlife habitat management. Following are comments received by region, which we have summarized. 

Pacific Region 

Thirty-three respondents (54%) provided written comments. These comments generally expressed 

positive perceptions of the CRP, with many requesting expansion or suggesting that the program remain 

essentially unchanged. However, some changes were recommended, including: 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

longer contract periods, 

more liberal enrollment criteria that would permit additional land into the program, and 

greater weight given to local identification of vegetation and management practices that 

more properly fit regional conditions. 

Respondents cited the following management practices as a way to maintain habitat quality and control 

of weeds and brush: 

periodic grazing,

limited grazing rather than herbicides in sensitive (e.g., riparian) areas, 

more liberal use of burning and disking, and 

additional financial assistance to control weeds. 

Respondents expressed some concern related to vegetation interseeding and replacement requirements. 

Requirements to interseed legumes for vegetation enhancement were perceived as ineffective where 

subsequent chemical control of broadleaf weeds was required. Similarly, there was a perception that original

CRP grasslands provided the same or better wildlife habitat than did the grass covers that replaced them. 

Respondents believed that reestablishment of grasses was difficult, expensive, and encouraged establishment

of weeds. Many felt that enhancement of vegetation species composition in CRP grasslands should be 

required only on acres newly enrolled in the program, or where the initial success of seeding was poor. They

also felt that well-established grasslands should not be altered solely to meet wildlife objectives.

15
Mountain Region 

Over half (58%) of respondents provided comments on the CRP. Many cited positive effects, including: 

conservation of ground water, increased wildlife, and control of wind erosion. 

However, a common opinion expressed was that wildlife had received too much attention in recent CRP 

enrollment criteria. As was the case in the Pacific Region, destruction of well-established grasslandsto replant

other grass species was perceived as an unnecessary waste of resources. Several respondents stated that the 

CRP was an effective conservation program but the increased emphasis on wildlife should come with an 

increase in funds to cover the requirements to improve vegetation conditions. Likewise, several respondents 

thought rental payments should be increased to help defray rising costs associated with taxes and inflation. 

Many Mountain Region respondents favored limited haying or grazing to maintain the long-term quality of 

CRP grasslands. However, others felt that hay production on CRP grasslands could have a negative economic 

effect on non-CRP forage producers. They suggested that there be closer monitoring and control of hay

produced under emergency use and no economic profit from this production be permitted. A few respondents

stated that enrollment of entire farms in the CRP should be prohibited since they believed it limited farming 

opportunities and had a negative impact on local economies. Finally, respondents encouraged a greater 

consistency in evaluating lands submitted for CRP enrollment and more emphasis on establishment of trees 

and windbreaks. 

 

Northern Plains Region 

Forty-four percent of respondents provided comments. A large number of those comments focused on 

positive effects, including: benefits to wildlife populations, improvement in scenic quality of landscapes, soil 

enrichment, decreased herbicide use, and economic benefits to local economies. 

Many advocated periodic, limited haying, grazing, or burning to maintain the quality of the stands and as

a means to control wildfire hazards. However, costs and risks associated with burning of CRP grasslands were

of concern. Several respondents suggested that haying may be a more appropriate management option and 

that haying of firebreaks should be permitted without reduction in rental payments. Several respondents cited 

the benefits of having CRP grasslands as a source of hay during emergency conditions. 

The most frequent concern expressed in the Northern Plains was a need for increased financial assistance 

for grassland management. While management costs (e.g., fuel, weed control) have increased, USDA 

payments to cover these requirements have not. There was also a related desire for an increase in CRP rental 

rates associated with a cost-of-living index. 

Respondents from this region expressed more dissatisfaction with USDA CRP-related assistance than 

any other region. Several respondents described difficulties working with USDA staff in counties other than 

where they lived. Also noted was the problem that generalized USDA guidelines do not fit the needs of every

farm. Several respondents stated that they felt “forgotten” after the initial sign-up. Some suggestions for 

improvement included: 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

more local control in defining management options, 

on-going, relatively frequent assistance and information related to land management, 

more information on proper plant species, planting requirements, vegetation management 

options/techniques, and long-term maintenance of wildlife habitat, 

clearly defined program entry requirements and constraints that are not changed in the middle of the

contract period, 

consistent enforcement of CRP management violations, and 

16
▪ consistent evaluation of lands submitted for enrollment. 

Other recommendations for general CRP improvement included: 

▪

▪

▪

▪

longer contracts,

whole farm sign-ups, 

higher rental payments for irrigated land, and 

inclusion of existing grasslands into the program. 

In addition, several respondents suggested that management requirements and constraints should be 

defined at the beginning of the enrollment period and not changed prior to expiration of the original contract.

Southern Plains Region 

Respondents from the Southern Plains Region (37%) described many benefits of the CRP, including: 

benefits to wildlife, air quality, and groundwater; improved scenic quality of the landscape; and financial 

stability provided to CRP participants and local economies. 

Respondents provided some recommendations for improved program administration, including 

reduction in the amount of paperwork and record-keeping required; more lands enrolled in the CRP; the 

ability of counties that have not met their 25% enrollment cap to transfer eligibility of unused acres to 

counties where farmers have been unable to get into the program; and an increase in rental payments (to 

benefit local economies, to furnish better maintenance of lands enrolled in the program, and to keep poor, 

erosive fields from returning to production). 

Suggestions for program improvements related to habitat included an emphasis on habitat improvements

associated with playa lakes; periodic review of vegetation conditions on enrolled lands with recommendations

for long-term management; more information on management practices; increase in USDA landowner 

education focused on habitat and wildlife management; and more uniform control of weeds. 

Periodic grazing to allow for more natural control of weeds and invasive woody species was suggested. 

It was also suggested that limited grazing be permitted without financial penalty if it is done in accordance 

with an approved conservation plan. 

Reduction of soil erosion was described as an important benefit of the program. Respondents also 

believed that the present emphasis on management of program lands for wildlife is excessive. Several 

respondents characterized requirements to enhance 51% of existing CRP grasslands through replanting to 

native grasses as an impractical and wasteful constraint to remain in the program. The requirement to plow up 

well-established grasslands to replant other grasses was characterized as “illogical nonsense” and an overall 

contribution to increased erosion of soil and loss of existing wildlife benefits. 

Provisions requiring control of weeds by shredding/mowing or herbicides and planting of legumes to 

furnish sufficient cover for wildlife seemed conflicting to several landowners. 

Lake States Region 

Written observations (47% of respondents provided comments) were primarily positive, including 

benefits to wildlife and water quality, and high-quality administrative and technical assistance furnished by

the USDA. 

17
Several respondents believed that wildlife should be the greatest priority in enrollment objectives, 

followed by water quality and soil erosion. 

Although USDA assistance was applauded, some recommendations were made, including: 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

greater USDA flexibility that encourages programs more specifically tied to regional conservation 

problems, 

better education and technical assistance programs that address long-term management of CRP lands

for wildlife, and 

improved distribution of USDA study results to participants describing best CRP management 

practices and associated environmental and wildlife benefits. 

Recommendations for program improvement included longer advance notice of sign-up periods; more 

flexible enrollment periods (e.g., 5, 15, 20 years); and elimination of the 25% cap per county.

In addition, there was a desire to give re-enrollment priority to existing contracts where high-quality CRP 

vegetation has already been established. Several respondents stated that in the long-term, this would save 

taxpayer money and maximize environmental benefits. Similarly, some believed that resident landowners and 

operators should be given priority over investors and absentee landowners in program enrollment. 

Specific suggested improvements related to habitat on CRP land included: 

a greater emphasis on hardwood tree plantings, 

mandatory use of firebreaks, 

acceptance of more and different types of land (e.g., woodlots) into the program, 

limited haying or grazing (two or three times in a 10-year contract) to maintain grassland quality, and 

greater attention to the use of prescribed burning 

The most common concern from this region focused on relations between inflation, increasing land 

taxation rates, and the inability of rental payments to cover mounting requirements for management of CRP 

covers. Maintenance payments have not increased, making management difficult and limiting program

enrollment. Financial incentives were believed necessary to enable landowners to implement conservation and 

wildlife practices. Requirements to destroy a portion of existing grasslands or interseed legumes to qualify for 

reenrollment were also a concern in this region. However, these concerns were not nearly as strong as those 

voiced in the Southern Plains, Northern Plains, and Mountain Regions. 

Cornbelt Region 

Comments were wide-ranging, with 26% of respondents providing comments. Most comments could be 

described as “pleased with the program as is.” The CRP was characterized as benefiting farmers as well as 

non-farmers by returning dividends to future generations far in excess of taxpayer costs. Some specific 

positive feedback on the program included benefits to: local economies, commodity prices,sportsmen, water

quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat. 

Wildlife benefits were an important topic in this region with many respondents wanting more emphasis 

on native vegetation, wildlife conservation, and habitat. However, some respondents resented the increased 

importance given to wildlife habitat in recent enrollment requirements. They believed that the emphasis of the 

CRP should remain on soil conservation with wildlife assigned a lower priority. Some thought habitat 

enhancement requirements and unusual, expensive seed requirements have made the program more 

troublesome and costly. Because they conflict with control of broad-leaved weeds, requirementsto interseed

18
legumes to enhance wildlife habitat should be discontinued. Destruction of existing cover and reseeding of 

new grasses was perceived as being expensive, exposing land to erosion, and causing an overall loss in 

wildlife habitat. 

Respondents did provide some suggestions for improving the program, including: 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

expansion of the waterways buffer program, 

allowing existing contracts with established cover to be automatically eligible for renewal, 

allowing greater flexibility in enrollment periods, 

encouraging more marginal, non-tilled land without a cropping history into the program to increase 

environmental benefits, and 

incorporating better conservation practices into lands in production (for example, establishment of 

grassed strips between rowcrop fields to provide cover for wildlife and allowing enrollment of 

brushy fencerows into the CRP to prevent their removal). 

While a few respondents were opposed to any disturbance of CRP covers, more respondents favored 

periodic use of grasslands. Many favored periodic haying and grazing to reduce dead plant material and 

maintain the quality of grasslands. Periodic haying/grazing was also perceived to be a way to control weeds 

and lower dependence on herbicides for weed control. In addition, some requested more flexibility in methods 

to control weeds (e.g., disking, haying). 

Several respondents were highly satisfied with the quality of USDA assistance. However, some

described concerns that local NRCS/FSA staff was over-burdened by an excessive workload. Respondents 

felt that a pamphlet describing the program was a poor substitute for personal attention. Specifically, 

respondents said they desire: 

more information on management of various types of plantings; 

more information on management of program lands for wildlife; 

periodic visits to farms by USDA staff for consultation and improved management assistance; 

workshops and other ways to get information out to new participants in farm programs prior to, 

during, and after enrollment; 

program options that are easier to understand and specific to local problems; and 

consistent rules and regulations across counties. 

As in most of the other regions, CRP land rental rates and expenses associated with management and 

maintenance of program lands were issues of concern. Most respondents favored an increase in rental 

payments to closely reflect current land values and maintenance costs. 

Delta Region 

Comments (47% provided comments) were generally positive. They cited their appreciation for an 

increased awareness of wildlife and effective administration of the CRP by the Farm Service Agency. 

Suggested improvements to the program included: 

the need for more education on managing CRP trees, 

increased emphasis on planting of hardwood tree species, 

19
▪ more educational and information seminars related to conservation and land management, 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

simpler paperwork associated with the program; an increase in rental payments to cover increasing 

taxes, 

more enrollment periods, 

broadened definitions for eligibility of additional property into the program, 

the use of traditional crop production methods to produce wildlife food plots, and 

more emphasis on individual farmers and local problems (rather than trying to make one national 

program fit local situations). 

Southeast Region 

Written comments (40%) were positive, reflecting their appreciation for the environmental, financial, and 

wildlife benefits derived from the program. 

Several respondents expressed ideas for program improvement, including: allowing non-cropland to be

eligible for CRP enrollment; more diverse types and amount of land dedicated to wildlife food plots; more 

local control of identifying acceptable conservation practices; and more information on long-term

management of CRP lands. 

In addition, some thought that more cost-share funds were needed to convert existing stands of fescue to 

native grasses. Along those lines, several respondents stated that in order to meet wildlife and environmental

requirements associated with CRP lands, adjustments of rental rates or cost-share funds were needed. 

Appalachian Region 

Nearly 46% of respondents provided comments on the CRP program. Most comments reflected positive

opinions about the CRP in this region, including: benefits of program payments, improvements in water 

quality, and increased abundance of wildlife associated with program lands. 

Potential CRP improvements that were cited included: 

expanding the program to include lands already in grass, 

elimination of fescue as a planting option, 

more frequent sign-up periods, 

more lands eligible for continuous sign-up programs, 

greater emphasis on planting hardwood trees, 

greater flexibility in management options, 

periodic haying or grazing of CRP grasslands to maintain habitat quality, and 

an increase in cost-share funds to assist in long-term management. 

A greater emphasis on education concerning managing program lands for wildlife was seen as an issue 

needing more attention. Information from farmers/operators who have had success in managing CRP lands 

(for wildlife and other environmental concerns) to those newly enrolled in the program was identified as an 

information need. 

20
21

Northeast Region 

Forty-two percent of respondents commented specifically on the CRP program. Overall, participants 

were satisfied with the administration and assistance provided by the USDA and recognized the benefits of 

the program to wildlife. 

The greatest concerns expressed by participants in this region were relations between rising costs 

associated with management of lands enrolled in the program, increased levels of taxation, and the decline in 

rental payments. Specifically expressed was the need for cost-share funds to establish legumes, especially for 

those who do not have the proper equipment to implement the recommended management objectives. 

Summary 

The CRP is an evolving program. When it was created in 1985 no one could foresee the widespread 

effects of setting aside an enormous acreage of farmed land for conservation purposes. Policy makers can 

make decisions on estimates of tons of topsoil lost or millions of dollars spent, but do they place a value on 

improved control of drifting snow or increased opportunities to observe wildlife? Although it is nearly 

impossible to assign a dollar value to such benefits, they are important. It is apparent that opinions concerning 

environmental and social effects of the CRP vary across regions and between participants. What is important 

to one landowner may be meaningless to their neighbor. Regardless, this is the first CRP survey of its kind 

and every participant’s views are valuable and appreciated. 

Your opinions and ideas are important and are making a difference. The USDA has found information 

contained in this survey useful and will take it into consideration in refinement of CRP management policies. 

Thank you for taking the time to be an active participant in our survey. 

Literature Cited 

Dillman, D.A., 1978, Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method: New York, John Wiley and Sons. 

Dillman, D.A., 2000, Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2d ed.): New York, John Wiley 

and Sons. 

Dunn, C.P., Stearns, F., Gutenspergen, G.R., and Sharpe, D.M., 1993, Ecological benefits of the Conservation 

Reserve Program: Conservation Biology, vol. 7, p. 132–139. 

Flather, C.H., Brady, S.J., and Knowles, M.S., 1999, Wildlife resource trends in the United States: A 

technical document supporting the 2000 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service RPA Assessment, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colo: General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-33, 79 p. 

Heard, L.P., Allen, A.W., Best, L.B., Brady, S.J., Burger, W., Esser, A.J., Hackett, E., Johnson, D.H., 

Pederson, R.L., Reynolds, R.E., Rewa, C., Ryan, M.R., Molleur, R.T., and Buck, P., 2000. A 

comprehensive review of Farm Bill contributions to wildlife conservation, 1985–2000, in Hohman, 

W.L., and Halloum, D.J., eds., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Wildlife Management Institute: Technical Report, USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000, 208 p. 

Ryan, M.R., Burger, L.W., and Kurzejeski, E.W., 1998, The impact of CRP on avian wildlife: A review: 

Journal of Production Agriculture, vol.11, p. 61–66. 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This responsibility includes 

fostering the sound use of our lands and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and 

biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and 

historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their 

development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen 

participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities.