United States Department of Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 215

January 2020

The Fate of Land in Expiring 

Conservation Reserve Program 

Contracts, 2013-16

United States Department of Agriculture

Daniel Bigelow, Roger Claassen, Daniel Hellerstein, 

Vince Breneman, Ryan Williams, Chengxia You
Economic Research Service 

www.ers.usda.gov

Cover is a derivative of images from Getty Images.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.

To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy governmentwide standards, ERS requires that all research 

reports with substantively new material be reviewed by qualified technical research peers. This technical peer 

review process, coordinated by ERS' Peer Review Coordinating Council, allows experts who possess the technical 

background, perspective, and expertise to provide an objective and meaningful assessment of the output’s substantive 

content and clarity of communication during the publication’s review.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 

from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines 

vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, 

found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to 

USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call 

(866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 

690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

United States Department of Agriculture

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Daniel Bigelow, Roger Claassen, Daniel Hellerstein, Vince Breneman, Ryan Williams, Chengxia You. 

2020. The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16 

EIB-215, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 215

January 2020

United States Department of Agriculture

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation 

Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16

Daniel Bigelow, Roger Claassen, Daniel Hellerstein, 

Vince Breneman, Ryan Williams, Chengxia You

Abstract 

Voluntary retirement of cropland under the USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

provides numerous benefits related to soil erosion, water quality, wildlife habitat provision, 

and other environmental services. The persistence of benefits realized under the program 

depends on what happens to CRP land when the contract expires. Using a novel dataset of 

expiring CRP contracts and post-CRP land use over 2013-16, this report considers the fate of 

the 8.1 million acres of land in active CRP contracts in 2012—roughly one quarter of all CRP 

land—that expired between 2013 and 2016. This period partly coincided with relatively high 

crop prices and relatively low reenrollment opportunity. Most land (64 percent) did not reenroll 

in the program, and about 80 percent of non-reenrolled land converted to some type of crop 

production over the subsequent 1-4 years. The land in expiring CRP contracts is geographically dispersed, with higher reenrollment rates for land in “continuous” CRP signup—a CRP 

segment that targets practices and land with high conservation value—and for land contracted 

for a tree-cover practice. Conversion of CRP land to crop production tends to be concentrated in 

the Corn Belt and on exiting continuous CRP land.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Steve Wallander, Kelly Maguire, and Jeff Hopkins, USDA, 

Economic Research Service (ERS), and Cathy Feather, Richard Iovanna, and Alex Barbarika 

USDA, Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC). They also thank two reviewers who 

requested anonymity. Thanks also to Maria Williams and Andrea Pimm, USDA, ERS.

Keywords

Conservation Reserve Program, Common land units, Cropland Data Layer, CRP contracts, 

expiring CRP, fate of CRP land, CRP land use

www.ers.usda.gov
ii

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

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

What Is the Conservation Reserve Program and What Are the Recent and Historical 

Trends in CRP Enrollment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

CRP Reenrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Temporal Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

General Versus Continuous Signup Reenrollment ...................................10

Regional Trends/Geographic Patterns in Reenrollment ...............................13

Practice-Specific Trends in Reenrollment .......................................... 16

Post-CRP Land Use for Land That Exits the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Temporal Trends in Post-CRP Land Use ...........................................19

General Versus Continuous Signup Trends in Post-CRP Land Use .......................21

Regional Trends/Geographic Patterns in Post-CRP Land Use ..........................22

Practice-Specific Trends in Post-CRP Land Use .....................................24

Conclusions and Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Errata

On December 4, 2020, the acreage in expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts 

was corrected to 1.19 million in 2016. The share of land exiting CRP going into some form of 

crop production was corrected to 79 percent, and the share going into tree cover to 6 percent. 

The amount of land exiting general land that went to annual crops was changed to 56 percent, 

and land exiting continuous land that went to perennial specialty crops was corrected to 10 

percent. The amount of tree-practice land that was the least likely to transition to some type of 

crop production (annual, specialty, or perennial forage crop use) after it exited the CRP was 

corrected to 18 percent. Lastly, the acreages shown in figure 7 were updated to correct an undercounting of roughly 188 acres of land that exited CRP over the study period. Data shown in table 

1, appendix table 2, and appendix table 3 were also revised.
A report summary from the Economic Research Service January 2020

ERS is a primary source 

of economic research and 

analysis from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

providing timely information on economic and policy 

issues related to agriculture, 

food, the environment, and 

rural America. www.ers.usda.gov

United States Department of Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

Economic 

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 215

January 2020

The Fate of Land in Expiring 

Conservation Reserve Program 

Contracts, 2013-16

United States Department of Agriculture

Daniel Bigelow, Roger Claassen, Daniel Hellerstein, 

Vince Breneman, Ryan Williams, Chengxia You

United States Department of Agriculture

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation 

Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16

Daniel Bigelow, Roger Claassen, Daniel Hellerstein, 

Vince Breneman, Ryan Williams, Chengxia You

What Is the Issue?

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), administered by the USDA’s Farm Service 

Agency, is the largest land-retirement program in the United States. Under the CRP, 

landowners voluntarily retire environmentally sensitive cropland for 10-15 years in 

exchange for an annual rental payment. Once a CRP contract expires, land may be 

reenrolled, subject to the availability of signup opportunities. Since 2008, the acreage 

enrollment cap allotted to the program has been decreasing, reducing opportunities 

for reenrollment and resulting in almost 13 million acres exiting the program. What 

happens to the land that exits the CRP has policy implications from both a program 

budget and environmental stewardship standpoint. For example, if exiting land tends to 

remain in grass or tree cover, even in the absence of program payments, conservation 

benefits will likely persist beyond the duration of the contract. This report analyzes the 

rate at which CRP lands have recently been reenrolled and, further, how land is used 

after it exits the program. 

What Did the Study Find?

Of the 8.1 million acres enrolled in CRP contracts that expired during 2013-16, 7.6 

million are tracked in this report. Overall, 36 percent of expiring CRP land was subsequently reenrolled: 

• For land enrolled through the “continuous” CRP sign-up—a CRP segment 

targeting practices and land with a high conservation value—48 percent was 

reenrolled versus 34 percent for land enrolled through the “general” sign-up—the 

mechanism by which a majority of CRP land is enrolled. 

• Land originally enrolled under a tree-cover practice was the most likely to be 

reenrolled (47 percent reenrolled between 2013 and 2016), compared to land 

enrolled under grass (35 percent), wetland (39 percent), or wildlife habitat practices (29 percent). 

Summary
www.ers.usda.gov

• While in most States, less than half of the expired CRP land was subsequently reenrolled 

in the program, there were notable exceptions, including Mississippi (67 percent), Iowa (52 

percent), and Idaho (51 percent).

Fifty-one percent of expiring CRP land was put into some type of crop production including annual 

crops (36 percent), perennial specialty crops (7 percent), and perennial forage crops (7 percent): 

• On land that transitioned to annual crop production, the most common crops were soybeans 

(21 percent), corn (16 percent), and wheat (16 percent).

• Post-CRP annual crop production was particularly high in many Midwestern and neighboring 

States, with 70 percent or more of exiting land in annual crops in Ohio (75 percent), Kentucky 

(74 percent), Michigan (72 percent), Iowa (71 percent), Minnesota (70 percent), and Missouri 

(70 percent).

• Exiting CRP acres that had been in a CRP wetland practice had the largest share of post-CRP 

annual crop production (65 percent). Land in tree-cover practices had the lowest share in 

annual crops (13 percent).

• In contrast, exiting general sign-up land was nearly twice as likely as exiting continuous land 

to be put to grass or forage crop use.

About 13 percent of expiring CRP land was in grass cover (9 percent), tree cover (4 percent), 

non-CRP conservation programs and other uses (<1 percent each). In many cases, grass and tree 

cover likely represents a continuation of the CRP cover, although these lands could be used in ways 

that would not have been allowed under CRP contract (e.g., annual grazing).

• Tree cover was far more likely to be present on exiting CRP land formerly enrolled for treerelated practices, compared to other types of expiring CRP land, and was most common in 

Georgia (92 percent of land exiting CRP) and Mississippi (63 percent).

How Was the Study Conducted?

This report primarily relies on crop reporting historical data from the USDA Farm Service Agency’s 

Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) database. The unit of analysis for the study is the Common Land Unit (CLU), defined by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

as the “smallest unit of land that has a permanent, contiguous boundary, a common land cover and 

land management, a common owner and a common producer in agricultural land associated with 

USDA farm programs.” We supplement the MIDAS data with information from the USDA National 

Agricultural Statistics Service’s Cropland Data Layer when the CLU associated with the expiring 

CRP contract is missing from the MIDAS data. This allows us to account for 94 percent of land in 

expiring CRP contracts over the study period. We also draw on CRP contract administrative data 

to provide context for possible biases in the MIDAS database. National Resources Inventory (NRI) 

data provide background information on land use transitions into and out of CRP for years preceding 

the study period (1996-2012). In addition, FSA’s historical records of program descriptions and 

publicly available data on current CRP patterns are used to supplement and provide context for the 

main analysis.
1

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation 

Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16

Introduction

With a July 2019 budget over $1.8 billion and an enrollment of over 22.3 million acres, the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is by far the largest agricultural land-retirement program in 

the United States. In exchange for an annual rental payment, the CRP incentivizes farmers to set 

aside environmentally sensitive cropland for a contract period lasting 10-15 years. CRP participation 

is voluntary, with much of the enrolled acreage accepted into the program through a general signup 

characterized by a competitive reverse auction mechanism. When contracts expire, participating 

landowners are faced with the decision of whether to attempt to reenroll their land in the program, if 

that option is available, or convert it back to crop production or another use. 

This report inquires about what happens to the land that was formerly enrolled in CRP when its 

contract expires. Is it likely to be reenrolled in the CRP for another contract period? If not, is the 

exiting land put back into crop production or is it retained in a non-crop cover without CRP rental 

payments? Do these patterns vary by geography, CRP signup type, or the contracted conservation 

practice previously in place on the land? These questions concerning the “fate” of expired CRP 

land have implications for the environmental effects of agricultural land retirement policy and fiscal 

appropriations for the Conservation Reserve Program under the conservation title of the farm bill. 

CRP reenrollment and post-contract land use decisions affect the environmental benefits brought 

about by the program. If crop production takes place on lands formerly enrolled in the program, 

there will be a concomitant discontinuation of certain types of benefits. For example, if land is 

enrolled in the program to provide a streamside riparian buffer, many of the water quality enhancements achieved over the contract period are unlikely to persist into the future. Exiting the CRP, 

however, does not erode many of the benefits that had been achieved up to that point. 

Furthermore, when considering effects of CRP enrollment, it is important to distinguish between 

public and private benefits. The public benefits of CRP participation include increased water quality 

and other enhancements to ecosystem services (e.g., wildlife habitat provision, erosion control, and 

carbon sequestration). These benefits accrue to some segment of the general public that is external to 

the process that led a particular piece of land to be enrolled in the program. In contrast, the private 

benefits of CRP enrollment are the payments given to farmers for putting their land in the program, 

as well as any private enjoyment they may get from the ecosystem services flowing from the retired 

parcel and possible gains in future productivity from fallowing the land. 

Although CRP payments at the time of enrollment may have been sufficient to make enrolling 

privately optimal, market and production conditions change, and at the time of expiration, it may 

no longer make sense for the landowner to participate in the program. In addition, when one plot of 

land exits the program, it may be accompanied by enrollment of another that may provide more, or 

less, benefit to the public. Although it is clear that determining the net benefits of CRP reenrollment 

and exit is complicated, information on trends and patterns of reenrollment and post-CRP land use is 

a first-order requirement for an informed analysis of this issue. 
2

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

In analyzing the fate of expiring CRP land for contracts ending between 2013 and 2016, this report 

provides timely information on CRP reenrollment patterns and the short-term durability of programinduced land retirement. Prior efforts to study the fate of expired CRP land have yielded mixed 

results. In a study of the first cohort of CRP land, enrolled in the mid-1980s with contracts expiring 

during 1995-97, Roberts and Lubowski (2007) find that 63 percent of expired CRP land that exited 

the program was converted to crop production, with lower rates of crop conversion for CRP land that 

had been enrolled under a tree- or wildlife-cover practice. Using a statistical model to account for 

the nonrandom composition of CRP lands with expiring contracts, they further show that 58 percent 

of CRP land would likely have converted back to crop production immediately if the program were 

terminated. Similarly, Hellerstein and Malcolm (2011) develop an “opt-out” model showing that 

roughly 30 percent of CRP land in 2010 would leave the program and return to crop production if 

given the opportunity under prevailing commodity prices. Jones et al. (2013), studying a longer time 

period, show that the high rate of crop conversion prevalent among early CRP exits did not persist, 

with roughly 84 percent of land in contracts expiring between 1998 and 2007 never returning to 

crop production (including reenrollment). Jacobson (2014), however, provides evidence suggesting 

that the soil health improvements brought about by the CRP increase the land’s productive potential and stimulate a greater likelihood that it will return to crop production, compared with other 

non-CRP cropland that was voluntarily removed from production over the same time period. More 

recent research in the Midwest shows that CRP land expiring over 2009-12 was reenrolled at a rate 

of 41 percent, with roughly 30 percent of all exiting land going into one of five major crops (corn, 

soybeans, winter wheat, spring wheat, and sorghum) (Morefield et al., 2016). 

A common thread in the existing literature is that CRP cropland conversion is positively correlated 

with commodity prices. For instance, the low rate of conversion observed in Jones et al. (2013) 

is likely driven by the fact that 1998-2007 was a period of relatively low crop prices. In contrast, 

Morefield et al. (2016), who find a relatively high rate of post-CRP cropland conversion, consider 

2009-12, a period when corn prices reached a record high (in 2012). For context, the present study 

focuses on CRP reenrollment and post-CRP land use patterns for contracts expiring over 2013-

16, a period characterized by high commodity prices, though not as high as those encountered in 

Morefield et al. (2016).1 The 4-year period covered by this study (2013-16) was also notable for its 

lack of reenrollment opportunities for a large portion of the land associated with expiring contracts. 

Most land in the program is enrolled through the general signup, which has historically taken place 

on a roughly annual basis. However, over 2013-16 just two general signups were held, one in 2013 

and another in 2015-16, with the latter being quite small by historical standards based on the amount 

of land that was accepted into the program. 

It bears mentioning that, while post-CRP land use decisions are influenced by crop prices, the policy 

itself can, in turn, affect market conditions. Hendricks and Er (2018) note how the CRP also acts 

to support commodity prices, with CRP acreage enrollment caps expanding during times of low 

prices and contracting during times of high prices. Their results indicate that 60 percent of CRP land 

expiring between 2007 and 2011 reverted to crop production, a shift large enough to explain cropland changes typically attributed directly to biofuel policy.2 In other words, Hendricks and Er (2018) 

posit that it was not the biofuel policy itself that led to an expansion of cropland acreage, but rather 

1As an example, according to data from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, the real annual average price 

(in 2018 $USD per bushel) of corn, one of the most common post-CRP crop choices, was $2.96 over 1998-2007, $5.70 over 

2009-12, and $3.83 over 2014-17.

2Roberts and Lubowski (2007), Jones et al. (2013), and Hendricks and Er (2018) all rely on data from the National Resources Inventory, which classifies land as CRP only if it is enrolled through a general signup.
3

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

that biofuel policy increased crop prices, which in turn led to a release of land from the CRP that 

was subsequently converted back to crop production. 

The goal of this report is to provide updated information on the fate of expiring CRP land. To 

accomplish this, we analyze contract-level data on expiring CRP acreage over 2013-16 matched with 

data on reenrollment. In addition, we analyze the post-CRP land use for the land that exited the 

program (i.e., was not reenrolled). Our analysis considers variation in CRP reenrollment and postcontract land use across the United States, different CRP signups (general versus continuous), and 

classes of CRP conservation practices (tree, grass, wildlife, and wetland). The findings documented 

here provide the most comprehensive look at the fate of expiring CRP acres over 2013-16 and are 

meant to inform policy discussions concerning the persistence of CRP-induced land use change. 
4

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

What Is the Conservation Reserve Program and What Are 

the Recent and Historical Trends in CRP Enrollment?

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary land retirement program that offers annual 

rental payments to farmers in exchange for retiring environmentally sensitive farmland, typically 

cropland. Established in 1985 as part of the Food Security Act, the CRP is the largest program of 

its kind in the United States. CRP contracts, a majority of which are allocated through intermittent reverse auctions managed by USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA), last 10-15 years.3 In these 

general signup periods, owners of eligible cropland may submit an offer, which contains a bid corresponding to the annual rental payment the landowners would accept to install a specific conservation 

practice. The manner in which land is enrolled in the CRP and the criteria for ranking bids have 

evolved over time (Hellerstein, 2017). Currently, land is ranked on the basis of cost effectiveness and 

a suite of environmental criteria including erosion control, water quality enhancement, and wildlife 

habitat provision. As described in the box titled “The CRP’s Enrollment Mechanisms,” in addition 

to land enrolled through the general signup, land may also be enrolled through a continuous signup 

restricted to lands suitable for one of several targeted CRP initiatives or specific high-priority practices (such as Pollinator Habitat and Wetland Restoration). In contrast to the general signup, if a 

parcel is eligible for continuous CRP and the owner wishes to enroll the land for the pre-specified 

rental payment established by FSA, it is automatically accepted into the program. 

CRP acreage enrollment has fluctuated over the years, peaking at 36.7 million acres in 2007 (figure 

1). As of February 2019, the program enrolled 22.4 million acres, its lowest level since 1988 when 

the program was still being phased in. Apart from 1997, when the initial set of CRP contracts 

expired, expiration peaked at 6.5 million acres in 2012. In general, the pattern of expiration lags 

enrollment. After enrollment hit its peak in 2007, program acreage has since declined steadily. 

Likewise, since 2012, the quantity of expiring acres has not been matched by enrollments. As a 

4-year moving average, the expiring acreage observed over 2013-16 (2.02 million acres) is slightly 

below the median over the entire 1998-2016 period (2.19 million acres). The period considered in 

this analysis is therefore relatively normal in terms of how much land has been subject to an expiring 

contract over the program’s history. 

The amount of land able to be placed in the CRP is bound by annual enrollment caps set at each 

iteration of the farm bill. The enrollment cap affects the fate of expiring CRP land because it determines the amount of land that can be accepted into the program, including expiring land that may 

be re-offered. As noted by Hendricks and Er (2018), enrollment caps reflect commodity market 

conditions in the period surrounding farm bill negotiations. For example, in the years preceding 

negotiation of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, prices of corn and other commodities spiked due to the increased use of commodities for biofuels, among other factors (Trostle et al., 

2011). The enrollment cap was reduced over 2008-2013 in the bill (figure 1), leading to a subsequent 

reduction in total enrollment. 

By the same token, the Farm Service Agency did not hold a general CRP signup from 2007 to 2009, 

which likewise contributed to the release of some land from the program. However, to smooth the 

3In most circumstances, if a CRP contract is broken prior to the contract expiration date, all payments received must be 

paid back with interest. Likewise, if CRP land is sold, the buyer to the contract has the choice to remain, in whole or in part, 

or not to remain into the program. If the buyer chooses not to remain, then the seller is responsible for repaying all incentive 

payments plus liquidated damages. In essence, the financial burden falls on the seller if the new owner of the land no longer 

wishes to participate in the CRP. 
5

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

expiration of the 16 million acres originally set to expire in 2007, FSA implemented the reenrollment and extension (REX) initiative in 2006. The REX initiative allowed contract reenrollments or 

2-5 year extensions of CRP contracts set to expire over 2007-10, with the extension length depending 

on the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) score of the enrolled land.4 Participants took advantage 

of the REX opportunity for over 80 percent of expiring CRP acreage (Hellerstein, 2017). Similarly, 

in the lead-up to the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014-2018), prices spiked (again due to a variety 

of factors, including macroeconomic trends and sustained increases in biofuel production), which 

preceded another cutback in the enrollment cap (figure 1). Owners of CRP land expiring over 

2013-16 faced reenrollment constraints similar to those over the 2007-09 period. A general signup 

was not held in 2014 or 2015, but short-term (1-year) extensions were offered for qualifying expiring 

lands. In 2016, the general signup was quite small and restrictive by historical standards, accepting 

only 22 percent of offered lands, and reducing the ability of contracts to persist.5 The subsequent 

analysis provides a detailed discussion of how these limited reenrollment opportunities, coupled 

with the high crop prices that characterized 2013, may have influenced both the decision and ability 

of landowners to reenroll in the program, as well as the subsequent land use on lands that exited. In 

sum, while the conversion of CRP land to crop production largely reflects the private decisions of 

individual landowners, policy, and program priorities—as informed by market conditions—can also 

have sizeable effects on the ability of landowners to reenroll and on the volume of expiring CRP 

land that converts back to crop production.

The National Resources Inventory (NRI) can be used to analyze what has happened to land that has 

gone into and subsequently exited the general signup CRP. NRI data are available for 1982, 1987, 

1992, 1997, and annually from 2000 to 2012. The NRI’s inherent panel structure allows one to track 

the land use of the more than 800,000 individual NRI survey points over time. After exiting the 

program, the overwhelming majority of land has gone into annual crop production or grass cover/

hay production (figure 2). For example, consider 2012 NRI points—approximately 24 million 

acres—that had been, but were no longer enrolled in the CRP. About 45 percent of these acres were 

used for annual crop production, compared to 43 percent in grass cover or hay production. A much 

smaller amount of post-CRP land was in forest cover (7 percent overall, in 2012), with the remainder 

distributed to other uses (e.g., development). The NRI data reveal several important features of the 

pattern of post-CRP land use. However, although CRP is listed as a separate category in the NRI 

land use classification system, only land enrolled through the general CRP signup is identified as 

such. Thus, land enrolled under continuous CRP, which accounts for roughly one-third (7.9 million 

acres) of all current CRP land (22.4 million acres), is not identifiable with the NRI data. Land 

enrolled through the continuous signup tends to be concentrated in the Midwest and Appalachian 

regions, suggesting that the NRI data will underrepresent CRP land for these areas (figure 3). 

4Of 27.7 million acres eligible, about 23.3 million acres received a REX extension. As noted in the text, the length of 

the extension depended on the EBI score of the contract. Specifically, FSA divided expiring contracts into quintiles based 

on the EBI scores of the land under contract. FSA offered the quintile with the highest EBI scores new 10- or 15-year 

contracts. The second highest quintiles were offered 5-year contract extensions, the third highest were offered 4-year 

extensions, and so forth.

5Between 1997 and 2014, acceptance rates for CRP general signups fluctuated between 48 percent and 88 percent, with 

an average of about 70 percent.
6

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 1 

Land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) declined by 13.3 million acres 

from 2007 to 2016

 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations using program data from USDA, Farm Service Agency (2018).

The Conservation Reserve Program and the Agriculture 

Improvement Act of 2018

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, signed into law on December 20, 2018, reauthorizes 

the CRP through 2023. The 2018 Farm Act gradually increases the CRP cap from 24 million 

acres to 27 million acres, with at least 8.6 million acres in continuous signup practices and 2 

million acres enrolled in the grassland component of the CRP. CRP annual rental payments 

are limited to 85 percent of the estimated average county rental rate for general signup and 

90 percent of the rental rate for continuous signup. In previous CRP signups, annual rental 

payments could be equal to or higher than estimated county average rental rates. The aim 

of lower payments, at least in part, is to ensure that CRP payments are not bidding up rents 

in local cropland markets. Lower bid caps may also reduce enrollment incentives—possibly 

leading to a reduction in acreage offered to the program. The 2018 Act also: (1) mandates a onetime incentive payment equal to 32.5 percent of the first annual payment for new continuoussignup enrollments, a change that could offset the effect of some of the reduction in the annual 

rental payment; (2) places new limits on cost-sharing and incentive payments; and (3) expands 

opportunities for haying and grazing on enrolled acreage. For more information on the latest 

provisions of the 2018 Farm Act, see “Conservation” in Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018: 

Highlights and Implications. 
7

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 2

Land exiting the general signup Conservation Reserve Program typically goes into annual 

crop production or grass/hay cover

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Post-CRP other

Post-CRP forest

Post-CRP grass/hay

Post-CRP annual crops

CRP

Pre-CRP enrollment

Percent

Land under CRP contract at some time during 1996-2012

Note: Contracts from the initial implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) began expiring at the end of 

1996. The “CRP” portion of each bar denotes the amount of land in CRP in that year as a share of all acreage that has been 

enrolled in the program at some point in time. Land in the “Pre-CRP enrollment” bar represents land which will eventually be 

enrolled, the vast majority of which is cropland.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations using National Resources Inventory data from USDA, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (2014).

Figure 3

Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land tends to be most prevalent in the 

Midwest and Appalachian regions

Percentage of 2012 CRP acres enrolled through continuous sign-up

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Farm Service Agency (2012).
8

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

The CRP Enrollment Mechanisms 

The Conservation Reserve Program enrolls land through three enrollment mechanisms: “general 

signups,” “continuous signup” (including the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program), 

and “grasslands.”

• The general signup takes place in most years, and uses a competitive “reverse auction” mechanism, with several week-long open seasons during which landowners can offer parcels to the 

USDA. Each offer specifies a per-acre asking price, and what conservation practice (or land 

cover) will be installed. All offers are scored using an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI)—a 

multi-factor index that includes the erodibility of the parcel, wildlife habitat qualities of the 

proposed conservation practice, water and air quality impacts from retiring the land, and an 

asking price. All offers are ranked using the EBI, and the best are accepted. Acceptance 

rates have varied over time, ranging from 88 percent in 2013 (signup 45) to 21 percent in 2016 

(signup 49).

As of July 2019, land enrolled through general signups accounts for 60 percent of CRP acres 

(13.46 million acres). The average size of a general signup contract is 81 acres, at a cost of $52 

per acre.

• Continuous signup, initiated in 1997, is non-competitive but has more stringent eligibility 

requirements. If land qualifies for the continuous CRP, it can be enrolled at any point in 

time for a rental rate predetermined by FSA associated with a specified CRP practice to be 

adopted. Participating continuous CRP landowners therefore forego the competitive reverse 

auction required for general signup participants. There are a number of continuous signup 

initiatives and allocations that a parcel can be offered to, such as “wetland restoration,” “pollinator habitat,” “duck nesting habitat,” and “State acres for wildlife enhancement.” Each of 

these has its own requirements, which include geographical (location of parcel) and bio-physical (land characteristics) factors, as well as a set of permitted conservation practices to install. 

About 4 percent of CRP land (941 million acres) is in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (CREP)—a subset of continuous signup. CREP consists of a number of Federal/State 

partnerships designed to address specific issues. These have more specific eligibility requirements and tend to cost more per acre ($162).

As of July 2019, continuous signup accounts for 36 percent of CRP acres (7.96 million). The 

share of CRP land stemming from the continuous signup has steadily increased over time, 

increasing from 10 percent of CRP acres in 2007, to 23 percent in 2013, and 31 percent in 2016. 

The average size of continuous signup contract is 18 acres, at a cost of $139 per acre.

Last, there is a CRP Grasslands component, which helps landowners and operators protect 

grassland, including plant and animal biodiversity, while continuing to use it for grazing. This 

component was initiated in 2014 and currently accounts for about 4 percent of CRP acres, which 

are enrolled at a cost of about $12 per acre. 
9

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

CRP Reenrollment

Temporal Trends

At the end of the 2012 fiscal year (September 30, 2012), 29.53 million acres were enrolled in the 

CRP. Over the subsequent 4-year period, spanning 2013 to 2016, roughly one-quarter of that land (8.1 

million acres) was associated with an expiring CRP contract (USDA-FSA, 2013a). The database used 

for this analysis allows us to track 7.6 million (94 percent) of the true amount of expiring land (the 

aggregate sum of the bars in figure 4).6 Of the contract expiration years considered, the acreage in 

expiring CRP contracts declines over time, decreasing from 3.09 million acres in 2013 to 1.19 million 

acres in 2016. 

We estimate that 36 percent (2.76 million acres) of the acreage in expiring CRP contracts during 

2013-16 was reenrolled in the CRP.7,8 The rate of reenrollment is less than 50 percent in each expiration year. Of the CRP land under a contract that expired in 2013, 45 percent was reenrolled; the 

reenrollment rate was 25 percent in 2014 and 34 percent in both 2015 and 2016.9 Lackluster reenrollment during our study period was, to a large extent, driven by limited signup opportunities and more 

attractive non-CRP options (e.g., grazing). 

6We only include observations in our database if we are confident that the post-contract information on reenrollment and 

land use is accurate. Observations are dropped if they have a missing ID number, Federal Information Processing Standard 

Publication (FIPS) code, or unreasonably inconsistent land use acreages (i.e., there are large differences between the reported 

CRP and CDL (Cropland Data Layer) acreages). 

7Appendix tables 2 and 3 provide detail on aggregate reenrollment, as well as reenrollment patterns across CRP signup 

and practice type.

8Our approach to determining what constitutes CRP reenrollment proceeds as follows. First, if a common land unit is 

in CRP for each successive post-expiration year of compliance crop reporting data, it is considered to be reenrolled. This 

would be the case if, for example, a contract expires in 2013 and the data show the Common Land Unit (CLU) in CRP for 

each of the post-expiration years (2014-17). Such cases represent the vast majority of land we consider to be reenrolled. 

However, there are two exceptions to this general reenrollment rule. The first concerns CLUs that are reconstituted. Sticking with the same example of a 2013 expired contract, if a CLU is observed in CRP in 2014, 2015, and 2016, but then drops 

out of the compliance database (i.e., is not observed at all in 2017), we define that as a reenrollment since it likely reflects a 

data measurement issue rather than a contract actually dropping out of the program. These cases account for 14 percent of all 

reenrolled acreage. The second exception concerns lapses in reenrollment. Again focusing on a 2013 expiring contract, if we 

observe the CLU in grass or tree cover in 2014 before reverting back to CRP for 2015, 2016, and 2017, we considered it to 

be reenrolled. For this exception to be granted, we must observe the CLU to be in CRP in the final year of the data. The only 

intervening land uses allowed during the reenrollment lapse are grass and tree cover. If land is observed as being in crop use 

in any intervening years, we consider it to have exited the program. These reenrollment exceptions account for under 2 percent of the total estimated reenrolled acreage but are important to account for from a conceptual standpoint, as general CRP 

signups did not occur in 2014 or 2015.

9In terms of reenrollment rates, the data used in this report exhibit a small downward bias. Based on official CRP data, the 

reenrollment rates were 52 percent, 25 percent, 36 percent, and 38 percent, respectively, over the 2013-16 period. Although it 

is not possible to say with any certainty what is driving this difference, the slight underrepresentation of reenrollment in the 

CLU-MIDAS database is likely attributable to CLU reconstitution and changes in land ownership that inhibited our ability to 

track all CLUs associated with an expiring CRP contract over the study period. 
10

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 4 

Most land associated with expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts 

over 2013-16 was not reenrolled in the program

45%

25% 34% 34%

55%

75%

66%

66%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2013 2014 2015 2016

Reenrolled Not reenrolled

Acres of expiring CRP land (millions)

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common Land 

Unit (CLU) data (2013-2016).

General Versus Continuous Signup Reenrollment 

CRP land can be enrolled through three distinct signup mechanisms. As described in “The CRP 

enrollment mechanisms” Box, a majority of land is enrolled through a general signup, in which 

CRP enrollment offers are solicited through a competitive reverse auction. General CRP signups occur 

for a discrete interval of time, typically several weeks, during which potential program participants 

must submit their offers. Unlike land eligible for continuous signup, not all eligible and offered land 

for general signup is accepted into the program. Offers are judged on the basis of an environmental 

benefits index, which weights the environmental benefits of enrolling the land into the program, as well 

as the cost of doing so (i.e., the bid). If a bid is high relative to the benefits the land would provide if 

enrolled, it reduces the likelihood of the land being accepted into the program. This same general principle applies to reenrollments as well; after being accepted once, there is no guarantee or implication 

that expiring land that is reoffered to the program land will be accepted. If new lands are offered that 

can be enrolled at a lower cost, relative to benefits, reenrollment offers may not be accepted. 

Most of the remaining enrollment is through the continuous signup, which targets environmentally 

sensitive land where removal from crop production would provide benefits under one of several 

specific program initiatives or high-priority practices. In contrast to the general signup, offers for 

qualifying continuous CRP land are automatically accepted. Continuous CRP reenrollment is only 

constrained by the availability of acreage under the enrollment cap. Since the general and 

continuous CRP signups have different goals and may produce varied environmental benefits, 
11

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

it is useful to consider how contract expiration and reenrollment differ by signup mechanism.10 The 

final CRP enrollment mechanism, CRP Grasslands, was created in the Agricultural Act of 2014 and, 

thus, none of the associated contracts had expired over the 2013-16 period. 

At the end of fiscal year 2012, there were 24.22 million acres of CRP land enrolled under a general 

signup (82 percent of all CRP) and 5.30 million acres enrolled under a continuous signup (18 

percent). Over the ensuing 4-year period spanning 2013-16, 85 percent of all CRP land set to expire 

had been enrolled under a general signup (figure 5). General CRP land was reenrolled at a rate of 

34 percent, compared to 48 percent for continuous CRP land.11 With the exception of 2013, when 

general and continuous CRP reenrollment rates were comparable at 45 and 46 percent, respectively, 

continuous CRP land has consistently been reenrolled at a much higher rate than general CPR land. 

In 2014 and 2016, the reenrollment disparity was particularly large, with continuous CRP land being 

reenrolled at respective rates of 46 percent and 49 percent, at least twice that of general CRP (23 

percent in both years). 

The disparity between general and continuous signup reenrollment is at least partly attributable 

to the lack of signup opportunities offered to general CRP participants through FSA over this 

time period. During the 2013-16 period, FSA held two signups, a relatively large one in May-June 

2013 (signup #45; approx. 1.57 million acres) and a smaller one in Dec. 2015-Feb. 2016 (signup 

#49; approx. 390,000 acres). While both signups provided an opportunity for reenrollment in the 

program, signup #49, in addition to being small in terms of acreage, had a high rejection rate, 

accepting just 22 percent of the land offered into the program, which is far lower than the 88 percent 

acceptance rate of signup #45 (USDA-FSA 2013b, 2016). Furthermore, just 49 percent of expiring 

general CRP land was reoffered into the program in 2013, a historic low that contrasts with an 

aggregate reoffer rate of 79 percent since the program’s inception. The low reoffer and acceptance 

rates in 2013 may be explained by several factors. For one, the CRP national acreage enrollment 

cap was cut sharply in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (figure 1), which lowered 

the number of acres that FSA could accept. That reduced acceptance may have fed some landowners’ doubts that their land would be accepted into the program if offered. In addition, the prices 

of several major crop commodities, including corn, soybeans, and wheat, were at or near recordsetting levels around the same time period, increasing the opportunity cost of participating in the 

program for many producers in 2013. At 75 percent, the reoffer rate in 2016 was more in line with 

historical norms.

10The database used in this report does not explicitly classify land as being enrolled through the general or continuous 

CRP signup. Rather, the data contain information on the practice associated with that land. Some CRP practices have enrollment under both the general and continuous CRP signups. For these practices, we assign the signup type with the most acreage, based on Farm Service Agency records. Appendix 1 contains a list of the different CRP practices and their classification 

as a general or continuous practice. Note that a specific practice was not listed for 1 percent of the expiring CRP acreage. For 

these CLUs, we assume the land had been enrolled under the general CRP signup. 

11The CRP reenrollment rates reported here represent the combined reenrollment into both the general and continuous 

CRP. Our data do not allow us to differentiate between whether the land was reenrolled under a general or continuous signup. 

Based on personal communication with Catherine Feather of USDA, Farm Production and Conservation Business Center 

((FPAC-BC), reenrollment of expiring general signup land into the continuous CRP—e.g., under State Acres For wildlife 

Enhancement (SAFE)—was not uncommon during this period.
12

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 5 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land originally enrolled through the continuous signup 

is more likely to be reenrolled

 

Note: The numbers above each bar denote the acreage (in millions) of expiring land in that signup type for each year. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common Land 

Unit (CLU) data (2013-2016).

Although general signups typically take place every year, 2014 and 2015 were exceptions in that 

no signup was offered. In lieu of a signup, owners of expiring acreage were given an opportunity 

to extend their contract for 1 additional year. For owners of land that expired in 2014, they had the 

opportunity to sign successive 1-year extensions for 2015 and 2016. Likewise, for land expiring in 

2015, the contract could be extended into 2016.12 The only constraint on eligibility for these 1-year 

extensions is that they could not make the total contract length exceed 15 years. This rendered 

many general CRP contracts ineligible for the extensions because, in 2007, a broad-based general 

CRP contract extension effort, known as REX (reenrollment and extension), took place, extending 

contracts that were due to expire over 2007-10 for anywhere from 2 to 5 years, depending on the EBI 

score assigned to the land. As a result of the widespread participation in REX, only 46 percent of 

12For the purpose of this analysis, a 1-year contract extension, in and of itself, is not sufficient for a CLU to be considered 

reenrolled. For instance, if a contract expires in 2014, is given a 1-year extension in 2015, but then is not accepted into the 

CRP under signup 49 in 2016, the land is not considered to be reenrolled. Put differently, we only use the extensions to form 

a bridge between signups #45 and #49. The only possible exception to this rule is for CLUs that are reconstituted in 2014 or 

2015, which we do not observe after the extension occurs. These CLUs would be considered to be reenrolled (again, as long 

as the final observation years list them as being in CRP), but account for a small fraction of overall reenrollment. 
13

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

total expiring general CRP land was eligible for an extension in 2014-15 (USDA-FSA 2014, 2015). 

Of the remaining 54 percent of expiring land that was eligible for an extension, only 58 percent was 

extended by landowners. In addition, as noted above, the general signup that took place in 2016 

(#49) accepted relatively few acres into the program. 

In contrast to the lack of reenrollment opportunities for general CRP participants, continuous CRP 

land was not under any particular restrictions that inhibited reenrollment during the study period. 

Notwithstanding the lack of reenrollment opportunities for general CRP land, given the targeted 

nature of continuous CRP, coupled with its higher rental payments, continuous land may also be 

inherently less likely to exit the program upon contract expiration. It bears mentioning, however, that 

continuous CRP land tends to be concentrated in areas with relatively high crop production potential 

(e.g., Illinois). All told, despite the fact that continuous CRP land was more likely than general CRP 

land to be reenrolled, it remains that more than half of expiring CRP land exited the program across 

all signup types and years. 

Regional Trends/Geographic Patterns in Reenrollment

There is considerable geographic variation in the location of land in CRP contracts expiring over 

2013-16 (figure 6). In terms of acreage, the five States with the largest amounts of expiring CRP land 

are Montana (743,000 acres), Texas (690,000 acres), Washington (610,000 acres), Kansas (532,000 

acres), and Illinois (471,000 acres). Overall, 22 States had at least 100,000 acres of land in expiring 

contracts—a threshold that also distinguishes States above the median in terms of expiring acreage. 

Expiring CRP land is dispersed throughout the United States, with the bulk found in States in the 

upper Midwest, Plains, and Northwest regions. The share of the total 2012 CRP land base represented by the expiring acreage also varies across States. Among the States with at least 100,000 

expiring CRP acres, the largest expiration shares are found in the Midwest (Michigan, 50 percent; 

Illinois, 46 percent; and Indiana, 40 percent) and Washington (41 percent). The Midwestern States 

also have relatively high concentrations of land enrolled through the continuous signup (see fig 3). 

These relatively large shares of CRP land represented by expiring CRP contracts contrast with relatively low shares found in the Plains States of Oklahoma (17 percent), South Dakota (18 percent), 

and North Dakota (18 percent), where continuous CRP enrollment is also comparatively low.

In most States, less than half of the expired CRP land was subsequently reenrolled in the program 

(figure 6). For States with large amounts of expiring land (more than 100,000 acres), exceptions 

include Mississippi (67 percent), Iowa (52 percent), and Idaho (51 percent). In addition, although 

they have comparatively small amounts of expiring land, Louisiana (80,000 expiring acres, 71 

percent reenrolled), Arkansas (54,000 expiring acres, 54 percent reenrolled), Utah (10,000 expiring 

acres, 51 percent reenrolled), and New Mexico (18,000 expiring acres, 50 percent reenrolled) also 

have high rates of CRP reenrollment. Montana, the State with the largest acreage of expiring CRP 

land, also has the lowest rate of reenrollment (14 percent), followed by North Dakota (21 percent), 

Michigan (22 percent), Minnesota (24 percent), and Wisconsin (25 percent). Although they have 

relatively minor amounts of expiring CRP land, North Carolina (40,000 acres, 16 percent reenrolled) 

and New York (15,000 acres, 16 percent reenrolled) are also associated with low reenrollment rates. 

A variety of factors drive State-level variation in CRP reenrollment. One obvious influence is the 

availability of signup opportunities. In general, States with a larger share of expiring land in continuous CRP tend to have higher reenrollment rates (e.g., Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana). As 

noted above, general signup opportunities were lacking over 2013-16, and reenrollment rates were 

particularly low for contracts expiring in the final 3 years of the period (2014-16). For contracts 
14

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

expiring over 2014-16, there is a strong negative correlation (-0.33) between the share of expiring 

land reenrolled and the share of expiring land that was originally enrolled through the general CRP 

signup. This contrasts with a smaller correlation of -0.17 for 2013, when general signup opportunities were arguably greatest over the study period. Several States where a relatively small proportion 

of expiring acreage was originally enrolled through general signup (Mississippi, 40 percent; Iowa, 

45 percent; and Arkansas, 65 percent) over 2014-16 have high rates of reenrollment (67 percent, 52 

percent, and 55 percent, respectively). This aggregate pattern does not hold in all cases, however. 

In New York, for example, 51 percent of land of expiring land was enrolled through the continuous 

signup but reenrollment was only 12 percent over the same period. Reenrollment opportunities were 

arguably lowest for general signup participants in 2016, when a small, selective signup was held after 

offering 1-year contract extensions in 2014 and 2015.

Figure 6

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) reenrollment varies across the United States, 

contracts expiring over 2013-16

a.

b.

1,000s acres

1,000s acres

–continued
15

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 6

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) reenrollment varies across the United States, 

contracts expiring over 2013-16 –continued

Percent of expired CRP land reenrolled

c.

d.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common Land 

Unit (CLU) data (2013-2016).

In 2016, the correlation between the reenrollment rate and the share of expiring land in the general 

signup was much larger in magnitude, at -0.45. Although signup opportunities play a role in reenrollment trends and patterns, they cannot explain all of the variation in observed reenrollment 

outcomes. Other factors that influence reenrollment decisions include non-CRP land use opportunities (discussed in the “Post-CRP land use” section), differences in production conditions and the 

type and quality of expiring land, and idiosyncratic landowner preferences. 
16

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Practice-Specific Trends in Reenrollment

CRP land has the potential to provide a wide array of ecosystem services. The program was 

originally designed to mitigate soil erosion, but environmental goals have since evolved to target 

additional aspects of environmental quality, such as water quality, wildlife habitat, and wetland 

preservation. When land is enrolled into the CRP, it is accepted under the condition that a specific 

conservation practice will be put in place. As of July 2019, there were 43 different practices that 

could be installed on CRP land. These practices can be grouped into four broad categories: grass, 

tree, wetland, and wildlife habitat.13,14 Given that CRP acreage enrollment is limited by National 

and county-specific enrollment caps, there are inherent tradeoffs associated with enrolling land 

that will provide one type of benefit over another.15 Similar tensions emerge with respect to CRP 

contract expiration and reenrollment. For many CRP practices, the environmental benefits (e.g., 

erosion control) may be lost if expiring land returns to crop production. However, after being 

enrolled for the previous 10 years, the land may also be more suitable for a return to crop production 

(or livestock grazing) when the contract expires because of the gains to soil health accrued over the 

CRP contract period. 

For land under grass practices exiting the CRP, suitable replacement parcels may be relatively easy 

to find, suggesting that there may be a displacement, but not necessarily a discontinuation, of the 

associated benefits. Other types of conservation practices, such as those involving wetlands restoration/protection, produce a wide array of environmental quality benefits (waterfowl and other species 

habitat, groundwater recharge, sediment removal), as well as recreational opportunities (e.g., bird 

watching and duck hunting), which may be more unique to specific parcels (Hansen et al., 2015), 

implying that the benefits may be more difficult to replace if the land exits the program. 

CRP practices also vary in terms of establishment costs and the relative ease with which a parcel 

can transition back and forth between being used for agricultural production and conservation cover. 

Tree practices, for example, have high installation costs and are costly to return to crop production 

once trees are established, which may dissuade landowners from removing land from the program. 

Of course, to some degree, it is also likely that landowners will install tree cover only on lands they 

intend to keep in conservation for an extended period. CRP grass practices, on the other hand, have 

lower installation costs and are less costly to return to agricultural production. 

As illustrated in figure 7, the majority of expiring land had been previously enrolled for a grass 

practice (56 percent), followed by wetland (17 percent), wildlife (16 percent), and tree (9 percent) 

practices (see Appendix tables 2 and 3 for further details). Overall, CRP land associated with tree 

practices was the most likely, at a rate of 47 percent, to be reenrolled in the program (figure 8), while 

land associated with wildlife practices was least likely, at a rate of just 29 percent. For all expiring 

13The assignment of a specific practice into one of these four categories does not imply that it only provides environmental benefits related to that particular category. Rather, we assign the category that, to our knowledge, best represents the goals 

of that particular practice. For example, CP37 (Duck Nesting Habitat) is classified as a wildlife practice but may also provide 

environmental benefits in the form of wetland preservation.

14In Appendix 1, we provide a list of how the different CRP practices with expiring acres were grouped into these four 

broad classifications. In addition to the four categories studied in the text (grass, trees, wildlife, and wetlands), we also have 

an “other” practice category, which comprises the 1 percent of expiring acreage without a specific practice identified in our 

data. Expiring land with practices CP26 (sediment control structure) and CP34 (flood control structure), which represent just 

12 acres, also fall into the other practice category. In total, the other category represents just over 1 percent of all expiring 

CRP acreage over 2013-16.

15The National acreage enrollment cap is displayed in figure 1. In addition, CRP enrollment generally cannot make up 

more than 25 percent of an individual county’s cropland acreage. 
17

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

CRP acres, land with wetland and grass practices installed had reenrollment rates of 39 and 35 

percent, respectively. Reenrollment was most common for land with tree practices in all but 1 year 

over 2013-16, with the exception being in 2015 when wetland practices had the highest rate of reenrollment (46 percent). The differences in reenrollment rates across practice types were starkest in 

2016, when 59 percent of land with tree practices was reenrolled, compared to 24 and 25 percent of 

land enrolled under grass and wildlife practices, respectively. The temporal pattern of reenrollment 

across CRP practice types generally accords with the differences between general and continuous 

CRP reenrollment. Overall, although each practice type features a mix of land enrolled in the 

general and continuous signup, most expiring land under grass and wildlife practices (97 percent 

and 90 percent, respectively) was from the general signup, while the opposite holds for wetland practices, where only 37 percent was from the general signup. For tree practices, 80 percent of expiring 

acreage came from the general CRP signup. 

Figure 7 

CRP transition: From conservation cover to post-expiration land use for all CRP land that 

expired between 2013 and 2016.

Given the startup costs associated with tree planting, it makes intuitive sense that landowners 

would be interested in keeping their land in the CRP for an extended period of time (e.g., multiple 

contracts), which is reinforced by the high costs associated with clearing land planted to trees and 

converting it back to crop production. Tree-practice land is also associated with the most variable 

reenrollment rate, which is in part due to the fact that tree practices tend to be concentrated in the 

Southeast (Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama). In the Southeast, reenrollment rates have 

varied widely—specifically, Mississippi and Louisiana have reenrollment rates that are quite high, 

while Georgia has a very low reenrollment rate. Variability in the reenrollment rate stems from 

the incidence of tree-practice contract expiration across these States. For example, a large share of 

Georgia’s tree-practice land expired in 2014, while most of Mississippi’s tree-practice land expired 

in 2016. The variability in tree-practice reenrollment is thus largely a function of when and where 

contract expirations occurred. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common 

Land Unit (CLU) data (2013-2016).

720,693

Tree practices

4,304,625

Grass practices

1,273,249

Wetland practices

Wildlife practices

1,245,748

 

 

Reenrolled

2,756,818

Grass

Trees

687,206

308,255

Annual crops

2,773,249

522,267

Perennial forage crops

564,641

Perennial specialty crops
18

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Figure 8 

Tree practices are associated with the highest rate of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

reenrollment

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common Land 

Unit (CLU) data (2013-2016).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Grass Trees Wildlife Wetland

Percent of expired CRP land reenrolled
19

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Post-CRP Land Use for Land That Exits the Program

Temporal Trends in Post-CRP Land Use

How CRP contract expiration affects the environment depends on how former CRP land is used 

after it exits the program. If a contract expires, and the land is retained in grass or tree cover, many 

(or all) of the conservation benefits, such as soil erosion control and wildlife habitat provision, are 

likely to endure. In contrast, a reversion of expired CRP land to crop production is likely to result in 

loss of many of the environmental benefits of CRP enrollment. These losses may be offset as new 

land enters the program, and exiting land may have greater crop productivity due to enhancements in 

soil health over the CRP contract period. 

The landscape-level environmental implications of post-CRP land use decisions are influenced by 

the cover type associated with the CRP practice previously in place. For instance, the exit from the 

program of former CRP wetlands parcels, with their location-specific array of multiple benefits, may 

be more consequential than the conversion of a parcel that had been enrolled for a grass-cover practice. Likewise, effects on the environment also hinge on how the land is actually used upon exiting 

the CRP. Land used for grazing, while likely producing fewer environmental benefits than managed 

grassland under the CRP, will in many instances result in a lower net loss of benefits than would a 

conversion to cropland. 

Beyond environmental implications, post-CRP land use patterns are highly relevant to the structure 

of CRP contract rental payments. If expired CRP land that is not reenrolled does not revert back to 

crop production, the CRP rental payments given to the landowners to keep their land out of production may be inefficient, since environmental benefits will continue to be realized even in the absence 

of CRP payments. However, the CRP itself may have provided the transitional payments needed to 

induce the landowner to retire the land. On the other hand, if land that expires immediately reverts 

back to crop production, it suggests the rental payments may have been required to retain land in the 

program. Although the present study sheds some light on the durability of post-contract CRP land 

uses, we note that the relatively short time horizon covered by our data is insufficient to say anything 

definitive about the permanence of CRP-induced land use change.

Over 2013-16, 57 percent of land that exited the CRP and was not reenrolled transitioned to annual 

crop production (figure 9).16,17 The 57 percent of land that exited translates to 36 percent of all

expiring land (i.e., including reenrolled land) over the same period. In each year, at least half of the 

exiting CRP land transitioned to annual crop production, with the shares ranging from 50 percent for 

land that expired in 2015 to 65 percent for land that expired in 2013. Aggregated across all expiration years, the most common annual crops grown on expired CRP land were soybeans (21 percent of 

16Appendix tables 2 and 3 provide detail on aggregate post-CRP land use, as well as land use patterns across CRP signup 

and practice type.

17To determine the post-CRP land use for CLUs that exited the program, where available, we use data from the MIDAS 

crop reporting compliance database. If the observation is missing from the compliance data, we use geospatial data from the 

Cropland Data Layer (CDL) as a substitute. Overall, 57 percent of the land use acreage for exiting CLUs comes from the 

compliance data and 43 percent from the CDL. In assigning land use to each CLU that exited CRP, we use the following 

hierarchy: If in any year the dominant use was annual crops, we assume that CLU has transitioned back to annual crop 

production, and likewise for the perennial specialty crop and forage crop categories. Thus, for land to be assigned to postCRP grass cover (or tree cover), it cannot have been observed to be used for crop production in any post-contract year. 

As discussed further below, we make an exception to this land use assignment rule for tree practices, where partial field 

enrollment is quite common. 
20

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

all land that exited and went into annual crop production), corn (16 percent), and wheat (16 percent), 

with most of the corn and soybean land likely being used in a corn-soybean rotation. Sixteen percent 

of former CRP land in annual crop production remained fallow, although part of this share may have 

represented a transitional cover before the land converted back to production. Perennial forage (e.g., 

alfalfa) and specialty crop (e.g., orchards) production comprised 12 and 11 percent, respectively, of 

exiting CRP land. Pecans, largely found throughout the Southern United States, have been the most 

common type of specialty crop grown on former CRP land. Taken together, these results indicate 

that 79 percent of former CRP land was put to some type of crop production (annual, perennial 

forage, or perennial specialty) after exiting the program. 

The remaining exiting land was spread between grass cover (14 percent), tree cover (6 percent), 

non-CRP conservation program participation, excluding working lands programs (1 percent), and 

other uses—e.g., development—(< 1 percent). Post-CRP acreage under grass cover may represent acres that are untouched after expiring from a grassland practice in CRP or may be used as 

pastureland.

Figure 9

Most land exiting the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) between 2013 and 2016 was 

subsequently used for annual crop production

Grass

Tree

Percent 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70% 80 90 100

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total

Annual crop

Perennial specialty crop

Perennial forage

Non-CRP program

Other

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA) Common 

Land Unit (CLU) data, FSA Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program data, and USDA,

National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2013-2016).

Many factors drive post-CRP land use outcomes, including prevailing market conditions for different types of agricultural products. The changes in land use patterns shown in figure 9 are broadly 

consistent with the patterns in crop and livestock prices received by farmers over 2013-16. According to USDA, NASS (2019), in September 2013 (when CRP contracts hit their fiscal year 2013 

expiration date) livestock prices were 7 percent higher than crop prices (relative to 2011 price levels). 
21

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

The relative difference grew as crop prices continued to fall, amounting to an average relative gain 

of 31 percent for livestock prices over 2014 and 39 percent over 2015, before coming back down to 16 

percent during 2016. Contracts expiring in 2013 were associated with the largest share of exited land 

returning to crop production, followed by 2016, 2014, and 2015, which coincides with the incentives 

conveyed by trends in the relative crop and livestock prices over the same period. Similarly, 2014 and 

2015—years when the relative price of livestock output was highest—were associated with the largest 

combined shares of exiting CRP land devoted to forage crop production or grass cover (29 percent). Although a more rigorous modeling effort would be needed to determine the extent to which these relative 

price differences influenced owners of expiring CRP land, at least some correlation is apparent between 

the market incentives faced by CRP landowners and their post-CRP land use choices. 

General Versus Continuous Signup Trends in Post-CRP Land Use

For both signup types, general and continuous, land that exits the CRP most commonly transitions into 

annual crop production (figure 10). During 2013-2016 annual and perennial crop production were both 

more common on former continuous than former general CRP land. Annual crops were produced on 

61 percent of exiting continuous land versus 56 percent of exiting general land, and perennial specialty 

crops were produced on 16 percent of exiting continuous land versus 10 percent 

of exiting general land.

Figure 10

Exiting continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land is more likely to convert to crop 

production, contracts expiring over 2013-16

Grass

Annual crop Tree

Perennial specialty crop

Perennial forage

Non-CRP program

Other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Continuous General

Percentage of CRP acres not reenrolled

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common Land 

Unit (CLU) data, FSA Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program data, and USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2013-2016).
22

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

In contrast, perennial forage and grass cover production was more common on general CRP land (13 

percent perennial forage, 14 percent grass) that exited the program, compared to former continuous 

CRP land (4 percent perennial forage, 11 percent grass). Given that nearly all land using CRP grass 

practices came from the general signup, it makes sense that expired general CRP land would have a 

higher rate of use for grass and forage cover than expired continuous CRP land. The rate of general 

signup land going into post-contract grass cover increases over time, from 11 percent in 2013 to 15, 18, 

and 18 percent, respectively, in 2014, 2015, and 2016. This trend suggests that some landowners may 

have wanted and attempted to reenroll their land, but their bids were not accepted under signup #49. 

The greater incidence of higher valued agricultural production (annual and specialty crop production) on continuous CRP land is, to some extent, intuitive and explainable by self-selection. Since 

continuous CRP land commands higher program rental rates, land of higher production value may 

be drawn into the program, and the opportunity cost of not producing after exiting the program may 

be higher for those lands. In addition, continuous CRP represents a large share of total program 

acreage in several States (e.g., Illinois) characterized by high-valued commodity crop production. In 

aggregate, owners of the continuous land that exits would therefore be more likely to put their land 

to more profitable agricultural uses, such as annual or specialty crop production. In addition, exit of 

continuous CRP land is more likely to be deliberate from a landowner decision-making standpoint, 

since landowners can always reenroll their land (subject to the availability of acreage under the 

enrollment cap). A corollary to this pattern, however, is that more environmental benefits may be 

lost on exiting continuous CRP land as it is put to more intensive post-CRP uses because continuous 

CRP land is typically more valuable from a conservation standpoint. For example, some land in 

the continuous CRP is enrolled for the purpose of establishing riparian buffers to filter agricultural 

nutrient runoff and promote water quality. Given its location, this land is likely more productive 

from an agricultural standpoint than general CRP land, but also may provide significant conservation value, much of which will not persist if the land is converted back to crop production. 

Regional Trends/Geographic Patterns in Post-CRP Land Use

Although annual crop production is the most common post-CRP land use, there is considerable variability across States. For instance, during 2013-2016, several States, including Kansas (36 percent), 

Nebraska (33 percent), Oregon (33 percent), Texas (30 percent), and Colorado (28 percent), had postCRP grass shares that were at least twice the national share of 14 percent (table 1). The States with 

high rates of post-CRP grass cover all generally had relatively low rates of post-CRP annual crop 

production. Oklahoma, at 63 percent, had the largest post-CRP grass share and one of the lowest 

annual crop shares (29 percent). 

Annual crop conversion is generally high in the Midwest, where many States had post-CRP annual 

crop shares in excess of 70 percent (Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri). Not surprisingly, these are States where annual crop production tends to be most profitable. Kentucky (74 

percent) and Washington (69 percent) also had relatively high shares of annual crop conversion. 

Western States, including those located in the Plains region, tended to have relatively high shares of 

perennial forage (e.g., Montana, Texas, and Oregon). Post-CRP tree shares far exceeded the National 

percentage in several Southeast States, namely Georgia (92 percent) and Mississippi (63 percent) due 

to the concentration of CRP tree practices in those States.

The highest rates of crop conversion tend to be found in States with a large share of land enrolled 

through the continuous signup, namely those throughout the Corn Belt and eastern Appalachian 

regions. Low crop conversion rates have often been in States with minimal continuous land exiting 
23

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

the CRP, such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Montana and Washington are exceptions, with 

low shares of continuous exiting land and relatively high rates of crop conversion. Likewise, Georgia 

has had very little exiting continuous acreage and post-CRP crop production. For the States with an 

above-median level of exiting CRP acreage (table 1), the correlation between the share of exiting 

acreage that had been enrolled in the continuous signup and the share subsequently converted to 

annual or specialty crop production was 0.34. Within States, we further find that exiting continuous 

land tends to be more likely to convert to annual or specialty crop production. Of the 22 States listed 

in table 1, 16 had a higher rate of combined annual and specialty crop conversion on expired continuous signup CRP land than they had for expired general signup CRP land. 

Table 1

Use of land after exiting the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) varies across States, 

contracts expiring over 2013-16 

State

Annual 

crop

Perennial 

forage 

crop

Perennial 

specialty 

crop Grass Tree

Exiting 

continuous

Acres 

exiting

----- Percent -----

Georgia 5.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 91.5 2.5 84,113

Mississippi 25.9 0.5 6.1 3.7 63.2 36.8 88,283

Oklahoma 29.2 0.4 6.7 63.4 0.1 1.3 85,838

Oregon 40.1 20.5 5.6 33.4 0.1 7.9 82,389

Texas 39.6 19.8 10.3 29.6 0.3 3.0 413,708

Colorado 48.3 16.8 6.4 28.4 0.1 1.0 272,462

South Dakota 47.6 13.4 14.2 20.1 3.0 16.4 130,553

Kansas 54.2 0.2 9.4 35.9 0.0 8.0 351,598

Nebraska 54.3 0.9 10.3 32.9 1.2 9.6 198,406

Montana 62.9 29.8 6.0 1.3 0.0 0.6 639,135

Idaho 53.5 6.9 19.3 18.8 1.2 5.3 70,395

Wisconsin 61.1 2.9 12.7 9.0 13.7 11.8 108,792

Missouri 69.8 14.5 7.3 6.2 1.5 12.0 206,806

North Dakota 61.9 17.7 17.0 2.2 0.3 6.3 343,498

Indiana 65.3 4.3 14.0 8.0 6.0 31.6 65,721

Washington 68.8 14.5 10.6 6.0 0.1 4.9 336,374

Kentucky 74.5 8.7 7.1 6.2 1.6 32.0 69,100

Illinois 67.3 4.0 15.0 8.6 4.3 27.4 252,949

Iowa 70.7 5.0 14.6 8.0 1.1 41.5 214,200

Michigan 72.2 1.5 13.7 9.2 2.5 24.8 85,715

Ohio 75.1 2.7 12.7 6.6 2.1 22.3 73,927

Minnesota 70.2 3.5 18.0 5.3 2.4 20.7 347,250

Notes: Percentage values in the table refer to the percent of exiting CRP land (i.e., land associated with an expiring contract 

and not reenrolled), including land that was enrolled from the general and continuous signup. The table does not include the 

“other” and “non-CRP program” land use categories. The sum of percentage values in each table row across land uses (i.e., 

excluding the percentage of continuous CRP land that exited) may therefore not sum to 100. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common Land 

Unit (CLU) data, FSA Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program data, and USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. 
24

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Practice-Specific Trends in Post-CRP Land Use

The prior section examined the fate of exiting CRP land, broken down by continuous and general 

signups. In this section, we consider the fate of exiting CRP land broken down by the conservation practices on the land when it was in the CRP. From a conservation standpoint, the pattern of 

post-CRP land use across different CRP practices has implications for the continued realization of 

benefits the land was providing while enrolled in the program. For instance, if land enrolled in the 

CRP for a tree practice remains in tree cover after exiting the program, the specific environmental 

benefits that provided the rationale for enrolling the land in the program are more likely to, at least 

partly, endure. If the same parcel were instead converted to grass cover, some of the prior CRP benefits would no longer persist, although the land would likely provide greater environmental benefits 

(e.g., water filtration, soil erosion control, and soil carbon sequestration) than if it were converted to 

crop production. 

Annual crop production was the dominant post-CRP use for grass, wildlife, and wetland practices, 

accounting for 59-65 percent of exiting acreage in 2013-2016 (figure 11). Land formerly enrolled 

in the CRP for a wetland practice had the greatest share of post-CRP annual crop production (65 

percent), while former tree-practice land had the lowest annual crop share (13 percent).18 Wetlands 

were also more likely than other types to be used for specialty crop production (19 percent of exiting 

wetland acreage went to specialty crop production). As noted above, wetland benefits may be considered to be less substitutable than those derived from other types of CRP lands, and the higher degree 

of crop conversion for wetlands may come at a greater environmental cost in terms of foregone 

benefits. Tree-practice land is far more likely than other types of CRP land to remain in tree cover 

after the contract expires. About 77 percent of expired CRP land that was in a tree practice had a 

tree cover after expiration, compared to 1 percent for most other practice types. This implies that 

the benefits of CRP reenrollment were likely retained, at least in part, on 77 percent of exiting treepractice acreage, even without the CRP rental payments. It bears mentioning, however, that unenrolled land in tree cover may not provide the same level of ecosystem benefits as it would if it were 

enrolled in the program—if, for example, the unenrolled land is used to produce forest products 

after the CRP contract expires. In addition, given the option values associated with the investment in 

tree practices (they may be harvested a number of years after expiration), post-CRP tree cover may 

simply represent a transitional cover before the land is eventually converted back to crop production. 

Grass-practice land was the most likely of all practice types to transition to perennial forage production (15 percent of exiting acreage). It was also one of the most likely types of CRP land to remain in 

grass cover (16 percent). CRP land formerly enrolled under a wildlife-focused practice was the most 

likely to remain in grass cover (17 percent of post-CRP acreage). 

18Given the presence of partial-field tree practices, we make an exception to the land use assignment rule for tree-practice 

land that exits the program. Specifically, for exiting tree-practice land only, we assume that the relevant portion of the field 

(i.e., the part formerly enrolled in the CRP) remained in tree cover if we observe any tree cover on the CLU in every postcontract year. At any point, if the CLU completely transitions to a non-tree cover, the land will not be considered to have 

remained in tree cover. Without using this tree-practice exception, we end up with roughly 55 percent of tree-practice land 

converting to annual crops, which, as reviewers pointed out, seems unrealistically high given the costs of clearing trees and 

planting new crops, especially given the 1-4 year period considered in this report. We acknowledge that the adopted method, 

which results in 13 percent of tree-practice land converting to annual crop production, may overstate tree retention to some 

degree, but we feel it provides a more plausible estimate of post-CRP land use on land used for tree practices. In reality, the 

total amount of tree-practice land converted to annual crop production likely lies between 13 and 55 percent.
25

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Overall, tree-practice land was the least likely to transition to some type of crop production (annual, 

specialty, or perennial forage crop use) after it exited the CRP (18 percent of exiting acreage), 

whereas land used for wetland practices was the most likely (89 percent) (figure 11).

Figure 11 

Use of land exiting the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) by practice type, contracts 

expiring over 2013-16

Grass

Annual crop Tree

Perennial specialty crop

Perennial forage

Non-CRP program

Other

Percentage of CRP acres not reenrolled

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grass Trees Wildlife Wetland

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on analysis of USDA, Farm Service Agency Common Land 

Unit (CLU) data, FSA Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program data, and USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer.
26

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Conclusions and Policy Implications

The fate of land in expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts has implications for 

both the environmental benefits that accrue from enrolling land in the program and the cost-effectiveness of the program as it is currently administered. Overall, most land (64 percent) associated 

with CRP contracts expiring over 2013-16 was not reenrolled and exited the program. The effects 

this lack of reenrollment has on ecosystems depend on the ultimate use to which the expired CRP 

land is put. Seventy-nine percent of land that exits the program (51 percent of land in expiring 

contracts) has returned to some sort of crop production (annual, specialty, or perennial forage crop 

use), with soybeans, corn, and wheat being the most common crops grown on previously enrolled 

land. The fact that such a large number of expiring acres do return to crop production implies that 

continual CRP reenrollment may have been important for maintaining the conservation benefits that 

accrued from the initial retirement of environmentally sensitive cropland. 

The post-CRP land use patterns illustrated for 2013-16 differed markedly from those reported in 

the past (figure 2), with recent years having much higher rates of crop production on lands exiting 

the program. Part of this pattern is likely explained by the high crop prices that characterized 2013. 

Another factor is the paucity of general signups over 2013-16, which may have impeded reenrollment 

of expiring CRP parcels. As a result, some of the post-CRP crop conversions we observe were likely 

deliberate and would have occurred even with a more expansive program, while others were likely 

induced by the more restrictive program conditions.

An alternative way to view the results of this analysis is through the lens of additionality, an 

economic concept that has bearing on the budgetary effectiveness of CRP reenrollment. As it relates 

to incentive-based conservation programs, environmental benefits are additional if the contracted 

conservation practices would not have been undertaken without the associated program 

payments.19 In the context of this report, the results shed some light on whether or not payments for 

CRP reenrollment (as opposed to CRP participation in general) are additional. CRP payments can 

be said to provide benefits that are additional only if the contracted practice (e.g., riparian buffer 

establishment) would not have been undertaken without the payments. Put differently, if rental 

payments are not needed to retain land in the conservation cover mandated by the program, then 

CRP reenrollment does not produce additional benefits. Our results suggest that about 79 percent 

of land that exits the program returns to crop production. This suggests that CRP rental payments 

are likely additional, to some degree, and are instrumental to realizing the conservation goals of the 

CRP. Given that adoption of CRP practices entails a fundamental change in how the land is used, 

the high rate of potential additionality is expected and reinforces earlier findings in the literature 

(Claassen et al. 2014). 

19See Claassen et al. (2014) and Claassen et al. (2018) for analyses of additionality in the context of U.S. agricultural 

conservation programs. The main findings indicate greater additionality for practices that have higher start-up costs and 

provide fewer direct benefits to the landowner. For initial enrollment into CRP, and land retirement programs more broadly, 

direct economic benefits to the landowner are relatively low, suggesting that one would expect a higher degree of additionality 

than something like payments for no-till adoption under USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program. However, the 

question of whether CRP reenrollment provides additional benefits is complicated by the fact that the land has already been 

out of production for 10-15 years. For studies of additionality as it pertains to other natural resource policies, see Claassen et 

al. (2017; grassland easements) and Mason and Plantinga (2013; forest carbon offsets).
27

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Looking across different CRP practices, we find that tree practices have yielded the most durable 

benefits, at least in the short term (1-4 years after contract expiration): over 77 percent of exiting 

land that was in a tree cover practice remained in tree cover during 2013-2016. Of all CRP practices, 

tree-cover land is also associated with the highest rate of reenrollment, suggesting large economic 

costs are associated with removing tree cover on land where it has been established. Across States, 

we find that the Plains region (including Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma), where cattle 

that can utilize grazing land are relatively common, has the highest rates of post-CRP grass cover. 

Although unmanaged grass likely has lower conservation value than land enrolled in the CRP (for 

example, it may be grazed with less concern for bird nesting seasons) it still suggests that land 

retirement benefits may be more persistent, post contract, in these areas. Likewise, for States in the 

Southeast, where post-CRP tree cover is relatively more common, program benefits are also more 

likely to endure. States characterized by high-valued commodity crop production in the Midwest are 

most likely to convert land back to crop production—a move that has implications for water quality 

and the other types of environmental benefits provided by land enrolled in these States. 

Although the results presented here have implications for the design of USDA conservation policy, 

several caveats should be noted. First, the broader implications derived from this study concerning 

the persistence of post-contract benefits, and, consequentially, the additionality of CRP program 

benefits, turn on the comparability of land that exited the program and land that was reenrolled. Our 

results overstate the overall additionality of benefits achieved through CRP reenrollment if the land 

that exits the program is more likely to have a higher production value, and hence a higher probability of conversion to crop production. Teasing out the degree of this “self-selection bias” in our 

results would require a more rigorous econometric/matching sample selection model (as in Claassen 

et al. 2018), which is beyond the scope of the present analysis and left for future research. The study 

period in this analysis is likely characterized by a lower degree of self-selection than prior years, 

given the fact that some land was likely pushed out of the program by the limited nature of general 

signup opportunities over 2013-16. 

Second, the analysis described covers, at most, 4 years of post-CRP land use for each common land 

unit observation. As a result, concerning the ultimate fate of expiring CRP land, less confidence 

should be placed on the estimates for contract expirations in more recent years. For example, if 

land exits the CRP and remains in grass cover for 1 or 2 years before eventually returning to crop 

production, then at least 3 years of post-CRP data would be needed to track the land’s return to 

crop production. Because of this lag, even the relatively high rates of crop conversion we found may 

understate the additionality associated with reenrollment if some land not identified as immediately 

going back to crop production eventually will. This is particularly true for land enrolled for tree 

practices, where the long timeframe needed to establish tree cover and the high costs associated 

with removing it may mean landowners need more time to make the decision to clear the land and 

convert it to crop production. 

Last, although it is likely that many of the environmental benefits (e.g., soil carbon sequestration, 

water filtration, and wildlife habitat provision) are likely lost when land exits the CRP and returns 

to crop production, there are potentially some offsetting benefits. For one, some have suggested 

that expiring CRP land provides a prime candidate for land suitable for organic production systems 

(Delate et al. 2002), since receiving an organic label from the National Organic Program requires 

that the land be removed from conventional production for at least 3 years. The costs of this transition period are commonly cited as one of the major barriers to organic adoption (Reganold and 

Wachter, 2016). Since expired CRP land has, by definition, been out of production for 10-15 years, 
28

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

these transition requirements are easily satisfied. As noted previously, some research has suggested 

that former CRP land may be more productive and more suitable for soil-friendly tillage practices when it returns to production (Jacobson, 2014). The results of the present analysis are limited 

because specific production practices are not observed for expired CRP land that transitions back to 

cropland use; that information would be required for a complete accounting of the environmental 

impacts of post-CRP land use changes. In addition, USDA’s Transition Incentives Program (TIP) 

provides additional rental payments to the owners of CRP land if they transfer their land (either 

through a sale or long-term lease) to a beginning farmer or rancher. The beginning operator must 

agree to implement conservation-friendly practices on the land when it returns to production. Given 

that access to farmland, particularly cropland, is a common difficulty faced by beginning farmers 

wishing to achieve a commercially viable scale of production, expiring CRP land may provide one 

avenue to ease this tension.20

20Prior to the changes outlined in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, the TIP provisions previously applied only to 

retiring farmers who owned CRP land. The 2018 Act also increased funding for the program, from $33 million to $50 million, 

over the next 5 years. For more information on the Transition Incentives Program, see USDA, FSA’s website.
29

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

References

Claassen, R., E.N. Duquette, and D.J. Smith. 2018. “Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation 

Programs,” Land Economics 94 (1):19-35. 

Claassen, R., J. Horowitz, E. Duquette, and K. Ueda. 2014. Additionality in U.S. Agricultural 

Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs, ERR-170, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service.

Claassen, R., J. Savage, C. Loesch, V. Breneman, R. Williams, B. Mulvaney, and T. Fairbanks. 2017. 

“Additionality in Grassland Easements to Provide Migratory Bird Habitat in the Northern Plains,” 

Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 42 (3):291-309.

Delate, K., C.A. Cambardella, and D.L. Karlen. 2002. “Transition Strategies for Post-CRP Certified 

Organic Grain Production,” Crop Management 1, 9 pgs. (published online). 

Hansen, L., D. Hellerstein, M. Ribaudo, J. Williamson, D. Nulph, C. Loesch, and W. Crumpton. 

2015. Targeting Investments to Cost Effectively Restore and Protect Wetland Ecosystems: Some 

Economic Insights, ERR-183, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Hellerstein, D. 2017. “The US Conservation Reserve Program: The Evolution of an Enrollment 

Mechanism,” Land Use Policy 63:601-610. 

Hellerstein, D. and S. Malcolm. 2011. The Influence of Rising Commodity Prices on the 

Conservation Reserve Program, ERR-110, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service.

Hendricks, N.P. and E. Er. 2018. “Changes in Cropland Area in the United States and the Role of 

CRP,” Food Policy 75:15-23.

Jacobson, S. 2014. “Temporal Spillovers in Land Conservation,” Journal of Economic Behavior and 

Organization, 107:366-379. 

Jones, C.A., C.J. Nickerson, and P.W. Heisey. 2013. “New Uses of Old Tools? Greenhouse Gas 

Mitigation with Agricultural Sector Policies,” Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 35 

(3):398-434. 

Mason, C.F. and A.J. Plantinga. 2013. “The Additionality Problem with Offsets: Optimal Contracts 

for Carbon Sequestration in Forests,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 

66:1-14. 

Morefield, P.E., S.D. LeDuc, C.M. Clark, and R. Iovanna. 2016. “Grasslands, Wetlands, and 

Agriculture: The Fate of Land Expiring from the Conservation Reserve Program in the 

Midwestern United States,” Environmental Research Letters 11:1-9. 

Reganold, J.P. and J.M. Wachter. 2016. “Organic Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century.” Nature 

Plants 2:15221. 

Roberts, M.J. and R.N. Lubowski. 2007. “Enduring Impacts of Land Retirement Policies: Evidence 

from the Conservation Reserve Program,” Land Economics 83 (4):516-538.
30

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Trostle, R., D. Marti, S. Rosen, and P. Westcott. 2011. Why Have Food Commodity Prices Risen 

Again?, WRS-1103, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA, FSA). 2018. “CRP Ending 

Enrollment by Fiscal Year, 1986-2016.” Accessed online. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA, FSA). 2016. “The Conservation 

Reserve Program: 49th Signup Results.” Accessed online.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA, FSA). 2015. “FY 2015 CRP 1-Year 

Extensions.” Obtained via e-mail from Catherine Feather, USDA-FSA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA, FSA). 2014. “FY 2014 CRP 1-Year 

Extensions.” Obtained via e-mail from Catherine Feather, USDA-FSA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA, FSA). 2013a. “Conservation Reserve 

Program Annual Summary, 2013.” Accessed online. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (USDA, FSA). 2013b. “The Conservation 

Reserve Program: 45th Signup Results.” Accessed online. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS). 2019. 

“Prices Received: Indexes for Agricultural, Crop, and Livestock Production by Month, US.” Data 

accessed online.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 2014. 

National Resources Inventory: 2012 Annual Data.
31

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Appendix

Appendix table 1 

List of CRP practices, practice-type classification, and signup classification

Practice 

number

Signup (1=general, 

0=continuous)

Practice 

type

Practice 

number

Signup (1=general, 

0=continuous)

Practice 

type

CP1 1 grass CP30 0 wetland

CP10 1 grass CP31 0 wetland

CP11 1 trees CP32 1 trees

CP12 1 wildlife CP33 0 wildlife

CP13 1 grass CP34 N/A other

CP13A 1 grass CP35A 0 trees

CP13B 1 grass CP35B 0 trees

CP13C 1 grass CP35C 0 trees

CP13D 1 grass CP35D 0 trees

CP14 1 trees CP35E 0 trees

CP15 0 grass CP35F 0 trees

CP15A 0 grass CP35G 0 trees

CP15B 0 grass CP35H 0 trees

CP16 0 trees CP35I 0 trees

CP16A 0 trees CP36 0 trees

CP17 0 trees CP37 0 wetland

CP17A 0 trees CP38A 0 wetland

CP18 0 grass CP38C 0 wetland

CP18A 0 grass CP38D 0 wetland

CP18B 0 grass CP38E 0 wetland

CP18C 0 grass CP39 0 wetland

CP19 1 trees CP3A 1 trees

CP2 1 grass CP4 1 wildlife

CP20 1 trees CP40 0 wetland

CP21 0 wetland CP41 0 wetland

CP22 0 wetland CP42 0 wildlife

CP23 1 wetland CP4A 1 wildlife

CP23A 0 wetland CP4B 1 wildlife

CP24 0 grass CP4D 1 wildlife

CP25 1 wildlife CP5 0 trees

CP26 N/A other CP5A 0 trees

CP27 0 wetland CP6 1 grass

CP28 0 wetland CP7 1 grass

CP29 0 wetland CP8 0 grass

CP3 1 trees CP8A 0 grass

CP9 0 wetland

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program. 
32

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Appendix table 2

Transition matrix for expiring CRP lands (2013 to 2016)

Expiring CRP acres that were in land use

Post-expiration land use 

All CRP All continuous practices All general practices

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent 

Reenroll into CRP 2,756,818 36 561,167 48 2,195,651 34 

Annual crop 2,773,249 36 57 378,719 32 61 2,394,530 37 56

Perennial forage crop 564,641 7 12 26,068 2 4 538,573 8 13

Perennial specialty crop 522,267 7 11 100,621 9 16 421,646 7 10

Grass 687,206 9 14 68,662 6 11 618,544 10 14

Trees 308,255 4 6 33,523 3 5 274,733 4 6

Non-CRP conservation 

program 30,416 <1 1 10,409 1 2 20,007 <1 <1

Other 1,198 <1 <1 474 <1 <1 723 <1 <1

Totals 7,644,049 1,179,642 6,464,407

Notes:

• Around 7.6 million acres, of the 8.1 million acres that expired between 2013 and 2016, could be assigned to 

a post-expiration land use. The remaining one-half million acres is not accounted for in this table.

• Reenroll into CRP combines both general and continuous, with no breakdown by practice.

• “Percent” refers to percent as of subset. For example: the 2,756,818 acres of All CRP that Reenroll into CRP is 

36 percent of the total of 7,644,049 expiring CRP acreage. Another example: the 378,719 acres of continuous 

practices that became annual crop is 32 percent of the total of 1,179,642 expiring continuous CRP acreage. 

• Numbers in the second percent column of each category are percents of non-reenrolled land. For example: the 

564,641 acres in All CRP that became Perennial forage crop is 12 percent of the 4,887,232 acres of non-reenrolled CRP acres.

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program. 
33

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Appendix table 3

Transition matrix for expiring CRP lands (2013 to 2016) – by conservation cover and signup type. 

Percentages are of column totals.

Post expiration land use All acres signup: conservation cover before expiration

Grass Trees Wildlife Wetland Other

Percent

Reenroll into CRP 35 47 29 39 44

Annual crop 38 59 7 13 43 60 40 65 33 59

Perennial forage crop 10 15 1 1 7 10 3 5 8 14

Perennial specialty crop 6 9 2 3 8 11 11 19 5 9

Grass 10 16 2 4 12 17 5 8 9 17

Tree <1 <1 41 77 <1 <1 1 1 <1 1

Non-CRP conservation program <1 <1 1 1 1 1 1 1 <1 <1

Other <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

As percent of total acres 56 9 16 17 1

Acres

Acres in conservation cover 4,304,625 720,693 1,245,748 1,273,249 99,735

Notes:

• Around 7.6 million acres, of the 8.1 million acres that expired between 2013 and 2016, could be assigned to 

a post-expiration land use. The remaining one-half million acres is not accounted for in this table.

• Numbers in the second percent column of each category are percents of non-reenrolled land.

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program.
34

The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16, EIB-215

USDA, Economic Research Service

Appendix table 4a

Transition matrix for expiring CRP lands (2013 to 2016) – by conservation cover and signup 

type. Percentages are of column totals. 

Post expiration land use General signup: conservation cover before expiration

Grass Trees Wildlife Wetland Other

Percent

Reenroll into CRP 35 43 28 28 44

Annual crop 38 6 44 48 33

Perennial forage crop 10 1 8 5 8

Perennial specialty crop 6 1 8 15 5

Grass 10 2 13 4 9

Tree <1 47 <1 1 <1

Non-CRP conservation program <1 1 <1 1 <1

Other <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Acres

Acres in conservation cover 4,194,818 574,741 1,126,574 468,553 99,722

Appendix table 4b

Transition matrix for expiring CRP lands (2013 to 2016) – by conservation cover and signup 

type. Percentages are of column totals. 

Post expiration land use Continuous signup: conservation cover before expiration

Grass Trees Wildlife Wetland Other

Percent

Reenroll into CRP 46 64 38 46 91

Annual crop 34 10 36 35 9

Perennial forage crop 6 1 3 2 <1

Perennial specialty crop 4 4 11 10 <1

Grass 8 3 9 6 <1

Tree <1 17 <1 1 <1

Non-CRP conservation program 1 <1 2 1 <1

Other <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Acres

Acres in conservation cover 109,807 145,953 119,174 804,696 13

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program

Notes:

• The five “conservation covers” represent classes of CRP’s conservation practices (see appendix 1 for 

classification details).

• Percentages are percent of total acres before expiration. For example, the 64 percent of Trees that became 

Reenroll into CRP refers to 94,098 acres (64 percent of 145,936 acres that were in continuous trees). 

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program