Conservation Reserve Program (CRP):
Status and Issues
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
March 18, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42783
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Summary
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides payments to agricultural producers to take
highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production and install resource
conserving practices for 10 or more years. CRP was first authorized in the Food Security Act of
1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) with technical support from other USDA agencies.
Participants offer land for enrollment through two types of sign-up: general and continuous.
General sign-ups are competitive and only open during select times. Continuous sign-ups are not
competitive, always open for enrollment, and offer additional financial incentives to those who
qualify. Continuous sign-ups are targeted to specific environmental and resource concerns and
operate through a number of initiatives. The largest and most well known is the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which partners with states to address agricultural-related
environmental concerns in specific geographic regions. While the majority of current acres
enrolled were under general sign-ups (21.5 million acres), an increasing number are enrolled
under continuous sign-ups (5.4 million acres).
Program and funding authority for CRP was extended in the American Taxpayer Relief Act (P.L.
112-240) and will now expire on September 30, 2013. Without reauthorization or an extension of
authority the agency cannot approve any contracts or process any offers for enrollment. Congress
continues to debate the reauthorization or extension of the 2008 farm bill, which authorized CRP
to enroll up to 32 million acres. Bills considered, but not enacted, in the 112th Congress would
reduce the authorized number of acres to 25 million and reauthorize the program through
FY2017.
A number of factors have impacted CRP enrollment recently, mainly high commodity crop prices.
These high crop prices have increased demand to put CRP acres back into production, even
marginal acres. This pressure could potentially reduce the number of CRP acres offered for
reenrollment once they have expired or cause existing current CRP participants to seek an early
release from their CRP contract. Some participants also have cited a potentially low CRP rental
rate compared to the market rental rate as a reason for decreased enrollment interest. Despite
these factors, enrollment has increased under continuous sign-ups and demand for the program, in
general, still exceeds the enrollment cap.
CRP has contributed to a number of environmental benefits including reduced soil erosion,
improved water quality through wetlands and field buffers, reduced fertilizer use, and increased
wildlife habitat. The recent expiration of a number of acres from the program, and a reduced
reenrollment, has some concerned that a number of the environmental benefits gained under CRP
could be lost or reduced if land is returned to production.
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Contents
How CRP Works .............................................................................................................................. 1
Enrollment ................................................................................................................................. 1
General Sign-Up .................................................................................................................. 1
Continuous Sign-Up ............................................................................................................ 2
Eligibility ................................................................................................................................... 3
Producer/Landowner ........................................................................................................... 3
Land ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Payments.................................................................................................................................... 3
Practices ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Current Issues .................................................................................................................................. 5
Farm Bill Expiration, Extension, and Reauthorization .............................................................. 5
Harvesting and Grazing ............................................................................................................. 6
Enrollment ................................................................................................................................. 8
Expiration of Contracts ....................................................................................................... 8
Reenrollment of Acreage ..................................................................................................... 9
Contract Termination and Early Release ........................................................................... 10
Rental Rates ...................................................................................................................... 11
Increases in Enrollment ..................................................................................................... 12
Environmental Benefits ........................................................................................................... 12
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Figures
Figure 1. Cumulative CRP Enrollment ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. CRP Enrollment ................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 3. CRP Acres Not Reenrolled and Lost Through Attrition, FY2007-FY2013...................... 9
Figure 4. Change in CRP Enrollment Between September and October 2012 ................................ 9
Tables
Table 1. CRP Payments .................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Top Five Conservation Practices Installed on CRP Acres ................................................. 5
Table 3. Top Ten Expiring CRP Conservation Practices ................................................................ 13
Table A-1. CRP Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 15
Appendixes
Appendix. Continuous Sign-Up Initiatives .................................................................................... 14
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 16
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
he Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the largest federal, private-land retirement
program in the United States. The program provides financial compensation for
Tlandowners to voluntarily remove land from agricultural production for an extended period
(typically 10 to 15 years) for the benefit of soil and water quality improvement and wildlife
habitat.
The program was first authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill, P.L. 99-198),
initially as both a supply management tool for removing land from agricultural production, thus
lowering commodity supply and potentially raising prices, and for providing environmental
benefits. Currently over 27 million acres are enrolled in the program with total funding of close to
$2 billion annually.
Acres enrolled in CRP have shown a number of positive environmental benefits including
reduced soil erosion; water quality improvements through vegetative cover, buffer strips, and
reduced fertilizer application; and wildlife population improvement from increased habitat. While
a number of natural resource improvements are attributed to the program, the program contains a
number of controversial elements as well, including the economic and environmental effect of
haying and grazing on CRP acres; the expiration of program authority; and the early termination
of contracts and reduced enrollment due to high crop prices. Program and funding authority for
CRP expires September 30, 2013, and reauthorization or another possible extension is being
debated by Congress as part of the larger farm bill reauthorization debate.
How CRP Works
The program is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), with technical support from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and other USDA agencies.
Enrollment
In total, no more than 32 million acres may be enrolled in CRP at any given time. There are two
main types of enrollment into CRP: general sign-up and continuous sign-up. Several continuous
sign-up “initiatives” focus enrollment on specific resource concerns or conservation practices.
General Sign-Up
CRP is a competitive program, in which landowners offer eligible land for enrollment into the
program. A general sign-up is a specific period of time during which FSA accepts these offers.
Offers are ranked according to an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI, see text box) to determine
the relative environmental benefits for the land offered.
For each general sign-up, FSA collects data on each of the EBI factors and ranks all eligible
offers across the country. After the sign-up ends, USDA determines an EBI threshold. Acceptance
for enrollment into CRP is extended to offers that scored above the EBI threshold. This threshold
varies by sign-up depending on the offers received. Producers generally try to maximize EBI
points and increase the likelihood that their offer will be accepted for enrollment.
Congressional Research Service
1
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
As of February 2013, 21.5 million acres were enrolled in CRP under general sign-up contracts, or
80% of total CRP acres. This includes 291,395 contracts on 195,061 farms.2 During the most
recent general sign-up (#43), 4.5 million acres
were offered for enrollment and 3.9 million
Environmental Benefit Index (EBI)
acres were accepted. On February 16, 2013,
Following the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624), CRP was
USDA announced that CRP general sign-up
required to consider the environmental benefits of the
#45 will be held from May 20, 2013, through
land offered for enrol ment. The formulation of the EBI
June 14, 2013. General sign-up contracts are
has changed over time, including becoming more
effective on October 1 of the next fiscal year.
transparent to participants. Generally, the EBI is a
standardized way to compare different land types with
different resource needs across the country. The EBI is
Continuous Sign-Up
designed to compare the benefits that offered land can
provide.
Continuous sign-up is designed to enroll the
Presently, FSA col ects data for each of the EBI factors
most environmentally desirable land into CRP
for the land offered. These factors are weighted and
through specific conservation practices or
scored based on the land’s potential to generate the
desired environmental benefits. Some factors are made
resource needs. Unlike the general sign-up
up of sub-factors (listed in parentheses). The current
process, land offered under continuous sign-up
general sign-up (#45) will include the following factors
may be enrolled at any time and is not subject
and weights:1
to competitive bidding. If offers meet certain
•
Wildlife Factor evaluates the expected wildlife
eligibility requirements then they are
benefits of the offer (wildlife habitat cover benefits,
automatically accepted. Contracts are effective
wildlife enhancement, and wildlife priority zones)––
the first day of the month following the month
10-100 points
of approval and typically include additional
•
Water Quality Benefits Factor evaluates the
financial incentives.
potential impact that the offer may have on both
ground and surface water quality (location, ground
Continuous sign-up includes a number of
water quality, and surface water quality)–– 0-100
points
initiatives that target acres with specific
resource concerns or support additional
•
Erosion Factor evaluates the potential for the land
conservation practices. These are described in
to erode from wind or water and is measured using
an erodibility index–– 0-100 points
the Appendix. As of February 2013, 5.5
million acres were enrolled in CRP under
•
Enduring Benefits Factor evaluates the
continuous sign-up, or 20% of total CRP
likelihood for certain practices to remain in place
beyond the CRP contract period (weighted average
acres. This includes 1.6 million enrolled
for al practices)–– 0-50 points
through the two statutorily created sub-
programs––the Conservation Reserve
•
Air Quality Benefits Factor evaluates the air
quality improvements made by reduced particulate
Enhancement Program (CREP, 1.3 million
matter and increased carbon sequestration (wind
acres) and farmable wetlands (341,176 acres).3
erosion impacts, wind erosion soils list, air quality
The remaining 3.8 million acres were enrolled
zones, and carbon sequestered)–– 3-45 points
in other continuous sign-up initiatives.
•
Cost of environmental benefits per dol ar expended
(cost of the offer and how much the offer is below
the maximum payment rate)–– 0-25 points.
1 USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program Sign-Up 45 Environmental Benefits Index (EBI), Fact Sheet, February
2013, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/su45ebifactsheet.pdf.
2 USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program, Monthly Summary, February 2013, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
FSA_File/feb2013summary.pdf.
3 Both CREP and the farmable wetlands programs are discussed in the Appendix.
Congressional Research Service
2
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Eligibility
Producer/Landowner
To be eligible for CRP enrollment, a producer must be an owner, operator, or tenant of the land
for at least 12 months prior to the close of the CRP sign-up period, and show control of the land
for the duration of the contract. The land may be eligible if owned for less than 12 months and if
(1) the land was acquired due to the previous owner’s death; (2) the ownership change occurred
due to foreclosure where the owner exercised a timely right of redemption in accordance with
state law; or (3) adequate assurances are made that the new owner did not acquire the land for the
purpose of placing it in CRP.4
Land
For land to be eligible for CRP, USDA may consider the following land types for enrollment:5
• highly erodible cropland that (1) if untreated could substantially reduce the land’s
future agricultural production capability or (2) cannot be farmed in accordance
with a conservation plan;6 and has a cropping history or was considered to be
planted for four of the six years between 2002-2007 (except for land previously
enrolled in CRP);
• marginal pasture land converted to wetland or established as wildlife habitat prior
to November 28, 1990, or devoted to appropriate vegetation or water quality
purposes;
• cropland that is otherwise ineligible, if it is determined that (1) if permitted to
remain in agricultural production, it would contribute to the degradation of soil,
water, or air quality; (2) the land is a newly-created, permanent grass sod
waterway, or a contour grass sod strip; (3) the land will be devoted to newly
established living snow fences, permanent wildlife habitat, windbreaks,
shelterbelts, or filterstrips devoted to trees or shrubs; (4) the land poses an off-
farm environmental threat; or (5) enrollment of the land would facilitate a net
savings in groundwater or surface water resources; or
• certain land enrolled as a riparian buffer or for similar water quality purposes.
Payments
In exchange for enrollment into CRP, participants receive payments from USDA. These payments
offset the cost of temporarily retiring the land from production and implementing resource-
conserving and wildlife-promoting practices. A number of payment types under CRP are
highlighted in Table 1.
4 7 C.F.R. 1410.5. Producers must also meet broader eligibility requirements related to adjusted gross income limits
(not more than $1 million) and compliance requirements.
5 16 U.S.C. 3831(b).
6 Refers to a conservation plan developed under the highly erodible land conservation provisions. For additional
information, see CRS Report R42459, Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy, by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service
3
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
The authorizing statute establishes the maximum number of acres that can be enrolled in the
program at any one time.7 The program is authorized to spend such sums as necessary to enroll up
to the maximum level of allowable acres. This funding is mandatory (i.e., not subject to annual
appropriations) and is provided through the borrowing authority of the USDA’s Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC). In total, the average annual federal cost for CRP is close to $2 billion.
The majority of this cost is annual rental payments, which averages $60.84 per acre, but can vary
greatly by location.8
Table 1. CRP Payments
Payment Type
Description
Limit
Sign-up Type
Rental Payment
Annual payment to participants. Based on
$50,000 annual y for any person
general and
soil productivity for each county and the
or legal entity
continuous sign-up
average dryland case rental rate.
Cost-share
Payment for a percentage of installing or
No more than 50% of the actual
general and
Payment
establishing an eligible practice.
or average cost of establishing
continuous sign-up
the practice.
Maintenance
Reimburses participants for the average
$5 per acre per year
certain continuous
Incentive Payment
annual cost of certain practice maintenance.
sign-up practices
One-time Sign-up
One-time incentive payment made to
$10 per acre per year enrol ed
certain continuous
Incentive Payment
participants that enroll certain practices.
(not to exceed 10 years)
sign-up practices.
(SIP)
One-time Practice
One-time incentive payment for eligible
40% of the eligible cost of
certain continuous
Incentive Payment
installation costs for certain practices
practice installation
sign-up practices.
(PIP)
Other Financial
Additional incentives, as part of annual rental
Up to 20% of the annual rental
certain continuous
Incentive
payments, for windbreaks, grass waterways,
payment
sign-up practices.
filter strips, and riparian buffers
Sources: 16 U.S.C. 3834, 7 C.F.R. 1410.40-1410.42, and USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program Continuous
Sign-Up, Fact Sheet, July 2010, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/crp_contsignup_072610.pdf.
Practices
Producers have a number of conservation practices to consider for installation on their land when
enrolling in CRP. The selection of practices is part of the voluntary enrollment process and is
determined by the landowner, with assistance from USDA, while developing a CRP offer. Once
an offer is accepted for enrollment, the participant must develop a conservation plan of operation,
which serves as a guide for which practices will be used, where, and for how long. Once the plan
is approved and the contract signed by the participant, the land is considered enrolled in CRP.
Certain continuous sign-up initiatives require specific conservation practices for enrollment. The
most widely applied conservation practices are described in Table 2.
7 32 million acres under the 2008 farm bill authorization, 16 U.S.C. 3831(d).
8 For example, the highest average rental payment per acre for a state (for all CRP sign-ups) is in Massachusetts at
$207.20/acre. Only 10 acres are enrolled in Massachusetts. The lowest average rental payment for a state is in
Wyoming at $26.46/acre. The state with the most acres enrolled––Texas with 3.3 million acres––averages $37.19/acre
for rental payments.
Congressional Research Service
4
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Table 2. Top Five Conservation Practices Installed on CRP Acres
(Current as of February 2013)
Practice
Acres
Code Practice
Description Enrolled Leading
States
CP2
Establishment of permanent native grasses
7,177,546
Texas, Colorado, Kansas
CP10
Already established vegetative cover
5,184,696
Texas, Montana, Colorado
(grasses and legumes)
CP1
Establishment of permanent introduced
3,244,354
Missouri, Montana, Texas
grasses and legumes
CP4D
Permanent wildlife habitat
2,302,507
Colorado, North Dakota, Kansas
CP25
Rare and declining habitat
1,755,463
Kansas, Nebraska, Montana
Source: USDA, FSA, Conservation Practices Instal ed on CRP (acres), Cumulative, February 2013.
Note: Based on total acres enrolled in practices for all sign-up types.
Current Issues
Farm Bill Expiration, Extension, and Reauthorization
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) authorized CRP (both program and funding) to operate until
September 30, 2012. The program was extended at its current level to September 30, 2013, in the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240). Without program and funding authority
USDA cannot enroll any additional acres into the program. Contracts in place before September
30, 2013, will receive payments, including incentive payments, and will continue to be enforced.
Without reauthorization or another extension of authority the agency cannot approve any
contracts or process any offers for enrollment. While all sign-up types are affected by the lack of
program and funding authority, continuous sign-up acres could be more impacted than general
sign-ups in the short-term because acres are usually enrolled year-round.
The 112th Congress debated the reauthorization of many farm bill programs, including CRP. Both
the Senate-passed (S. 3240) and House Agriculture Committee-reported (H.R. 6083) versions of
the 2012 farm bill would have reauthorized CRP through FY2017. Both versions would also have
incrementally reduced the maximum enrollable acres from 32 million to 25 million. According to
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this reduction would have saved between $3.6 billion
and $3.8 billion over ten years, compared with continuing current law. More recent CBO
projections have reduced the savings estimate to between $2.96 billion and $2.38 billion over ten
years, because recent lower CRP enrollment eliminates some of the previously estimated
savings.9
While many view a reduction in CRP acres as inevitable in the current fiscal climate,
conservation and wildlife groups caution that too large a reduction could have adverse
environmental and ecological impacts.10 These groups point to the release of more than 20% of
9 Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, to Honorable Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman of the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, March 1, 2013.
10 Sara Hooper, Environmental Defense Fund, Statement for the Record, Testimony before the U.S. House of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
the current program acres as potentially causing a reduction in critical species habitat and an
increase in soil erosion and decrease in water quality caused by planting highly erodible and
marginal land.11 Livestock and grain producers, on the other hand, generally support some
reduction in CRP acres, citing high commodity and feed prices as a reason for additional land
needed to expand feed grain production.12 Other groups cite advances in technology and
sustainable production practices in the last 10 to 15 years as a reason for reduced CRP acres.13
Some forecast that the current high commodity price level will continue for the foreseeable
future, thus possibly shrinking farmer interest in CRP for some time (see “Enrollment” discussion
below).14 Also, increased commodity prices can lead to increased land rental rates, which in turn
increases the cost of land retirement programs such as CRP. These factors could signal a shift in
farm bill conservation policy away from the traditional land retirement programs toward an
increased focus on conservation working lands programs—which keep land in production while
implementing conservation practices that address natural resource concerns––e.g., the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) or the Conservation Stewardship Program
(CSP).
A detailed analysis of proposed changes to CRP during the 112th Congress’s farm bill
reauthorization debate may be found in CRS Report R42552, The 2012 Farm Bill: A Comparison
of Senate-Passed S. 3240 and the House Agriculture Committee’s H.R. 6083 with Current Law.
Harvesting and Grazing
Harvesting and grazing is permitted on CRP land under certain conditions. Managed harvesting
(including harvesting biomass) is permitted one out of every three years if approved in advanced
and conducted according to a vegetative management plan. Routine grazing is permitted for the
control of invasive species, also if approved in advanced and conducted according to a vegetative
management plan and schedule. In limited situations, harvesting and grazing may be conducted in
response to drought or other emergency. All harvesting and grazing, including in the event of an
emergency, is prohibited during primary nesting season for birds. All activities also require a
payment reduction commensurate with the economic value of the authorized activity.15
Historically, this reduction ranges between 10%-25% of the annual rental payment. In many cases
environmentally sensitive land is ineligible for harvesting and grazing.
(...continued)
Representatives Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, Concerning
Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Conservation Programs, April 26, 2012, http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/
republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/hearings/Hopper120426.pdf.
11 Josephine Marcotty, “Open Land Falling to the Plow,” StarTribune, August 6, 2012.
12 Chris Clayton, “NGFA Wants to Take a Bite Out of CRP,” DTN Progressive Farmer, April 4, 2012.
13 Bruce Knight, ReGaining Ground: A Conservation Reserve Program Right-Sized for the Times, Strategic
Conservation Solutions for National Grain and Feed Foundation, June 2012, http://www.ngfa.org/files/
SCSReGainingGroundResearchStudyforNGFF%286-8-2012%29.pdf.
14 Daniel Hellerstein and Scott Malcolm, The Influence of Raising Commodity Prices on the Conservation Reserve
Program, USDA, ERS, ERR-110, Washington, DC, February, 2011, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR110/
ERR110.pdf.
15 16 U.S.C. 3832(d).
Congressional Research Service
6
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
During the summer of 2012, USDA announced a new process for responding to natural disasters,
including emergency harvesting and grazing under CRP.16 USDA lowered the payment reduction
rate for emergency harvesting and grazing from 25% to 10%. In August 2012, USDA announced
an additional 3.8 million CRP acres could be eligible to harvest and graze.17 Many of these acres
had previously been ineligible due to wetland characteristics and sensitive specialty practices (see
the programmatic environmental assessment discussion in the text box below). As of February 12,
2013, 53 counties, all located in Texas, have been approved for emergency grazing under CRP.18
CRP and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In May 2008, USDA announced that 24 million acres of CRP land could be applied in 2008 to a critical feed use (CFU)
initiative. The initiative allowed CRP participants with established vegetative cover to voluntarily modify their CRP
contracts to use certain CRP lands for managed harvesting and grazing without a payment reduction. The National
Wildlife Federation (NWF) and NWF chapters in six states sought an injunction against USDA for failure to conduct
an appropriate environmental review of the proposed CFU initiative. In June 2008, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington agreed with NWF and issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). By July 2008, the
court issued a permanent injunction, suspending the CFU initiative except for those who had been approved by or
had applied to FSA prior to the TRO, or who had invested at least $4,500 toward harvesting or grazing equipment
and preparation prior to the TRO.19
Following the passage of the 2008 farm bill, FSA issued a final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) in
June 2010.20 In large part, the SEIS only evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting from changes made by
the 2008 farm bill. CRP harvesting and grazing activities were conducted in accordance with the 2010 SEIS until 2012,
when USDA announced a modified use of emergency harvesting and grazing on CRP land. Because the 2012
emergency harvesting and grazing announcement authorized certain practices that were ineligible under the 2010
SEIP, FSA issued a final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) in August 2012.21 The PEA included a
mitigated finding of no significant impact (FONSI). FSA determined that certain mitigation measures were required to
ensure that there are no significant environmental impacts, including: implementing a modified conservation plan,
leaving 25% of the field ungrazed or no more than 75% of the approved stocking rate may be used, leaving 50% of
each field unharvested, not harvesting or grazing the same acreage more than once, and limiting harvesting to one
cutting.
The 2012 drought has fueled questions about the potential reduction of CRP acres (see “Farm Bill
Expiration, Extension, and Reauthorization” above). It is unclear what level of relief to livestock
is achieved through the emergency harvesting and grazing during drought or if there is any long-
term impact on wildlife habitat. Other questions remain, including, if fewer acres were enrolled in
CRP for conserving uses, or if enrollment were limited to more sensitive land that would not
support harvesting and grazing, what impact would this have on livestock when drought strikes
16 USDA, FSA, “USDA Announces Streamlined Disaster Designation Process with Lower Emergency Loan Rates and
Greater CRP Flexibility in Disaster Areas,” press release, July 11, 2012, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/printapp?
fileName=nr_20120711_rel_0228.html&newsType=newsrel.
17 USDA, FSA, “Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces New Drought Assistance, Designates an Additional 218
Counties as Primary Natural Disaster Areas,” press release, August 1, 2012, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/printapp?
fileName=nr_20120801_rel_0260.html&newsType=newsrel.
18 USDA, FSA, “Table—Drought and Counties Approved for Emergency Haying and Grazing,” February 12, 2013,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/haylist021213.xls.
19 National Wildlife Federation v. Ed Schaefer, USDA, CV08-1004-JCC (U.S. District Court Western District of
Washington at Seattle 2008).
20 USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program—Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Final, June 2010,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/crpfinalseismaster61010.pdf.
21 USDA, FSA, Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Emergency Drought Response on Conservation Reserve
Program Lands, August 2012, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/haygraz_pea_fonziv2_0812.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
again? Is the role of CRP to provide drought relief or is that beyond the scope of the program?
What level of payment reduction, if any, should be required for emergency harvesting and
grazing? What are the positive and negative effects of harvesting and grazing, whether managed
or in the event of emergency, that might impact wildlife, plant quality, and erosion control?
Enrollment
The nature of CRP enrollment has changed since the program’s inception in the 1985 farm bill.
Program priorities have shifted, total acres enrolled has fluctuated (see Figure 1 and Figure 2),
farming technologies have advanced, and producer preferences have changed. Many of these
changes are cited as a reason to further alter the level of CRP acres enrolled in the future.
Figure 1. Cumulative CRP Enrollment
Figure 2. CRP Enrollment
(acres by fiscal year)
(acres enrolled as of December 2012)
40
35
30
s 25
cre
20
n A
illio 15
M
10
5
0
Fiscal Year
Source: USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program––
Source: USDA, FSA/EPAS/NRA, CRP Enrollment—
Cumulative Enrollment by Year (Acres),
December 2012, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/
FSA_File/crpenrol 1212.pdf.
historystate8612.xls.
Expiration of Contracts
CRP contracts vary in length, though most are 10 years in duration. At the end of a contract, the
participant may seek either reenrollment into the program (via a general or continuous sign-up, if
eligible) or let the contract expire. This 10-year cycle resulted in more than 16 million acres
enrolled in 1997 potentially expiring all at once in 2007. To stagger this expiration process,
USDA offered two- to five-year reenrollment and extension contracts in 2006 to contacts expiring
between 2007 and 2010 (27 million acres). While approximately 83% of those offered accepted
these extensions (23 million acres), over 8.5 million acres expired from the program during that
time.
The 43rd general sign-up in 2012 accepted 3.8 million acres of new and reenrollment offers into
CRP. Prior to this reenrollment opportunity, approximately 6.5 million acres under CRP contract
(both general and continuous) were scheduled to expire on September 30, 2012.22 This was
considered to be a relatively large number of acres to potentially expire in one year, given that it
22 CRP closed the 2012 fiscal year with approximately 27 million acres enrolled. The maximum enrollment level prior
to the September 30, 2012, expiration was 32 million acres.
Congressional Research Service
8
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
will be three years before another 6 million additional acres under contract are scheduled to
expire.23 Ultimately, 3.2 million acres left CRP in FY2013, either through contract expiration or
attrition. Between FY2007 and through FY2013, over 15.1 million CRP acres under contact have
expired and were not reenrolled in the program (Figure 3). The majority of these acres in FY2013
are located in the central part of the United States, which also has the largest number of acres
enrolled (Figure 4 and Figure 2). The number and location of these acres concerns some program
advocates because of the potential loss of environmental benefits, particularly migratory and
grassland bird habitat.
Figure 3. CRP Acres Not Reenrolled and
Figure 4. Change in CRP Enrollment
Lost Through Attrition, FY2007-FY2013
Between September and October 2012
3,500
3,000
2,500
d)
an 2,000
us
o
th
1,500
cres (
A
1,000
500
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Fiscal Year
Source: USDA, FSA, EPA, NRA, CRP Change in
Source: USDA, FSA, Changes in CRP Acreage from 2007
Enrollment from September to October 2012,
to October 2013 2013 by State, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/
Internet/FSA_File/acresstate012213.xls.
acresmapseptoct2012.pdf.
Notes: Annual sum of expiring land that was not
Notes: Contracts expire September 30; most new
reenrol ed and land lost through attrition. FY2013 land
contracts begin October 1.
may be cropped in the 2013 crop year.
Reenrollment of Acreage
Under the 1985 farm bill, CRP was initially authorized to enroll up to 45 million acres between
crop years 1986 and 1990. USDA did not reach this enrollment cap and subsequent farm bills
reduced the authorized level of enrollment.24 CRP enrollment reached its peak in 2007 with 36.8
million acres. The 2008 farm bill reduced the enrollment cap to 32 million acres, thus reducing
the opportunity for reenrollment of expiring acres under contact. Of the 6.5 million acres in CRP
that could have expired at the end of FY2012, the most recent general sign-up (#43) reenrolled
3.3 million acres and 560,000 new acres.25 Without a reauthorization of the program and funding
authority, the program will no longer be able to enroll any new acres or reenroll acres as contracts
expire.
23 Including 3.3 million in FY2013, 2.0 million in FY2014, and 1.7 million in FY2015.
24 The 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127) lowered the enrollment cap to a total of 36.4 million acres through CY2002. The
2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) increased the enrollment cap total to 39.2 million acres through CY2007.
25 USDA, FSA, The Conservation Reserve Program: 43rd Signup Results, Washington, DC, June 12, 2012, Table 2,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/su43state072512.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Sixty-one percent of 2012 acres expiring under CRP contract were offered for reenrollment in
sign-up #43. While this is below the 83% reenrollment rate under the 2006-2010 effort, it is
consistent with other general sign-ups.26 Other factors, such as higher commodity and land prices,
may explain the decline, as well as potential differences between CRP annual rental payments and
local rental rates (see “Rental Rates” section).27 Approximately 2 million acres will expire in
FY2014 and therefore may be offered for reenrollment in sign-up #45.
Contract Termination and Early Release
Under current law, a producer wishing to terminate a CRP contract early faces a penalty of full
repayment, with interest, of all the funds already paid to the producer, including any cost-share
payments and other financial incentives, plus a fee of 25% of rental payments received.
As demand for farmland increases, so does the pressure for USDA to “release” or terminate CRP
contracts early and possibly waive any penalty. This has been particularly true since 2008 when
corn prices hit record highs and have remained high.28 A number of commodity organizations and
livestock associations have been vocal about seeking release of CRP land from its contracts in
order to expand crop production.29 Conversely, others have pointed out that CRP is a voluntary
program, in which land is competitively enrolled. Participants accepted federal funds in exchange
for retiring land from production and converting it to conserving uses. If acres were allowed to
return to production without penalty some question whether this violates the purpose of the
program and diminishes the program’s environmental gains.30
Although the Secretary of Agriculture always has the authority to release land from CRP without
penalty, this option has not been commonly used. In program history, this option has been
exercised twice––in 1995 and 1996––when acres were allowed a voluntary, penalty-free early
release in order to enroll more environmentally sensitive cropland. In both cases, environmentally
sensitive acres were not released and certain restrictions applied to acres returning to production
or harvesting and grazing.
26 Personal communication with FSA staff, June 1, 2012.
27 Daniel Hellerstein, Recent Conservation Reserve Program Enrollments Signal Changing Priorities, USDA, ERS,
Amber Waves, March 2012.
28 Beginning in 2007, agricultural commodity prices rose significantly. These prices remain high today and according
to USDA’s long-term agricultural projection are expected to continue for corn, oilseeds, and many other crops at
historically high levels. See, USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, USDA Agricultural Projections to 2022, OCE-
2013-1, Washington, DC, February 2013, http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1013566/oce131fm.pdf.
29 While many requested a CRP “early-out” option in 2008, the Bush Administration took no action regarding this
option. See May 27, 2008, press call with Secretary Schafer, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?
contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/05/0138.xml. Instead, the Administration allowed for expanded harvesting and
grazing, which resulted in a lawsuit (see text box above). The pressure for early contract termination continues; for
example, in 2011, Representative Nunes, along with 25 other Members of Congress, signed a letter asking the President
to release CRP land without penalty for the purpose of grain production. Letter from Devin Nunes, Representative, to
Barack Obama, President, April 8, 2011. The Obama Administration did not allow CRP contract terminations without
penalty.
30 Allison Winter, “USDA conservation program imperiled by soaring crop prices, floods,” Greenwire, June 26, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
10
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Rental Rates
CRP rental payments are based on two main factors: the county average rental rate and soil
productivity. The county average rental rate uses the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s
(NASS) survey of county average rental rates for cropland and pastureland. Soil productivity is
based on a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) calculation that uses data of the local
soil, landscape, and climate to determine the ability of the land to produce crops on non-irrigated
soil. The average CRP rental payment rates are as follows: $49.95 per acre for general sign-up,
$93.05 per acre for non-CREP continuous sign-up, $133.56 per acre for CREP continuous sign-
up, and $109.92 per acre for farmable wetlands.31
Rental rates for CRP contracts became an important issue to some producers when commodity
prices began to rise in 2008. Commodity prices have remained high, causing producers to claim
that CRP rental rates are significantly lower than the producers could get by renting their land out
for production. On the other hand, contracts are for ten or more years and could be viewed as
long-term investments rather than reactions to short-term commodity price fluctuation.
Economic Research Service Study
If rental rates are set too low, producers might decline to enroll their land, or, if already enrolled,
they might decline to renew their contracts at expiration. A 2011 study by the Economic Research
Service (ERS) at USDA, modeled the effect of increasing commodity prices on CRP
enrollment.32 The study suggested that maintaining CRP under its current configuration could
lead to program cost increases. When constraints were placed on increasing rental rates, the study
suggested that enrollment goals could be met with moderate increases in the CRP rental rates. The
latter scenario might mean that enrollment goals could be met, but at the cost of applying a lower
EBI, as producers with profitable, but environmentally sensitive, acreage choose not to enroll.
If crop prices remain high and enrolling environmentally sensitive land continues to be a program
priority, then finding the level of rental payments that encourages enrollment and keeps the cost
of the program acceptable to policy makers might continue to be an issue.
Office of the Inspector General Report
In July 2012, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report on the use of CRP
rental rates.33 The report concluded that for the 39th general sign-up in 2010, FSA (1) did not use
the most recent NRCS soil productivity factors; and (2) allowed states and counties to propose
alternate rates that did not adhere to its own policies for reviewing and approving the alternate
rates.34 OIG accepted two of the four agency responses to its recommendations. The two
31 USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program - Monthly Summary, Washington, DC, February 2013.
32 Daniel Hellerstein and Scott Malcolm, The Influence of Rising Commodity Prices on the Conservation Reserve
Program, USDA, ERS, Economic Research Report number 110, February 2011.
33 USDA, OIG, Farm Service Agency, Conservation Reserve Program - Soil Rental Rates, Audit Report 03601-0051-
Te, July 2012.
34 For example, “of the 687 proposed alternate rates it received, FSA’s national office approved 686, even though it
determined the majority (669 of 687) of the proposals contained evidence to support the alternate rates to be less than
strong.” Under the 41st general sign-up, a total of 271 proposals were submitted for alternate county average rental
rates. According to OIG, one official approved 150 rates—105 exceeded the NASS rate and 45 were lower than the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
responses that it found unacceptable concerned the use of the most recent NRCS productivity data
and establishing procedures for approving alternate county average rental rates. It is unclear what
follow-up action, if any, will be taken by FSA to address the remaining concerns.
Increases in Enrollment
Despite the potential limiting factors affecting CRP enrollment, the number of acres enrolled
under continuous sign-ups, including for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP, see Appendix), has increased. Continuous sign-ups allow landowners to enroll land in
certain high priority practices in exchange for additional financial incentive. As of February 2013,
almost 5.4 million acres (20%) are enrolled through continuous sign-up, an increase of 1.8
million acres since 2007. The additional financial incentive under continuous sign-up could offset
the potential gap between CRP rental payments and local rental rates to enroll more
environmentally sensitive acres. Currently, more contracts and farms are enrolled under
continuous sign-ups (409,573 and 238,565, respectively) than for general sign-ups (291,395 and
195,061, respectively).35 Continuous sign-up enrollment represents a fraction of the total CRP
acreage because, in general, these enrollments involve only a small portion of a farmer’s total
acreage.
Environmental Benefits
The greatest concern over a reduced level of CRP acres is a reduced level of environmental
benefits. Since its inception, research has shown that CRP has contributed to reduced levels of
soil erosion, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat development. While these benefits
vary across the country, some conclude that without CRP there could be additional environmental
degradation from agricultural production.36 Table 3 includes a list of conservation practices
applied on CRP land that is set to expire from the program between FY2014 and FY2017. It is
unknown how many of the practices would expire as a result of acres not reenrolling in CRP due
to the reduced number of authorized acres. It is also unknown whether these practices would be
maintained without a CRP contract. Landowners may choose to continue these practices
voluntarily or through other federal, state, or local assistance. In large part, the majority of
practices that could be lost if allowed to expire would be grasslands, both native and introduced
species, new and existing plantings.
According to FSA, since 2002, CRP has reduced soil erosion by 325 million tons from pre-CRP
levels each year. Since the program’s inception in 1986, CRP has reduced more than 8 billion tons
of soil erosion. Through FY2010, CRP has enrolled more than 2 million acres in wetlands and
over 2 million in buffers. Other annual conservation benefits include an equivalent of
approximately 52 million metric ton net reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) from sequestration,
reduced fuel use and nitrous oxide emissions avoided from no fertilizer use; more than 2 million
acres of wildlife habitat established; and a reduction of about 607 million pounds of nitrogen and
(...continued)
NASS rate. Ibid.
35 USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program, Monthly Summary, July 2012, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/
FSA_File/july2012crpstat.pdf.
36 JunJie Wu and Bruce Weber, Implications of a Reduced Conservation Reserve Program, The Council on Food,
Agriculture & Resource Economics, July 2012.
Congressional Research Service
12
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
122 million pounds of phosphorus.37 From a wildlife perspective, it is estimated that CRP land
produces over 13.5 million pheasants and 2.2 million ducks each year through habitat
availability.38
Table 3. Top Ten Expiring CRP Conservation Practices
(By expiring year in total acres applied)
Practice Code
Practice Description
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total Expiring Acres
1,992,756 1,674,088 1,195,403
2,647,137
CP01
Introduced grasses and legumes
140,314
135,100
106,925
188,275
CP02 Native
grasses
584,006
488,526
316,164
283,793
CP03H Hardwood
trees
77,873
59,385
5,388
31,800
CP04D
Permanent wildlife habitat
218,588
127,960
120,415
119,064
CP10
Existing grasses and legumes
222,604
164,116
81,697
1,353,896
CP11 Existing
trees
17,853
39,479
36,817
112,723
CP21 Filter
strips-grass
79,627
108,748
114,998
95,129
CP22 Riparian
buffers
52,769
113,686
137,180
110,529
CP23 Wetland
restoration
278,146
96,512
26,808
29,702
CP25
Rare and declining habitat
145,356
130,978
58,277
17,944
Source: CRS, developed from USDA, FSA data, April 2012.
Conclusion
As Congress considers reauthorization of the program as part of the farm bill, CRP, as the most
expensive conservation program, could see a possible reduction of authorized acres to achieve a
cost savings. Other pressures from high crop prices, increased demand for land, and the
potentially low rental rates could also impact the program’s ability to enroll the most desirable
acres in the future. Despite these challenges supporters encourage maintaining CRP enrollment
because of the numerous environmental gains achieved by the program, including improved
water quality, soil health, and wildlife species habitat. Balancing the cost of maintaining such
benefits with the cost of the program could continue to be a challenge for Congress.
37 USDA, FSA, The Environmental Benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program, United States—2010, July 2011,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/united_states.pdf.
38 National Wildlife Federation, Maintaining Benefits of Expiring CRP, http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Policy/Farm-Bill/
Farm-Bill-Success-Stories/Success-Expiring-CRP.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
13
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Appendix. Continuous Sign-Up Initiatives
Continuous sign-up is designed to enroll the most environmentally sensitive land into CRP
through specific conservation practices or resource needs. Continuous sign-up includes a number
of initiatives that target acres with specific resource concerns or support additional conservation
practices. These are described below.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
Initially implemented in 1997, CREP is a joint federal-state continuous sign-up program under
CRP. CREP targets geographic regions with agricultural-related environmental concerns, such as
Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and Florida’s Everglades. Some states (e.g., New York and Ohio)
have multiple CREP projects, each targeting a different area of the state. Projects are designed to
address specific environmental objectives through targeted CRP enrollments. Sign-ups are
continuous, non-competitive, and typically provide additional financial incentives beyond annual
rental payments and cost-share assistance. There are currently 45 CREP agreements in 33 states.
Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP)
The Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP) enrolls farmable or prior converted wetlands into CRP.
In exchange for additional financial incentives, landowners agree to restore the hydrology of the
wetland, establish vegetative cover, and prohibit development. For land to be considered eligible
it must meet one of the following criteria:
• a wetland or converted wetland cropped at least 3 of the immediately preceding
10 crop years;
• a constructed wetland that receives flow from a row crop agriculture drainage
system and is designed to provide nitrogen removal in addition to other wetland
functions;
• land in a commercial pond-raised aquaculture in any year between 2002 through
2007; or
• cropland that was cropped at least three of ten crop years between 1990 and
2002, and is subject to the natural overflow of a prairie wetland.
The enrollment of buffer acreage is also permitted to enhance wildlife benefits. No more than
100,000 acres may be enrolled in FWP in any state39 and no more than 1 million acres nationally.
The enrollment of wetlands (described under the first and second bullets above) is limited to 40
contiguous acres. “Flooded farmland,” or that defined in the fourth bullet above, is limited to 20
contiguous acres, and has a 20-acre limit.
39 This limit may be increased by USDA to up to 200,000 acres per state.
Congressional Research Service
14
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Emergency Forestry CRP
Following the 2005 hurricane season, Congress created the Emergency Forestry Conservation
Reserve Program (EFCRP) in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L.
109-148). The program provides assistance to nonindustrial private forest land damaged by the
2005 hurricanes (specifically Katrina and Rita) in Gulf Coast states. Over $504 million in
mandatory funding was authorized to carry out this program. Acreage enrolled in this program
does not count toward the total CRP enrollment cap. As of December 31, 2011, a total of 294,318
acres had been enrolled in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, with payments
totaling over $85.8 million.
Transition Incentive Program (TIP)
The 2008 farm bill authorized a new option for expiring CRP contracts. Under the Transition
Incentive Program (TIP), land from expiring CRP contracts may be transitioned back into
sustainable grazing or crop production by a beginning or socially disadvantaged farmer or
rancher. The land must be from a retired or retiring owner or operator (not a family member) in
exchange for up to two additional years of annual CRP rental payments following the expiration
of the CRP contract. The program was authorized to spend up to $25 million between FY2009
and FY2012.
Other Initiatives
Several other initiatives under CRP have been developed over time, mostly in response to
Administration priorities. Table A-1 includes a list of recent initiatives and their enrollment size.
Table A-1. CRP Initiatives
Allocation
Current Enrollment
Initiative Year
Started
(acres)
(acres)a
Floodplain Wetlands
2004
600,000
232,098
Bottomland Hardwood Trees
2004
250,000
84,709
Non-floodplain and Playa Wetlands
2005
350,000
226,806
Upland Bird Habitat Buffers
2005
500,000
242,087
Longleaf Pine Plantings
2007
250,000
117,060
Duck Nesting Habitat
2007
300,000
194,485
State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE)
2008
1,250,000
699,305
Highly Erodible Land
2012
750,000
43,737
Pollinator Habitat
2012
100,000
b
Source: USDA, FSA, Conservation Reserve Program, Monthly Summary, August 2012, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/
Internet/FSA_File/crpstataug2012.pdf.
a. Cumulative acres as of February 2013. Excludes lands enrol ed in CREPs.
b. To date, sign-up results for this initiative are not available.
Congressional Research Service
15
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and Issues
Author Contact Information
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Congressional Research Service
16