United States
Environmental Protection
Office of Water
Regulation* and Standard*
Washington, D.C. 20460
Saptembor 1988
(EPA 506/2-88/001)
Water
&EPA Interfacing Nonpoint Source Programs
With the Conservation Reserve:
Guidance for Water Quality Managers
Nonpoint Source
Pollution
-------
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
-------
INTERFACING NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
WITH THE CONSERVATION RESERVE:
GUIDANCE FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGERS
AUTHORS:
M.D. Smolen, N.C. State University
KJ. Adler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A.L. Lanier, N.C. State University
D.L Hoag, N.C. State University
D.W. Miller, N.C. State University
NCSU PROJECT DIRECTOR
F. J. Humenik
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
Raleigh, NC
EPA PROJECT OFFICER
JJJones
Economic and Regulatory Analysis Division
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Cooperative Agreement CR813753-01-0
September, 1988
-------
Disclaimer
The contents and views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the policies or positions of the North Carolina State Agricultural Extension Service, the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency or the United States Department of Agriculture.
Acknowledgments
This manual was written under a grant from the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. We would like to thank the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service
and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and EPA’s Nonpoint Sources Branch for their review and
comments. The authors would also like to thank EPA personnel Steve Dressing, Bo Crum, and Bob Huminel for
their assistance in developing a more useful and readable manual.
-------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERFACING
NPS PROGRAMS AND CRP
1. Identify priority watersheds and determine if CRP—vegetative cover can be used ef-
fectively in the NPS management program.
2. Identify areas where CRP—permanent vegetative cover and CRP filter strips could
improve water quality.
3. Participate in the administration of CRP at the state level by attending meetings of
the State Conservation Review Group.
4. Participate in County Conservation Review Group committee meetings to promote
mutually beneficial objectives for agricultural and NPS management programs.
5. Develop a coordinated NPS-management program involving federal, state, and local
agencies and farm organizations. Establish agency roles and objectives that are
realistic and support them with written agreements.
6. Use NPS-program funds to supplement technical staff for CRP implementation in
water quality critical areas. -
7. Use state and local NPS-program funds to supplement CRP-rental payments and
cost-share funds in water quality critical areas.
8. Complement CRP, and other voluntary p&ograms, with regulatory programs where
necessary.
9. Target NPS-program efforts to water quality critical areas; use personal contact with
targeted landowners to provide information and assistance to facilitate CRP sign-up.
10. Ensure long-term water quality benefits by promoting use of CRP tree planting, coor-
dinating Conservation Compliance activities, and establishing long-term working
relationships among water quality managers, USDA personnel and farmers.
II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Recommendations . ii
Abbreviations iv
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Mandate for NPS Management 1
Scope of This Manual 1
Chapter Two: Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act 3
Conservation Reserve Program 4
Eligibility 5
Filter Strips 6
Biddings and Signups 6
Payments 7
Transfer of Contractual Obligations 8
Administration of CRP 8
Sodbuster, Conservation Compliance and Swampbuster 10
Chapter Three: Incorporating CRP in NPS Management Plans 11
The Value of Permanent Vegetative Cover in State NPS Projects 11
Filter Strips in State NPS Projects 11
Setting Priorities for NPS Management Programs 13
Developing and Coordinating an Interagency Program 13
Establish Agency Roles 13
Set Realisitic Program Goals 14
Develop Interagency Agreements 14
Implemetation of a Coordinated State Agricultural NPS Program 14
Increased Education of Farmers in Priority Watersheds 14
Delivery Systems 14
Target Audiences 15
Incentives to Participate in the CRP 15
Piggy-Backing State Funds to Augment CRP 16
Regulatory Authority 19
Long-Term Advantage of Tree Cover 19
Evaluating the Applicability of CRP to a Targeted Watershed 19
Long-Term Maintenance of NPS Controls 20
Checklist for Section 319/CRP Coordination 21
References 23
III
-------
Abbreviations
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
CC Conservation Compliance
CCC Commodity Credit Corporation
CCRG County Conservation Review Group
CES Conservation Extension Service
COC County Committee
CRP Conservation Review Group
DOl United States Department of Interior
EPA United State Environmental Protection Agency
FmHA Farmers Home Administration
FS Forest Service
FSA85 Food Security Act of 1985
HEL Highly Erodible Land
HELC Highly Erodible Land Conservation
I&E Information and Education
MIP Model Implementation Program
NPS Nonpoint source Pollution
SCRC State Conservation Review Committee
SCS Soil Conservation Service
STC State Technical Committee
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
Mandate for NPS Management
Passage of the 1987 Water Quality Act established, under Section 319, an ambitious and far-reaching initia-
tive to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Implementation of the Act requires states to assess their nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution problems and develop management programs for their NPS-impaircd and threatened water
bodies. Following EPA’s approval of these programs, implementation is to occur over a four-year period. Al-
though Congress has authorized a total of $400 million for fiscal years 1988 through 1991 to help states implement
their management programs, actual appropriations were zero in FY1988 and future appropriations remain uncer-
tain.
Passage of the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA85) initiated a large redirection of monetary and human resour-
ces towards soil conservation and indirectly towards control of agricultural NPS pollution. In fact, these resour-
ces are far larger than those authorized by Congress for implementation of Section 319. Therefore, coordinating
state NPS management programs with related federal and state agricultural programs can be critical to the suc-
cess of Section 319.
Scope of this Manual
EPA is supporting state implementation of Section 319 with a combination of the NPS Guidance Manual (1),
the State Clean Water Strategy (2), Setting Priorities: The Key to NPS Pollution Control (3), and a variety of other
technical guides (such as this one) and grant mechanisms. These support documents stress the importance of tar-
geting NPS- program resources and coordinating with other federal and state efforts.
This manual is intended as a guide for state NFS agencies and area-wide planning agencies to coordinate
Section 319 activities with FSA8S Title XII - Conservation, which created the Conservation Reserve, Highly
Erodible Land Conservation (HELC), and Wetland Conservation (WC) subtitles. The HELC subtitle mandates
the Conservation Compliance (CC) and Sodbuster programs that protect highly erodible cropland. In addition, to
discourage drainage of wetlands, the Swampbuster program was established, under the WC subtitle. This manual
uses targeting concepts, reviews FSA85 conservation programs, with an emphasis on the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), and suggests ways to coordinate programs to optimize the state’s NPS management effort. NPS
managers should consult USDA officials regarding any recent modifications in FSA85 conservation programs not
covered by this manual.
Title X II of FSA85 has multiple objectives: conservation of the nation’s soil resource, reduction of surplus
commodities, protection of wetlands, and reduction of off-site impacts from sediment including deterioration of
water quality. The CRP removes from agricultural production, for a period of 10 years, 40 to 45 million acres of
highly erodible cropland and certain other lands deemed eligible due to special criteria. Land removed from
production by CRP is also eligible for cost-sharing assistance for conservation practices or planting of trees. The
CC provision introduces certain penalties for any farmers who produce agricultural commodities on highly erodible
land without reducing erosion to locally approved levels, and the Sodbuster provision invokes penalties for produc-
tion of annually tilled agricultural commodities and sugercane in previously uncroppcd, highly erosive areas. After
December 23, 1985, the drainage of wetlands for the production of agricultural commodities will result in penal-
ties under the Swampbuster provision.
Integration of a state’s NPS management program with these FSA85 provisions can benefit both programs.
Section 319 mandates assessment and management of nonpoint source impaired or threatened water bodies, but
authorizes funding only for program management and development, and demonstration projects. The CRP
I
-------
provides rental payments and cost sharing incentives, while CC and Swampbuster use penalties to facilitate im-
plementation of conservation measures for highly erodible cropland, wetlands, and certain environmentally sensi-
tive areas. Simultaneous cuts in operating budgets for the agricultural agencies, however, have limited their ability
to target any but the immediate conservation objectives. The challenge for the administrator of the primary NPS
agency is, therefore, to coordinate agency efforts with those of the agricultural agencies in a productive and effi-
cient way. -
Agricultural conservation programs authorized in FSA85 apply only to those NPS problems that originate
from existing or potential croplands. Therefore, other incentives or penalties will be needed to address NPS pol-
lutants from surface mining, urban areas, and non-row crop agriculture. Specifically, grazing land sources, dairies,
feedlots, poultry operations, pasture and range are not affected by the FSA85 conservation programs. However,
in the context of a state NPS management program, the FSA8S provisions can provide a large part of the agricul-
tural NPS management program.
2
-------
CONSERVATION PROVISIONS OF THE FOOD SECURITY ACT
Federal conservation programs provide farmers with technical, financial, and educational assistance for
adopting farming practices that reduce erosion and water quality degradation. Agencies directly involved include
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), the Forest
Service (FS), the Cooperative Extension Service (CES), and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). Typi-
cally, SCS provides technical assistance in planning and installing conservation practices; the FS provides techni-
cal assistance for woodland management; the ASCS provides financial assistance (cost sharing) for conservation
practices; and the CES provides educational support. These boundaries are not firm, however, since the CES
provides some technical assistance, and the SCS and FS also provide educational support. As an example, ASCS’s
Agricultural Conservation Program is discussed in greater detail in the following box (Agricultural Conservation
Program).
Three new conservation programs were created by Title XII of FSA85: the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC), which includes Sodbuster and Conservation Compliance
(CC), and Wetland Conservation, which is addressed by the Swampbuster provision (see Figure 1). Each of these
programs is important for soil conservation and could be important for water quality. CRP offers financial incen-
tives to farmers for voluntarily retiring land from production and is the main focus of this section. This option is
offered throug i 1990 or until 45 million acres of cropland are entered into the program. In contrast to CRP, the
remaining provisions threaten non-complying farmers with substantial financial penalties by disqualifying them
from receiving USDA program benefits, including commodity payments, crop insurance, and price support loans.
As long a commodity prices remain low and participation in farm programs high, CC, Sodbuster, and Swampbuster
should be effective programs.
Food Security Act of 1985
Title XII—Conservation
I I I
Conservation Highly Wetland
Reserve Erodible Land Conservation
_____ I ______ I
Sodbuster Conservation Swampbuster
Compliance
Figure 1. Food Security Act of 1985 Conservation Programs
3
-------
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM
The ASCS provides cost-sharing incentives for the adoption and maintenance of conservation measures
through a number of programs. The majority of the cost-share funding is provided through the Agricul-
tural Conservation Program (ACP).
Disbursement of ACP cost-sharing funds to a single farm is limited by national regulations to 75% of the
farmer’s out-of-pocket expenses and a $3500 per year ceiling. However, the actual cost-share rate may be
lower. Priorities for ACP monies and selection of eligible practices can be influenced by concerned
citizens and organizations that participate in the county ASCS committee. If there is targeting, it is
generally based on erosion rate, but lands that contribute to water quality problems may also be targeted.
For instance, in North Carolina any agricultural land in designated water quality program counties is
eligible, but a higher priority is placed on those Iand that affect water quality.
Other federal programs that help farmers implement conservation practices are similar to ACP, al-
though their emphases may be different. Some programs promote conservation farming, while others en-
courage converting cropland to trees or wildlife habitat, and still others stress complete removal of land
from production. Despite a considerable history of soil conservation efforts, sediment remains a critical
factor in water pollution. State SCS and ASCS offices should be contacted for further information on
these programs.
Conservation Reserve Program
s stated in the Federal Register, “The primary purpose of the CRP is reducing the amount of erosion oc-
curring on our Nation’s cropland.” The objectives, as listed in the Final Rule (FR Vol.52, No. 28, pages 4265-4275)
are:
1. Reduce water and wind erosion,
2. Protect our long-term capability to produce food ard fiber,
3. Reduce sedimentation,
4. Improve water quality,
5. Create better habitat for fish and wildlife through impi-oved food and cover,
6. Curb production of surplus commodities, and
7. Provide needed income support for farmers.
CRP, together with CC, could be highly effective in controlling erosion and reducing NPS pollution, if cur-
rent goals are met. USDA projects a 45- 50% reduction in soil erosion from these programs (4).
To meet the objectives of the CRP, 40-45 million acres of highly erodible land will be taken out of produc-
tion for 10 years. The largest amount of eligible land is in the Corn Belt, but nearly every county in the nation has
some eligible cropland. Areas subject primarily to wind erosion account for a substantial portion, and so Texas
has the most acres eligible for CR? of any individual state. Eligible cropland by state is reported in Table 1 (ex-
cluding land eligible for filter strips). The CRP is a dynamic program and the definition of eligible cropland has
been modified a number of times. State or local USDA officials should be consulted for the current definition.
To avoid disturbance of the local economy, FSA85 establishes a limit of 25% of cropland per county to be
enrolled in CRP. A waiver is possible if requested by the local county government and supported by business in-
terests. The Secretary of Agriculture must make the final determination that such action will not adversely affect
the local economy.
4
-------
TABLE 1. Total Acres Eligible for the CRP by State
STATE TOTAL ACRES ELIGIBLE STATE TOTAL ACRES ELIGIBLE
AL 1,286,100 NV 196,900
AK N/A NH 23,800
AZ 196,800 NJ 193,100
AR 684,100 NM 871,600
CA 767,500 NY 1,225,300
CO 5,469,400 NC 1,527,800
CF 52,600 ND 2,790,500
DE 25,200 OH 1,529,800
FL 445,200 OK 2,949,300
GA 998,300 OR 1,212,500
HI 114,800 PA 1,980,800
ID 2,330,400 PR 242,500
IL 4,017,500 RI 3,300
IN 2,133,600 SC 364,600
IA 8,846,100 SD . 2,038,300
KS 7,032,000 TN 2,023,800
KY 2,054,600 TX 13,932,400
LA 244,600 UT 463,900
ME 132,000 VT 68,600
MD 439,500 VA 910,800
MA 48,000 WA 2,464,000
MI 828,800 WV 232,400
MN 2,327,000 WI 2,994,500
MS 1,575,300 WY 383,500
MO 5,226,800
MT 8,601,400
NE 5,034,200
TOTAL 101,535,800
‘Excluding land eligible as filter strips.
Source: Margheim, 1987.
Eligibility
Eligibility of a field for CRP is determined by its extent of Highly Erodible Land (HEL) and its crop history.
HEL can be identified from a list of soils available from the local county SCS office (see box on HIGHLY
ERODIBLE CROPLAND). The field’s crop history must show that it was planted to an agricultural commodity
crop other than orchards, vineyards, and ornamentals during 2 of the S crop years from 1981 to 1985.
An entire field may be eligible for CRP rental payments and permanent grass cover if 2/3 of its area is con-
sidered highly erodible. If the farmer elects to plant tree cover, only 1/3 of the field need be highly erodible. Fields
of 9 acres or larger may be subdivided to meet the 1/3 or 2/3 requirement, but a field may be subdivided only once
and each section must be at least 3 acres. NPS managers should consult with USDA officials regarding possible
modifications in eligibility requirements.
5
-------
HIGHLY ERODIBLE CROPLAND DEFINITION
For the CRP, Highly Erodible Land (HEL) Is defined as cropland with:
• Erosion Index (El) greater than 8, and a predicted annual erosion rate greater than that recom-
mended by the SCS Field Office Technical Guide; or
• Land Capability Class (LCC) Ii, Ill, IV, or V with a USLE of three times T; or
• LCC H, III , N, or Vwith USLE of two times T or greater and with a serious gully erosion
problem; or
• LCCVf,Vll,orVIll,
For sheet and nil erosion El is computed as:
RKLS!
where
• R, K, L, and S are factors in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (21), and
• T is the loss tolerance based on soil productivity.
For wind erosion El is computed as:
CL ’T
where
• C and I are factors in the Wind Erosion Equations (22), and
• T is the loss tolerance based on soil productivity.
LCCs are given with soils descriptions available from SCS.
USLE = Universal Soil Loss Equatlon,which predicts the annual erosion late.
RKLS = Ralnfall,.Soil Erodibility, Slope-Length, and Slope-Gradient factors In the USLE.
The SCS Field Office Technical Guide and a current list of eligible soils can be obtained from the county
SCS office.
Filter Strips
Riparian cropland areas may be eligible for CRP filter strips, even if they contain no highly erodible land.
Filter strips are intended by USDA to prevent off-site sedimentation and improve water quality of streams, lakes,
and estuaries, and so they may be particularly useful in NPS management programs. A filter strip for CRP puposes
must meet the cropland requirements and be adjacent and parallel to a perenial or seasonal stream (excluding gul-
lies and sod waterways) or a permanent waterbody 5 acres or greater in size. A seasonal stream is an intermittent
stream that flows only during wet seasons. Filter strips may only be 66 to 99 feet (1-1.5 chains) wide except in spe-
cial cases where a wider strip is needed.
Bidding and Signups
ASCS announces signup times and the location of pooi boundaries. Pool boundaries and maximum bid levels
are determined by land values, rental rates, production capabilities, major land resource areas, geopolitical boun-
daries, differences in climatic conditions within the state, and number of eligible acres per pool. Pool boundaries
have been used to isolate water quality priority areas and adjust maximum bid levels. Signups for the CR? will be
held each year through FY 1990 unless program funds are unavailable or the 45 million acre-goal is reached.
Farmers submit bids to county offices stating the annual rental payment they would accept to enroll in CR?.
They include a cropping history of the field from 1981- 1985 with their bids. SCS then determines eligibility for the
designated fields. County ASCS committees accept or reject producer bids based on the maximum bid level es-
tablished for the pooi in which the county is located. Maximum bid levels for previous bids arc gencrally announced.
6
-------
Producers who sign up agree to establish and maintain a soil-conserving cover on the land for at least 10
years. During this time, no harvest may be conducted on CRP land and the land cannot be grazed, although the
sale of hunting rights is permitted. Timber may be harvested after the land is released from the reserve. Producers
receive an annual rental payment in addtion to cost share for establishment of practices to control erosion and es-
tablish conservation cover.
Compliance is checked first by verification of practice completion and subsequently by spot checks. If land
is returned to production before contract expiration or if the contract is terminated because of other contract viola-
tions, the participant must repay with interest all annual rental and cost-share payments. An exception holds if
there is a national need to return land to production.
Payments
The actual amount of the rental payment depends on the accepted bid and designated field area. Each
recipient is limited to $50,000 annually in cash or commodity certificates. Rental payment is treated as taxable in-
come.
Placing land in the reserve has a negative effect on participants’ income from commodity programs (see box
on TERMS FOR COMMODITY PROGRAMS). The aggregate total of a producer’s base, allotment and quota
is reduced during the period of the contract. The reduction is determined by the ratio of acreage placed in CRP
to total cropland acreage on the farm. The participant chooses which base to reduce.
Participants also receive half the cost of establishing conservation cover not to exceed half the value of the
enrolled land. Seven practices are cost shared: permanent introduced grasses and legumes, permanent native gras-
ses and legumes, trees, wildlife cover, field windbreaks, shallow water areas for wildlife, and filter strips. Some
erosion control measures including diversions, erosion control structures, and grass waterways are cost shared if
needed. Cost to re-establish cover is also shared if the loss results from circumstances beyond the farmer’s con-
trol.
TERMS FOR COMMODITY AND PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Commodity programs exist for wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice, soybeans, dairy, peanuts, tobacco, sugar,
wool, mohair, and honey. Financial support is given to producers who voluntarily help control supply by
limiting their own production through base acreage, allotments and quotas. Financial support usually
falls into one of three categories: deficiency payments, loans or diversion payments. There is an annual
payment limit of $50,000 per producer (excluding CRP payments).
Deficiencypayments are direct payments to farmers. Under loan programs, the government loans the
producer money against the producer’s expected harvest.
Diversion payments are made to farmers for yield forgone on land diverted from production of the
surplus commodity crop.
Base Acreage, Allotments and Quotas Producers who receive commodity program benefits must limit
their production of commodity crops to their base acreage, allotment or quota, which are established on
historical production levels for their farm. In years of over-supply, producers must reduce production to
some fraction of their base as set by the Secretary of Agriculture. Land temporarily set aside from
producing a program crop is sometimes required to lay idle with a conservation cover. In some cases a
crop that is not covered by USDA commodity support programs may be produced.
Participation In supply control programs is mandatory for tobacco and other major crops. For example,
if a farmer has 1,000 total crop acres with 100 acres of corn base, 200 acres of wheat base, and SO acres of
tobacco allotment, his or her total base would be 350 acres. 11100 acres are entered into the Reserve, the
farmer must reduce his or her base by 10% (100 acres/1000 acres) or 35 acres (10% x 350 acres).
7
-------
Transfer of Contractual Obligations
A CRP contracts can be transferred if the new owner is willing to carry out the contracts terms and condi-
tions, and sign a new contract. Otherwise the original owner is responsible for refunding all rental and cost-share
payments.
Administration of CRP
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) administers CRP for the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) with assistance from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Forest Service (FS), the
Cooperative Extension Service (CES), and the Conservation District. The SCS role is primarily technical, deter-
mininghighlyerodible cropland, certifying land eligibility, developing conservation plans, and determining the ade-
quacy of conservation practices. When conservation plans involve tree planting, FS provides the technical assis-
tance and approval. The CES is designated to coordinate information and education programs for implementa-
tion of CR? and must concur in the establishment of minimum protective measures. The Conservation District,
which is active at the county level, participates in CR? deliberations, helps promote CR?, and, in conjunction with
ASCS County Committees, approves participants’ conservation plans. ASCS is also expected to utilize the ser-
vices of other conservation and environmental agencies to carry out its mission in the CRP.
The administrative structure of the CR? is shown in Figure 2. The ASCS Deputy Administrator of State and
County Operations is primarily responsible for administrating CRP. The ASCS State Technical Committee (STC)
directs the development and administration of CRP and oversees the activities of the ASCS County Committee
(COC). The County Committee establishes local policy and administers the CRP on a daily basis. County Com-
mittee activities include opening bid offers from applicants, approving contracts, establishing cost-share rates, and
handling violations and appeals. The Deputy Administrator may reverse or modify any determinations made by
the State Technical Committee or the County Committee, or he may authorize another person or persons to ad-
minister the CRP.
Secretary of Agriculture
I Administrator of ASCS
ASCS Deputy Administrator of State and County Operations
State Committee (STC) State Conservation Review Group (SCRG)
County Committee (COC) County Conservation Review Group (CCRG )
FIGURE 2. Administrative Structure for CRP Implementation
8
-------
Both the State Technical Committee and County Committee have review groups to advise them on policy
and practices. The ASCS CRP Field Handbook designate the membership of the State Conservation Review
Group (SCRG) to include the chairperson of the State Technical Committee, the state CES director, the state SCS
Conservationist, and a FS representative (19). In addition, the SCRG is directed to invite representation from an
open-ended list of federal and state conservation and water quality agencies, including EPA and the state water
quality agency. Members and invited participants of the review group committees are listed in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3. State and County Conservation Review Group Members
The SCRG recommends policies to the State Technical Committee that may have important implications for
implementation of Section 319 Management Plans at the state level including:
• Determine adequate erosion control criteria and date control must be achieved,
• Select eligible conservation practices from a national list,
• Coordinate CRP with other ongoing conservation programs,
• Carry out information and education programs,
• Recommend counties for inclusion in each pool, and
• Recommend minimum specifications for erosion control practices.
The County Conservation Review Group recommends to the County Committee cover practices from the
state list of eligible practices. SCS establishes minimum specifications for cover practices. The official member-
ship and list of invitees for the County Conservation Review Group is shown in Figure 3. State and local water
quality managers can work with their CCRGs to insure consistency among local water quality concerns and CRP
implementation.
STATE CONSERVATION REVIEW
GROUP MEMBERS:
• STC Chairperson serves as chairperson for
SCRG
• the state Extension Director
• the SCS State Conservationist
• a FS representative
COUNTY CONSERVATION REVIEW
GROUP MEMBERS (IF USED BY STC):
INVITED TO SCRG MEETINGS:
• COC Chairperson serves as Chairperson of
CCRG
• a county CES agent
• a FS representative
• the S S District Conservationist
• a Conservation District representative
• the state soil conservation commission,
• the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
• the state fish and game commission,
• the state forestry agency,
• the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA),
• the state water quality agency,
• the US Environmental Protection Agency, and
• other agencies that have interest in conservation.
INVITED TO CCRG MEETINGS:
• FmHA
• the state forestry agency
• the state fish and game commission
• any other conservation-oriented agencies or
organizations
9
-------
Sodbuster, Conservation Compliance, and Swampbuster
FSA85 includes Sodbuster, Conservation Compliance, and Swampbuster, provisions that mandate the loss
of USDA program benefits for those farmers who convert highly erosive land or wetlands to row crop production,
or produce row crops on highly erosive land without an approved conservation plan. USDA program benefits that
may be lost for noncompliance are listed in the box below (see box on USDA PROGRAM BENEFITS).
The Sodbuster provision is designed to discourage the conversion of highly erodible land for agricultural
production. If annually tilled crops are planted on highly erodible grassland or woodland, the landowner loses
eligibility for USDA program benefits for that crop year, unless the land is planted under a locally approved con-
servation system. Highly erodible land that was planted to annually tilled agricultural commodities or sugercane
during the period 1981-85 is exempt from this provision, but is covered under Conservation Compliance.
The Conservation Compliance provision applies to land where annually tilled crops were grown at least once
during the period 1981-85, and will apply to all highly erodible land in annual crop production by 1990. Under this
provision, eligibility for USDA program benefits will be lost if by January 1, 1990 the producer does not have an
approved conservation plan on his or her HEL. Approved conservation plans must employ a set of soil erosion
management practices that have been approved by the state S S and local Conservation Districts. These plans
are not required to address water quality. Conservation plans must be installed by January 1, 1995. (FR 35194 Vol.
52, No. 180, Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Consen,atio’i, Final Rule).
The Swampbuster provision is intended to discourage conversion of wetland for agricultural purposes. Under
this provision, eligibility for USDA program benefits is lost if wetlands are converted to cropland use (applicable
to wetlands converted after Dcc. 23, 1985). Eligibility for USDA programs is lost on all the land on the farm, not
just the wetland area. (FR 35194 Vol. 52, No. 180, Highly Erodibic Land and Wetland Conservation, Final Rule).
USDA PROGRAM BENEFITS*
• Price and income supports -
• Crop insurance
• Farmers Home Administration loans
• Commodity Credit Corporation storage payments
• Farm storage facility loans
• Conservation Reserve Program annual payments
• Other programs under which USDA makes comodity-related payments
These benefits may be lost for noncompliance with CC provisions
10
-------
INCORPORATING CRP INTO NPS MANAGEMENT PLANS
The Value of Permanent Vegetative Cover In State NPS Projects
States should work with USDA to promote grass or tree cover for those water quality critical areas eligible
for the CRP. Due to the high cost of establishing vegetative cover and the displacement of income-generating
cropland, this practice has not been widely employed in water quality projects. Where highly erosive cropland is
identified as critical to the watershed management plan, vegetative cover is one of the most effective BMPs for
controlling sediment movement, and for controlling nutrients and pesticides in solution or absorbed on the finer
soil particles (5). The CRP rental and cost-share payments also make permanent cover a feasible BMP for state
and local NPS management programs.
Sediment is the most pervasive pollutant for surface waters, and farmland is recognized as its major source
(6). Sedimentation reduces stream and reservoir capacities, contributes to increased flooding, disrupts biological
systems, degrades drinking water, and transports nutrients, bacteria and pesticides to waterways. Where Section
319 Management Programs address sediment problems originating from cropland, coordination with CRP will
likely represent an effective, low-cost solution.
Where nutrients, pesticides and turbidity problems are associated with highly erosive soils, vegetative cover
will reduce their contribution to the impaired resource. In the short term, grasses effectively stabilize nutrients.
Furthermore, CRP lands will receive far fewer fertilizer and pesticide applications. These benefits, however, may
be reduced if farmers increise the ii tcnsity of chemical applications on other fields.
The effectiveness of a coordinated Section 319/CRP effort depends on having resources to address other
pollution sources such as point sources, feedlots, irrigation discharge, grazing lands, mine discharge and urban
sources. Even in rural areas, point sources can have a substantial impact.
Filter Strips in State NPS Projects
The versatility of filter strips makes them important components for agricultural NPS management. Unlike
vegetative cover, discussed above, CRP filter strips are not limited to highly erosive soils. In combination with
upland erosion control practices, filter strips—especially contiguous ones—can help reduce loadings of sediment,
nutrients and pesticides. Alone, filter strips can play an important role in the management of riparian areas ad-
jacent to streams, lakes and wetlands.
Riparian areas are ecologically rich, providing wildlife habitat, improving fish habitat, and increasing recrea-
tional opportunities for land owners and visitors. Cropping activity removes the natural vegetative buffer in the
riparian areas that helps protect adjacent water bodies from agricultural pollutants.
A pamphlet titled Well Managed Stream Corridors (7), written by Craven, et. al., explains that vegetation
reduces the velocity of overland flow promoting deposition of sediment before it reaches the water body. The root
systems of grass and tree cover crops increase soil stability reducing bank erosion and slumping. As illustrated in
Figure 3, stream channels protected by a natural riparian buffer are generally narrower, deeper, and more suitable
for fish and macro invertebrates. Shading effects of overhanging vegetation can reduce summer water tempera-
tures, which is desirable for trout, small mouth bass and other sport fish.
Many experts feel that a filter strip consisting of 50 to 100 feet of natural vegetation provides an effective
buffer zone to protect water quality and improve conditions for fish and other aquatic organisms (8). Performance
as a filter strip, however, requires that concentrated flows be dispersed across the buffer and channclization be
11
-------
Two panels showing a stream and adja-
cent bank before and after improvement.
The TOP PANEL shows a corn field
planted up to the stream bank. Cropland
runoff carries soil from fields directly to
the stream. The streambanks are
unprotected and actively eroding. This
situation produces a warm, shallow, silted
stream with limited fish life.
The BOTTOM PANEL shows the same
area 10 years later. The field has been set
back. Vegetation between the field and
stream protects water quality by reducing
runoff and siltation and filtering potential
chemical pollutants. The stream is nar-
rower, deeper, cooler and supports greater
numbers and types of fish. The streamside
vegetation also provides wildlife habitat.
INFILTRATION
Figure 3. Riparian Benefits of Filter Strips (From Craven, et al., 1987)
12
-------
avoided in the filter strip area. This may require engineered spreaders or special maintenance practices to prevent
gully erosion or deposition, and to assure that filter strips perform as desired. Where cropland includes flood
plains or wetlands, or where wildlife benefits are desired, larger filter strips may be needed.
In the control of upland erosion, Karr and Schlossqr report that filter strips can effectively control sediment
from sheet and shallow channel runoff (9). Where upland conditions create gullies or channels, or deposition
smothers the grass cover, more intensive upland controls maybe required (5). In some areas, additional funds will
be needed to stabilize severely eroding channels and to install fencing to keep cattle from grazing too close to the
stream.
Setting Priorities For NPS Management Programs
Focusing agency money and staff on a few small NPS watershed projects may be prudent in light of the four-
year implementation period of the WQA. Prioritization of water quality problems focuses attention on resources
that can be adequately treated with available financial and technical support. Funds spread too thinly are unlike-
lyto yield observable improvement in water quality or to increase beneficial uses. Lack of benefits may dampen
public and legislative enthusiasm for continued NPS project support.
An effective NPS program matches program authority and resources with water resource needs. Factors to
consider include the degree and type of water resource problem; the type, magnitude and distribution of NPS and
point sources of pollution; and, the regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms for addressing the problem. (3).
Political input also plays an important role in balancing the quantifiable and unquantifiable factors used in
the selection of priority watersheds. Showcasing a NFS project can help in the long term success of a NPS program,
but care should be taken to insure that technical considerations and public benefits (in comparison to costs) are
not overlooked.
Voluntary participation is the cornerstone of most NPS projects. However, a balanced program with a strong
information and education (I&E) component, positive incentives, and appropriate regulatory authority is the best
approach. Voluntary participation is strongly influenced by the farmers’ acceptance of the project’s water quality
objectives. State or local regulations that require farmers to reduce off-farm damages can significantly boost
farmers’ willingness to participate. Economic stress and lack of positive incentives, however, will tend to diminish
farmers’ capability to participate.
Developing and Coordinating an Interagency Program
Seldom does a single agency have the resources necessary to implement a successful NPS management
program. For this reason marshaling the authority, and the appropriate talent and funding required for effective
NPS control often leads to an effective interagency program. This manual explains how to combine the resources
of state water quality offices with USDA CRP and other conservation programs to improve NPS impaired or
threatened water resources.
Before discussing specifically the means of incorporating CRP in Section 319 programs, we first review some
general guidelines for interagency cooperation from the Selling Priorities manual (3).
Establish Agency Roles
Some important lessons learned in program management have come from the Model Implementation
Program (MIP) projects (1978-1982). Based on these lessons we recommend that individual NPS control programs
designate a program coordinator from the state agency charged with NPS program management (18). The lead
agency should be locally based and have implementation of Section 319 of the WQA as a primary mandate.
13
-------
Alongside the potential strengths of an integrated NPS program lies the danger that pooling agency resour-
ces may create a whole less than the sum of its parts. To avoid duplication of effort and conflict of authority, the
cooperating agencies should meet and determine the role each will fulfill: data collection, I&E, technical assis-
tance, program development and implementation,- public relations, etc. Each agency’s potential NPS resources
should also be considered: loan potential, cost-sharing programs, legal authority, and staff levels and capabilities.
Including all affected or related parties a the planning stage is critical in starting a NPS control project on the right
foot.
Set Realistic Program Goals
Program goals should be stated clearly in quantitative, measurable terms so that progress and accomplish-
ments can be assessed. Water quality standards, pollution concentrations or loadings, restoring biological resour-
ces, or amount of land or sources treated provide the basis for program goals. Sufficient flexibility should be retained
so that goals can be modified as knowledge of the dynamics of the water resource problem is obtained. Interim
goals can be developed for each phase of the project with each participating agency recognizing the time required
to complete each task.
There are two distinct time-frames to consider in establishing realistic goals: (1) the time to implement and
develop a watershed level management program; and, (2) the response-time of the water resource. Additional
time-four to six years or possibly more—may be required to confirm water resource improvement (20).
Develop Interagency Agreements
The roles and responsibilities of cooperating agencies and procedures to ensure effective interagency coor-
dination should be specified in written agreements and guidelines. This will serve to clarif i each agency’s role and
to prevent future misunderstandings. Although in many states this was done in a general way as part of the 208
planning process, NPS implementation programs may need to be much more specific in terms of tasks and respon-
sibilities. States should consult with their appropriate offices to identify appropriate inter-governmental contract
or agreement instruments.
Implementation of a Coordinated State Agricultural NPS Program
Increased Education of Farmers in Priority Watersheds
As a result of the voluntary nature of most NPS projects, I&E effoi ts are essential for obtaining farmer par-
ticipation. One-on-one meetings, while time-consuming, are com.iste ly viewed as the most effective technique
for increasing participation (10). Pamphlets and educational brozhures on the CRP are available from CES, SCS
and ASCS. While these resources are excellent for notit 4ng farmers of thc existence of the Program, they may
need to be supplemented with other materials and further publicity to stir interest and focus attention on local
water quality objectives.
The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) and the local Conservation District can be important players in
the development and delivery of information and education on the management of soil and water resources. In
1987, CES declared its National Water Quality Initiatives (11) emphasizing the importance of state and local water
quality concerns. In addition, CES has direct access to universities and experience in adapting basic research to
fit local needs.
Delivery Systems. Gettingtheniessage out should include one-on-one consultations in combination with tours,
field days, workshops and publications. Water quality managers may be able to reach a broader audience of farmers
if they take advantage of existing gatherings such as county and state fairs, commodity group meetings, workshops
and training sessions. Demonstration farms and test plots can be particularly effective for demonstrating effective
use of CRP vegetative cover, wildlife areas, filter strips and the economic advantages of tree planting.
14
-------
Pamphlets should be prepared to focus attention on the impaired resource, the benefits of watcr quality im-
provement, how farmers can help contribute to the success of the project, and the financial and regulatory incen-
tives for participation. A map that identifies the project boundaries, contributing watersheds, and critical areas
would also be helpful.
Target Audiences. Landowners in critical areas should be targeted for one-on- one discussions. Community
leaders, private farm organizations, producer groups, youth groups and environmental organizations can help com-
municate the objectives and benefits of the watershed project. A CRP outreach effort conducted by the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation is discussed in the box below (CHESAPEAKE BAY OUTREACH PROGRAM
PROMOTES CRP).
Incentives to Participate in the CRP
The potential for the CRP to assist in a state NPS management program depends on the the CRP’s local
rental rate and out-of-pocket costs for conservation practices (considering cost-share incentives), and the
cropland’s income generating potential (considering future costs to meet Conservation Compliance requirements).
A surveybyNowak and Schnepf(12) found evidence that farmers balance the stability ofguaranteed income against
the cost resulting from loss of base when evaluating participation in CRP (see box, WHY FARMERS DO OR
DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CRP). States can increase farmers’ incentive to participate by piggy-backing
state funds onto CRP cost-share money or rental payments.
CHESAPEAKE BAY OUTREACH PROGRAM PROMOTES CRP
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) recently conducted a test outreach program to encourage
greater participation in USDA’s February 1-19,1988 CRP sign-up period. Agricultural NPS pollution is
recognized as contributing to the Bay’s nutrient enrichment problem.
Earlier CRP sign-ups in the Chesapeake Bay region Jagged far behind the Nation with Maryland averag-
ing 0.8% of eligible acres enrolled versus 23% for the Nation. While high land values, development pres-
sure, and low CRP payments were Identified as three reasons for low farmer participation, many farmers
were not aware of the CRP, the recent addition of filter strips, and the CRP’s potential for improving the
Bay’s water quality. The addition of filter strips was expected to have expanded the program’s
popularity.
The problem was that someone needed to tell the farmers that the CRP existed, that it had potentially
large benefits for the Bay, and how to sign-up. CBF, in cooperation with local ASCS offices, decided to
target farmers in Montgomery and Carroll Counties for an intensive outreach effort. They concluded
that, if their efforts were successful, participation in these two counties would increase by more than the
surrounding counties.
Using a bank of volunteer callers, CBF contacted farmers throughout Carroll and Montgomery Coun-
ties. Prior to the phone calls, ASCS had sent to area farmers an information package on the CRP.
Volunteers were supplied with a model telephone script to make sure that all the pertinent information
was covered. The script covered rental and cost-share rates, importance of Conservation Compliance
Provisions, sign-up dates, and filter strip provisions. For those farmers who wanted more information,
ASCS contacted the farmer directly.
The results suggested that the outreach effort was successful in Carroll County and less successful in
Montgomery County. Carroll County farmers increased their enrollment in the CRP from 230 acres to
832 acres--a 262% increase. On the average, Maryland farmers increased their participation statewide by
108%, from 3400 acres to 7100 acres. Farmers in Montgomery County showed less interest in the CRP,
Increasing their total enrollments by only 131 acres to 555 acres--a 31% Increase. Development pressure
is strong in Montgomery County and provides a more attractive alternative than the CRP.
15
-------
WHY FARMERS DO OR DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CRP
Nowak and Schnepf surveyed SCS, ASCS, and CES field employees for their views on farmers’ attitudes
regarding participation in the CRP (12). The USDA employees reported three major reasons farmers
participate in the Reserve: (1) the opportunity for a guaranteed Income; (2) the opportunity to increase
their financial returns from land that was not profitable; and, (3) to assist in meeting current loan pay-
ments. The same survey also reported that farmers might not participate in the CRP because: (1) rental
rates were not high enough; (2) farmers were not willtng to forgo base acres or other farm benefits; and,
(3) the restrictions on harvesting or gaining an econcniic return on the cover crop. Farmers weigh the
positive incentives (rental payments and cost-sharing) against lost income-generating opportunities of
the cropland and out-of- pocket costs of establishing the required cover.
In theory, maximum CRP rental payments are set, in each county, to remove the poor quality or marginal
cropland from production. These rental rates are consistc.nt with the Program’s objective to reduce output of
surplus commodities. High erosion rates and large chemical losses from these lands often contribute substantial-
lyto NPS problems. Where CRP- eligible cropland overlaps with NPS critical areas, CRP-rental rates may provide
farmers with a sufficient financial incentive to participate in a watershed management program. The CRP can be
attractive, especially for part-time or small farms, where low profits combined with expensive treatment costs can
make traditional BMPs prohibitively expensive.
Alerting farmers in critical areas to the existence of the CRP and the possibility that their marginal cropland
may be more profitable in the Reserve should be an important element of a water quality manager’s I&E efforts.
A 1987 survey of Virginia farmers in the Chesapeake Bay area found that 50% of the farmers had not heard of the
CRP r did not have sufficient information to decide if they should participate (13). It may also be necessary to
help farmers recognize which croplands are eligible for the CRP. According to the Nowak and Schnepf survey,
USDA personnel believed that 78% of the time farmers evaluated their erosion rate inaccurately or only some-
what accurately (12).
Where CRP-rental rates are too low to draw entire fields of highly erosive cropland into the CRP, use of fil-
ter strips may offer a solution. Farmers may be willing to consider enrolling 66 to 99-foot strips of cropland—ad-
jacent to streams, lakes, or wetlands—into the CRP’s filter strip program. For small farms, CRP’s minimum field
size may also be a stumbling block to targeting critical areas into the CRP. The NPS effort should take advantage
of the filter strips option to protect riparian areas and establish a buffer between active cropland and water resour-
ces.
Piggy-backingstate funds to augment CRP. Secretary of Agriculture Richard E. Lyng has expressed his com-
mitment to working with state CRP targeting efforts and has stated, “Nonfederal entities are encouraged to provide
additional incentives to bring specific acres into the [ CRP). ’ (14) In NPS critical areas, this is an invitation to use
CRP as a base of support to address state water quality problems. Additional state incentives may take the form
of additional cost-share money to implement BMPs on CRP land, annual or lump-sum payments to augment the
CRP-rental payments, or more innovative incentives. In some cases, states may find it advantageous to re-program
existing state cost-share funds. Where states use their cost-share or other funds as an extra inducement, state funds
will be able to reduce erosion and minimize off-farm damages on far more acres of cropland.
Several state and federal agencies have already begun programs to piggy-back their funds onto the CRP
program. Examples are described in the boxes below (Case Study 1,11, and ill): The Department of Interior (DO!)
leverages CRP rental payments with additional federal funds to protect important wetland habitat areas in the
Prairie Pothole regions of North and South Dakota, and Minnesota. A state program is North Carolina uscs state
funds to provide additional cost-share money for BMP implementation.
16
-------
CASE STUDY I
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WETLAND BONUS
In order to expand upland waterfowl habitat near wetlands, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) coor-
dinated their Wetland Easement Program (WEP) with the CRP. WEP is designed to preserve wetland
areas for waterfowl, however, areas upland of wetlands are also necessary for nesting habitat. By coor-
dinatingCRP and WEP, the FWS was able to provide farmers with greater incentive to convert their
highly erosive crophand located near wetlands into upland habitat for waterfowl. This resulted in a bet-
ter mix of wetland and uplands for waterfowl habitat.
Farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota who already had wetland easements under WEP
and who made successful bids to CRP, were eligible for the bonus program. A few exceptions were al-
lowed where the land had a very good wetland complex either on or adjacent to it. All other eligibility re-
quirements were the same as for CRP. In a few cases the field office would require a certain cover estab-
lished on the land, but this also was an exception and depended on the discretion of the field office
agents.
Advertisement of the program was through various media, particularly newspaper. Individual letters
were also sent to WEP easement holders before the CRP signups. In writing contracts and making pay-
ments, the Service’s field offices dealt directly with the landowners. After the landowner’s was ac-
cepted for the CRP, the landowner signed a contract with FWS for an additional $5 per acre accepted
into the CRP. Payment for this bonus was only for 1 year. WEP used its original $300,000 in the winter
1987 CRP signup to enroll approximately 60,000 acres. Without the CRP, WEP enrollment would have
been far below this amount. FWS has a waiting list of additional participants should additional funds
become available.
The Fish and Wildlife Service bonus program attracted land into the CRP, which might not have been
otherwise entered, to improve the wildlife resource. This program meshed very well with the CRP
program. -
CASE STUDY II
REINVEST IN MINNESOTA (RIM) CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
The RIM Conservation Reserve Program links the objectives of soil conservation, wildlife preservation,
and surface water quality maintenance and improvement. These objectives are accomplished by convert-
ing marginal cropland to permanent grass or trees. Participating farmers receive a one-time payment,
in addition to cost sharing for establishing cover. The state has appropriated $10 million for acquiring
marginal cropland for the conversion to permanent grass and trees.
Local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) administer the program and define local priority
areas using guidelines establised by state law. After the SWCD board approves an application, SCS and
cooperating agencies develop a site management plan, and the applicants installs the approved BMPs
and agrees to maintain the practices. Once it has been certified that that permanent vegetative cover is
established, the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board pays the farmer.
Croptand targeted for inclusion in the RIM Program must be marginally productive and either con-
tribute to a water quality problem or be highly erosive. Land is not eligible for the RIM Program if it is
currently set-aside, enrolled, or diverted under other federal or state government programs including
17
-------
Federal Conservation Reserve, Federal Production Adjustmeni Set- Aside, or State or Federal Water Bank.
Farmers are given the option to sign a 10-year easement, 20-year easement, or a perpetual easement. The
10 and 20 year easements consist of discounted lump sum payments equal to 90% of the average CRP bid in
that county. The perpetual easement offers a one-time payment equal to 70% of the township’s average till-
able land value. Approximately 60% of the land entered into the program has been put into perpetual ease-
ments. For establishing permanent grass or tree cover, or supporting practices, the farmer receives up to
$75 per acre.
The use of easements, rather than contracts as in the CR1’, provides some additional benefits. If land en-
rolled in RIM is sold before the easement period is up, the e.tsement Is still binding. In addition, farmers
are not allowed to return RIM payments to the state in exchange for negating the easement.
CASE STUDY III
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURE COST-SHARE PROGRAM
The purpose of the North Carolina cost-share program is to reduce the input of sediments, nutrients,
animal wastes and pesticides into the waters of the stale through an Increased and targeted use of BMPs.
BMPs are designed to prevent nonpoint source pollution and are cost shared with the landowner. Thu
program recognizes water quality improvement as its primary objective.
Local soil and water conservation districts work with landowners and renters to Identify appropriate BMPs
and develop conservation plans. Following approval of a plan by the district supervisor, and completion of
the BMPs, cost-share funds are provided to the farmer.
Landowners are reimbursed for up to 75 percent of the average cost of implementing a system of BMPs.
Landowners may provide In-kind labor, material or equipment to reduce out-of-pocket costs. Where
animal wastes are being applied, farmers must also agree to conduct soil tests to determine appropriate
levels of nitrogen application. Agreements can be on an annual basis or long-term (up to 3 years). The
landowner also agrees to maintain the BMPs for the minimur i life of the practices.
Eligibility is based on availability of funds and potential irapact on water quality. In counties designated for
the cost-share program, any landowner or renter of agriuiltura lands is eligible to participate. Greater
priority, however, is given to cropland that is causing a severe water quality problem.
BMPs cost-shared through this program include animal waste management systems, conservation tillage
and other cultural practices, cover crops, and structural soil and water conservation practices. Cost-share
payments must be used to accomplish one of the following objectives: (1) prevent erosion and the detach-
nient of soil particles and associated nutrients, (2) limit the availability of potential pollutants that could
be transported to a stream system, or (3) prevent the transport of pollutants to a stream system.
Coordination of CRP and cost-share programs like North Carolina’s could enhance the ability of both
programs to conserve soil and protect water quality. The Cost-Share Program could be used to pay part or
all of the CRP particIpant’s cost for establishing grass or tree cover. This would reduce the farmer’s costs
and should, therefore, increase participation in the CRP.
18
-------
Regulatory Authority. Experience in the Florida and Oregon RCWP projects suggests that farmer par-
ticipation in NPS watershed projects is greatly enhanced where effective state or local NI’S regulations exist. These
regulations require or strongly encourage farmers to take a more active role in controlling their own sources of
pollution.
The combination of positive incentives, such as cost-share money, and enforcable regulations can be very ef-
fective in increasing participation in voluntary pollution control programs. The technical assistance and rental pay-
ments provided by the program gives the farmer the incentive to participate; the regulations give the farmer in-
ducement to seek technical assistance.
Long-Term Advantage .f Tree Cover. In addition to providing excellent water quality and wildlife benefits,
trees can enhance the longevity of CRP leases beyond their slated ten years. Follow-up studies of the Soil Bank
program in the South found that 86% of the trees planted still existed 15 to 20 years later (15). A similar study of
trees planted under the Agricultural Conservation Program in the 1960s showed a 92% retention rate 10 to 15 years
after planting (16). Tree planting is particularly suitable for the most marginal areas where the returns for trees
exceed that for crops.
Evaluating the applicability of CRP to a targeted watershed
A number of local indicators can be used to estimate potential farmer participation and the CRP’s useful-
ness in a NI’S watershed management program. These include crop price and subsidy levels, amount of base acres,
current CRP participation level, and regulatory and cross-compliance requirements. The local District Conser-
vationist and Extension Agent should be able to provide much of this information; but, care should be used be-
cause county level data may not accurately represent conditions for targeted farms or small watershed areas.
Crop prices and subsidy levels play an important role in determining the likelihood of a farmer submitting a
CRP bid. Peanuts and tobacco, for example, are very profitable so that their inclusion in the CRP is very unlike-
ly. A moderately productive acre of peanut land can yield approximately 6 times more revenue than a similarly
producthre acre of corn, while an acre of tobacco land can yield 15 times more revenue than an acre of corn (17).
Higher production costs for peanuts and tobacco, compared to corn, will partially offset these differences. Table
2 shows the average per acre value for a number of crops and participation by crop in the CRP. As might be ex-
pected, peanuts and tobacco represent a very small percentage of total enrollments.
Many farmers are reluctant to place their highly erosive land in the Reserve because they must reduce their
base acres and sacrifice a portion of their price subsidies. Furthermore, CRP regulations do not allow farmers with
base acres to place only their less profitable non-base acres in the Reserve. The cropland enrolled is a prescribed
mix of base and non-base acres. In addition, where real-estate development has increased land values, farmers
may have less interest in the Reserve.
TABLE 2. CRP Crop Data
Corn Sorghum Barley Oats Wheat Rice Cotton Peanuts Tobacco
S
Base Acres in CRP
(x mil.) 2.7 1.7 1.8 0.8 6.9 0.01 0.9 0.01 0.001
Value of’ 5 Production
($/acre) $284 $141 $99 $81 $188 $430 $353 $632 $3612
çRP base acres represent 65% of total sign-ups. Crop data is not available for non-base acres.
Value of Production equals Total Value of Production divided by Total Acres Harvested.
Source: Agricultural Staiisiics Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1986.
19
-------
Current participation level in the CRP may also indicate future participation in the critical area. Future par-
ticipation may turn downwards if most marginal cropland is already in the Reserve, if demand for local crops is in-
creasing, if the county has reached its CRP cropland limit, or if other USDA programs are more attractive. Infor-
mation on current county participation is available from ASCS and SCS state and county offices.
Under the Conservation Compliance (CC) provisions, farmers with highly erosive cropland must implement
a conservation plan by 1995 to maintain eligibility for federal subsidy programs. It is expected that 83 million acres
will need treatment at an initial cost of $25 to $60 per acre (4). CRP offers an attractive alternative to CC require-
ments for those farms with marginal cropland that meet all highly erodible land critieria, cropping history, and
ownership requirements. Of the 83 million acres that require treatment under CC, it is expected that 45 million
of the most difficult to manage acres will be enrolled in the CRP (4).
Long-Term Maintenance of NPS Controls
The CRP can be an effective tool to improve water resources impaired by cropping activities, however, states
will need to insure the long-term maintenance of NPS controls made possible by CRP. After ten years, farmers
participating in the Reserve are allowed to return their cropland to production. At the same time, impaired water
resources may require 3 to 5 years to show improvement and longer to reach their desired status.
The Conservation Compliance program will play a major role in maintaining CRP water quality improve-
ments. As CRP leases expire, many farmers will be required to implement CC plans that minimize the soil erosion
from these croplands. While it is too early to say how effective these plans will be in reducing off-site impacts,
states should have an opportunity to work with farmers and SCS to insure that the best possible plans are imple-
mented. Because farmer participation in CC is tied to farm program benefits, some farmers with highly produc-
tive soils who do not participate in these programs may revert back to the same cropping practices used prior to
the CRP. In other cases, farmers may find it more profitable to leave their highly erosive cropland in vegetative
cover rather than go to the expense of implementing a CC plan.
As mentioned earlier, tree planting, instead of vegetative cover, can increase the effective longevity of CRP
leases 5 to 10 years. Tree planting maybe particularly appropriate for CRP filter strips because CC will not protect
these croplands after the CRP leases expire. Proper timber harvesting, however, is important to minimize off-site
impacts.
Lastly, states may develop their own programs that either encourage or require farmers to minimize the ef-
fect of returning CRP lands on important water resources. States may want to consider additional payments or
tax incentives for farmers who agree to continue their CRP lease with the state temporarily or permanently. Educa-
tion campaigns that stress the important role CRP lands played in improving water quality may also help. Some
states may find that a regulatory program works best. A combination of these different approaches will probably
be most effective. The success of the CRP at improving water quality will probably determine the likelihood of a
state developing new agricultural NPS programs.
Checklist for Section 319ICRP CoordInation
To facilitate Section 319/CRP coordination, see the checklist in Figure 4. It suggests a list of activities to
promote a coordinated program. Each state should modify this list to fit its circumstances. The basic elements of
the coordinated effort illustrated in the checklist, are described below.
Identify NPS Critical Watersheds from Section 319 NPS Assessments. Effective use of the CRP in state Sec-
tion 319 NPS programs starts with targeting. The targeting approach recommended in EPA’s NPS Guidance
Manual is to identify impaired water resources then develop programs to treat the highest priority resources first.
EPA recommends prioritization of water resources based on: a) an identifiable water impairment that is control-
lable with available BMPs; b) high probability of water quality improvement given funding and staff resources; and,
c) high public use value. A detailed discussion of the targeting concept is provided in “Setting Priorities: the Key
to Nonpoint Source Pollution,” available from EPA Headquarters and Regional offices (3).
20
-------
CHECKLIST FOR SECTION 319/CRP COORDINATION
Activity Completed
1) Identify NPS Critical Watersheds from Section 319 NPS Assessment
Review Section 319 NPS assessment —
Evaluate NPS and point source contributuion for critical watersheds —
2) Select NPS Critical Watersheds for Section 319/CRP Coordination
Identify watersheds where permanent vegetative cover and filter strips
could lead to water quality improvements —
Evaluate potential CRP participation by area farmers —
3) Develop Interagency Program
Participate in state and county Review Group meetings —
Establish agency roles —
Set realistic goals —
Develop interagency agreements —
4) Implement Coordinated NPS Watershed Management Program
Identify overlap between CRP eligible cropland and water
quality critical areas
Publicize NPS watershed project and CRP opportunities —
Target farmers in critical areas for personal contact
Identify additional funding sources to piggy-back M state and local
funds with cost-share monies and rental payments from CRP —
Facilitate CRP sign-up for farmers in critical areas —
Control NPS and point sources not eligible for CRP —
5) Develop Strategy for Long-Term NPS Controls
Promote CRP tree planting —
Develop state and local NPS initiatives —
Coordinate with Conservation Compliance activities —
Develop long-term working relationship with USDA
21
-------
Select NPS Critical Watersheds for Section 319/CRP Coordination. States should review a number of fac-
tors before determining if a coordinated Section 319/CRP effort is worthwhile for a watershed impaired by agricul-
tural activities. Farmers may be more inclined to participate in the Reserve where CRP participation is already
high, farming is less profitable, or farmers are faced with the implementation of expensive Conservation Com-
pliance plans. In contrast, production of highly profitable crops, the existence of base acres, and competition from
real estate developers can increase farmer reluctance to place their highly erosive cropland in the Reserve. Water-
sheds where the CRP can help improve water quality should be identified in NI’S Assessment Reports.
Develop Interagency Program. When coordinating Section 319 activities and CRP, state water quality offi-
cials should work with ASCS State Conservation Review Group and County Conservation Review Group mem-
bers. The review groups provide important input to the State Technical Committee regarding erosion control
criteria, eligible conservation practices, information and education programs, and other items of importance to a
NI’S control effort.
Coordination requires state water quality agencies and USDA to focus program resources and expertise on
NI’S control efforts that will achieve both Section 319 and CRP objectives. A clear understanding of each agency’s
roles, responsibilities and capabilities, and realistic program goals is critical to successful coordination. The inter-
agency mechanism for coordinating Section 319 and CRP should be presented in each state’s NPS management
program report.
Implement a Coordinated NPS Watershed Management Program. Permanent vegetative cover and filter
strips are available under the CRP to interested farmers on a voluntary basis. For state water quality agencies, the
CRP facilitates the implementation of these BMPs and provides a mechanism for controlling agricultural NPS pol-
lution originating from highly erosive cropland.
Permanent vegetative cover on highly erosive cropland and filter strips adjacent to streams can effectively
reduce certain agricultural NI’S pollutants to surface waters. Vegetative cover is effective for reducing nutrient,
pesticide and turbidity problems where they are associated with highly erosive soils. Filter strips can help control
sediment and associated pollutants from sheet and shallow channel runoff. Filter strips can also enhance riparian
flora and fauna.
States can enhance CRP’s role in improving water quality by publicizing the CRP in targeted watersheds and
notifying farmers that their highly erosive marginal cropland may be more profitable in the Reserve. One-on-one
discussions with farmers in NPS critical areas of the watershed is an especiallyeffective method for publicizing in-
formation.
CRP can serve as a base of support to address agricultural NPS pollution with states providing additional
funds to increase CRP participation in NI’S critical areas. State incentives to increase CRP participation include
additional cost-share money to implement BMPs, annual or lump-sum payments to augment CRP rental payments,
or more innovative incentives. Directing state cost-share funds to augment CRP payments can significantly ex-
pand the effectiveness of state resources for reducing agricultural NI’S pollution.
Develop Strategy for Long-Term NPS Controls. States can play an important role in developing a long-term
strategy for maintaining water quality improvements gained with the help of CRP. Issues to consider include the
CC provisions, promoting tree planting, developing state and local initiatives, and developing a long-term work-
ing relationship with USDA.
22
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) U.S. EPA. December 1987. Nonpoint Source Guidance. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
(2) U.S. EPA. State Clean WaterStrategies, Meezingthe Challenges of the Future. Office of Water, Washington,
D.C.
(3) Maas, R.P., M.D. Smolen, CA. Jamieson, A.C. Weinberg. July 1987. Setting Priorities: The Key to Non-
point Source Control. USEPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. and North Carolina
Extension Service, Raleigh.
(4) Margheim, G.A. “The Food Security Act of 1985.” Winter Meetings of the American Society of Ag. En-
gineers, Chicago: December 15-18, 1987.
(5) NWQEP. August 1982. State-of-the-Art Review of BMPs for Agricuftural NI’S Control, III.Sedinient.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh; in cooperation with USEPA and USDA.
(6) Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. America’s clean Waler The
State’s Nonpoint Source Assessment. Washington, D.C.: ASIWPCA, January 1985.
(7) Craven, Scott, Gary Jackson, William Swenson, and Bruce Webendorfer. The Benefits of Well-Managed
Stream Conidors. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Service, August 1987.)
(8) Sullivan, “Using Buffer Zones to Battle Pollution”, EPA Journal, May 1986. pp.8-10.
(9) Karr, J.R. and IS. Schiosser, “Impact of Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on Water
Quality and Stream Biota.” EPA-60013-77-097, 1977.
(10) Newell, Avis, Len Stanley, Michael Smolen, and Richard Mans. 0 verview and Evaluation of Section
108-A Great Lakes Demonstration Programs. EPA-905/9-86-001. Chicago: U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National
Program Office, March 1986.
(11) USDA. “National Water Quality Initiative.” Extension Service, Office of the Administrator, Washington,
D.C., 1988.
(12) Nowak, Pete, and Max Schnepf, “Implications of the Conservation Reserve Provisions of the 1985 Farm
Bill: A survey of the County Level USDA Personnel.” Journal of Soil and Water Conseivation, July-August 1987,
V.42, N.4, p.285.
(13) Ligon, P., S. Batie, W. Kerns, D. Taylor, and P. Siegel. “Chesepeake Bay Farmers Participation in the
CRP.” Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia State University, In Review.
(14) Press release, USDA, Office of Information, Jan. 15, 1988.
(15) Alig, RJ., TJ. Mills and R.L. Shackelford. 1980. “Most Soil Bank Plantings Have Been Retained; Some
Need Follow-up Treatments,” Southern Journal ofApplied Forestay. 4:1 (pp. 6 O- 64 ).
(16) Kurtz, W.B., RJ. Aug. and TJ. Mills. “Retention and Condition of Agricultural Conservation Program
Conifer Plantings,” Journal of Forestry. 78:5 (pp.713-276).
(17) USDA. 1986. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, D.C.
23
-------
(18) Dressing, S.A., J.M. Kreglow, R.P. Maas, F’.A. Koehier, FJ. Humenik, L. Marston, M. Rubino, R.
Weaver. An Evaluation of the Management and Water Quality Aspects of the Model Inzplenientation Program.
Raleigh, NC: National Water Quality Evaluation Project and Harbridge House, Inc., June 1983.
(19)USDA. ASCS Handbook Conservation Reserve Program, For Stare and County Offices (1-CRP).
Washington, D.C.: USDA, August 1987.
(20) National Water Quality Evaluation Project. NWQEP 1985 Annual Report, Status of Agricultural NPS
Projects. USDA Cooperative Agreement #12-05-300-472; U.S. EPA Interagency Agreement #AD-12-f-0-037-0.
Raleigh, NC: June, 1986.
(21) Wischmeier, W.H. and Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to ônseriation Plan-
ning. Agricultural Handbook 537. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1978.
(22) Woodruff, N.P. and F.H. Siddoway. A Wind Erosion Equation. Proceedings of the Soil Science Society
of America. Vol. 29, No.5, 1965.
24
------- |