Farm Bill Network Discussion Group Summaries

February 06, 2001

Topic : EBI, Brome Fields, Managed Use of CRP,

Summarized by Murat Demirtasli, and Wendy Dickie umbsn@smumn.edu

Participants: William (Bill) Gibbons, Kathy Zavoral, Prairie Land Management Inc (Kylie), Nadine (NC Times), John Cole

In this discussion, participants debated about the current management practices of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). They discussed whether the CRP should be more or less active in managing its land in order to maintain environmental benefits, as well as keep farmers happy. Participants stated that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are to be involved only in the establishment period, while the "manager" or owner of the contract acres are responsible for maintenance. It is the managers’ decision whether to reserve their CRP funds for prescribed burns, mowing, or other management practices. Participants stated that landowners need to be more responsible for their CRP lands rather than expect the NRCS and FSA to baby-sit their contracts. Some stated they felt managers were not using their Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) payment ($5.00-per-acre per-year) appropriately, and discussed the possibility of the CRP adopting a more incentive-based system. Following are highlights from the discussion:

William (Bill) Gibbons

• As a supervisor on a conservation district I understand where Kathy is
  coming from in her opposition to having NRCS "baby-sit" management issues for
  10-15 years, as most NRCS offices already have an overwhelming work load.
  However, reality is that most landowners do nothing to manage their CRP
  after planting (other than spray for thistles if the county FSA board gets
  after them). My understanding was that the current $7/acre management fee
  was set up to compensate primarily for noxious weed control.
• If society feels that more management is needed on CRP to get the most
  benefits (wildlife, biodiversity, etc) then some mechanism will be needed. I
  would prefer an incentive based system that would cost-share management
  practices (type and frequency) that are selected from an approved pool. For
  example, on native grasslands we know that some disturbance at 3-5 year
  intervals is desirable. This could be burning, or mowing, or intensive
  short-term grazing. If the practice costs the producer out of pocket (ie.
  burning) then they should be compensated. If the producer gets some return
  (mowing and removing part of the hay or grazing) then that would be their
  compensation for the equipment or fencing supplies/labor. Obviously, these
  practices would be after the bird nesting season. Similar options could be
  developed for other CRP cover types.
• I could foresee that in such a system the producer would come in (on a
  voluntary basis) and fill out a simple form to let FSA and NRCS know the
  type of management, field number, and time frame they want to perform the
  activity (not much more than is done for reporting cropping activity). After
  the practice was complete the NRCS or conservation district staff could do a
  field check to certify completion for FSA.
• I agree with the discussion that management of CRP is important in terms
  of wildlife and health of the plant community. In the northern plains, CRP
  plantings are dominated by warm season grasses and forbes which evolved
  in an environment of wildfires and buffalo grazing. Since we don't have the
  buffalo, fire is the main tool, but this often is viewed as risky to the surrounding landscapes.
• Burning requires producers to maintain adequate firebreaks and to often
  hire a crew with training to carry out the operation. This can be expensive
  and I like John's recommendation to allow additional EBI points and funds to carry out the management practice. I would further suggest that the points and funds be tied together, so that a producer can't agree to a particular
  management practice to get more points and then refuse the additional
  funds to get even more points (as is the case with the producers ability to
  forgo cost-share on installing the practice). I'm afraid if the producer
  agrees to a management practice but gives up the payment they will be less
  inclined to follow through with management. Perhaps the management payment should be made after each management event, instead of being lumped in with the
  annual payment.
• One could argue that failure to carry out an agreed-upon management
  activity would break the agreement and put the producer at risk of having their
  CRP contract terminated. However we all know of cases where the county FSA
  supervisors overrule the NRCS staff and keep producers eligible.

Kathy Zavoral

• I agree that it is important to use fire as a management tool on warm
  season CRP stands, but I disagree that FSA should have an account set up
  to dole out $5.00 per acre for this. Cost-share is set up for
  ESTABLISHMENT. After the contract acres are established, it the
  contract-holders responsibility to provide maintenance. FSA and NRCS
  are very involved in the establishment period, which is the most
  critical, yet, it is the "manager" or owner of the contract acres who is
  and should be responsible for maintenance. Prior to CRP, the owner or
  other representative was responsible for making management decisions:
  what to plant; herbicide, fertilizer, and other needs. NRCS staff is
  available for technical assistance, but it is still the owner who
  controls the land, and therefore his or her responsibility to make
  management decisions related to maintenance.
• I am grateful for those businesses that provide these services to CRP
  contract holders, but it is not up to FSA & NRCS to "baby-sit" these
  contracts for 10-15 years. Allow these owners to have some say in the
  management of their land. Many of these people do belong to volunteer
  fire departments and do have necessary training, or they know of others
  who do. PLM provided management of some CRP lands in Stevens County,
  MN, where I recently worked, and I commend them on a job well done. I
  was in contact with PLM staff regarding establishment of warm season
  natives and wetland restorations. They did a very professional job on
  these sites - they knew what they were doing. Yet, I must repeat that
  maintenance - and the $5.00 per acre per year - is the responsibility of
  the contract-holder. The decision to reserve or not to reserve these
  funds for prescribed burns, mowing, or other maintenance activities is a
  management decision and should be left up to the manager, namely the
  owner.
• I agree that in many cases, the annual $5 per acre that is allowed for
  maintenance is not used wisely. I have worked with several producers to
  use these funds "up front" the first couple years after establishment to
  control weeds, therefore reducing the need for significant maintenance
  in later years of the contract. Even though we try to remind contract
  holders that this money is added to the contract for the purpose of
  maintenance, it is more often looked at as a "bonus."
• The $5.00 maintenance is not a cost-share item, but, yes, I would like
  to ensure that it is spent for the maintenance that it is targeted for.
  One possibility may be to require a status review at the midway point of
  each contract - year 5 for 10-year contracts and year 7 or 8 for 15-year
  contracts. If the site has good cover and no weed problem, we could
  recommend payment of the maintenance monies.

Kylie (PLM Inc):

· The way the $5/ac is set up now does not work. That money was spent a long
time ago and most contract holders consider the payment part of the CRP payment.

· Fire management is expensive anyway you look at it. If you want to have
sufficient crew (hardworking!), proper equipment, and the right insurance
agent, you are looking at some cost. However, the $5/ac over 3 to 5 years
(recommended burning intervals for warm season grasses) is plenty to cover
the cost of the burn, $12 to $20/ per acre. However, as I mentioned, that
money has long been spent.

· I expressed an idea some time ago. To make my job easier, I would like
FSA to keep the $5/ac in an account to be accessible when the maintenance has been performed. I could then manage our fire on a site by site basis and provide recommendations to the landowner. Within the budget of the
maintenance funds available for each site, I could burn as needed without
the landowner really being involved with the cost.

· This would provide for proper management of the warm season grasses, I
could set up efficient routes each season instead of jumping all over tarnation,
and give the tax payer a bigger bang for the buck since the money would be
used for maintenance and enhancement. Each property could be set up on a
rotation so not all acres are burned each year to provide nesting and refuge. This would be a dream come true for me!

· FSA already handles the cost share program and they could easily handle
the maintenance cost share.

John Cole

• I believe that the EBI should continue to be used as a means of evaluating and improving the wildlife values of plant communities established on CRP rather than a way to increase public access to the land. I think access issues should remain cooperative efforts between owners and state agencies.
• The EBI is good but not perfect. All biologists recognize that management
  of a plant community is as important as the species planted in determining
  its value to wildlife. The EBI does not recognize this. Depending on the
  species, management may mean disturbance (fire, disking, etc) (a major
  reason why CRP has not benefited bobwhites in higher rainfall areas) or
  protection from disturbance (emergency haying and grazing) in drier areas.
• This could be fixed by adding a sub-factor for management to N1 in the EBI.
  The sub-factor could be worded like CP4D - "management best suited to
  wildlife in the area" thus accommodating both active and passive management which ever is required.
• Currently, landowners don't find out about management requirements until
  they receive their conservation plan of operation (after their land is accepted) and everyone receives the $5/acre management fee regardless of how much or how little they do. If a management sub-factor were added, landowners could choose to receive additional points and dollars for appropriate cover management after establishment. Owners that did not want to manage would not get points and would not receive a management payment. The management sub-factor could be added or one of the current sub-factors could be dropped (several are pretty shaky in my opinion). The point value and management payment should be sufficient to cover good management practices or offset the need/desire to graze or hay CRP in the plains. I think this change would elevate cover management to the level of importance it deserves.