CRP Snippets from the 2018 Farm Bill CREP

CRP Snippets from the 2018 Farm Bill

CREP • Proven Program since 1997 • (CRP since 1985) • Works as State-Federal partnership • Target high priority conservation • Farm Bill authorizes CREP for the first time and allows NGOs to be the lead partner but requires them to provide at least 30 percent of the total program cost. For state-led projects, the percentage will be a negotiation between USDA and the state.

Acreage Cap up 3 million acres • Up to 27 million acres nationally • First increase since 1996 Farm Bill • Some allocations specified • 30% of all continuous CRP acres to practices benefiting water and wildlife • CEAR gets 40% of all continuous CRP • Mandates annual general sign ups • Acreage quotas based on historical state enrollments

Desire for Longer Term Easements CLEAR 30 • Clear Lakes Estuaries and Rivers (CLEAR) pilot program • The Secretary shall delegate development of a conservation reserve plan and management/monitoring to federal, state, local or private conservation agency Continuation after CRP • landowners may enroll in either EQIP or CSP during the final year of their CRP contract and not jeopardize their payments

Important Authorizations ‘TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE • For the purpose of enrolling forested riparian buffers in a CREP, the Administrator of FSA shall coordinate with the applicable State forestry agency. RIPARIAN BUFFER ‘MANAGEMENT’ PAYMENTS • To encourage more enrollment of riparian buffers in CREP, the Secretary is authorized to makecost share payments forested riparian buffer maintenance throughout the length of the agreement and to cover up to 100 percent of the cost incurred by the owner or operator.

RIPARIAN BUFFER PAYMENTS • the Secretary shall make costshare payments for management of the riparian buffer throughout the term of the agreement • FSA administrator in consultation with USFS Chief will… • …provide funds for technical assistance directly to a State forestry agency; and is encouraged to partner with a nongovernmental organization— to make recommendations for pooling and submitting applications on behalf of owners and operators in a specific watershed; and carrying out management

‘FOOD-PRODUCING WOODY PLANTS’ • ‘‘(i) the plants shall contribute to the conservation of soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat; and • Be in the technical guide standards of the applicable field office of the NRCS; and • harvest from/of plants has some conditions • ‘‘(ii) only native plant species appropriate to the region shall be used within 35 feet of the watercourse; and • ‘‘(iii) the producer shall be subject to a reduction in the rental rate commensurate to the value of the crop harvested. • ALSO: the buffer may be grazed (abiding certain stipulations)

Rental Rates may be lower • Capped at 85% of county average • For sensitive practices cap is 90% of county avg soil rental rate • This reduction may be waived as part of the negotiation between the Secretary and an eligible partner • The Secretary shall provide an opportunity to propose an alternative soil rental rate prior to finalizing new rates by using… • ‘‘(I) an average of cash rents from • • a random sample of lease agreements; ‘‘(II) cash rent estimates from a published survey; ‘‘(III) neighboring county estimate ‘‘(V) models that estimate cash rents, such as models that use returns to estimate crop production or land value data; or ‘‘(VI) other documentation, as determined by the Secretary.

Other FB changes of note • RCPP is tripled • EQIP moves to habitat practices (5% to 10% of total)

Possible State Forestry Roles 1) Check/suggest rental rates 2) List cost-share elements for RFB and check rates 3) Detail TA needs for RFB 4) List RFB Management steps, timing, costs 5) Suggest process efficiencies 6) Conduct trainings in conjunction with USDA 7) Metrics and workplans to improve program delivery 8) Stepped-up coordination with state/local offices and partners 9) Suggest pathway for TA and Mtce work