The Future of CRP

Summer 2004
Home > Delta Waterfowl Magazine >

The Future of CRP, Grassland Losses Have Wildlife Managers Worried
Millions of Acres of CRP Set to Expire in 2007

By Dan Nelson - Delta Waterfowl Magazine Editor

The oldest rule in waterfowl management—the one that says duck numbers always increase when the breeding grounds get wet—might not apply when the next wet cycle rolls around.

At least a few waterfowl managers are openly expressing concern that the next wet cycle may not produce a bounce in duck numbers like the one that occurred between 1994 and 1999. The reason for their concern: Puddle ducks returning to the prairie breeding grounds may not find adequate grass nesting cover.

About 16 million acres of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are scheduled to expire in 2007, and some two million of those acres exist in North and South Dakota, the states responsible for the bulk of the ducks produced in the United States. Another 16 million acres of CRP—including about a million in the Dakotas—expire the following year.

Everyone knows that ducks need water—especially seasonal and temporary wetlands—when they return to the breeding grounds. But research conducted over the last decade showed that puddle ducks also need large blocks of grass nesting cover if they’re to be successful, and CRP has provided much of the necessary nesting cover.

Big blocks of grass buffer nesting hens from predators. Where 40 percent of the landscape has grass, nest success exceeds the minimum necessary to expand the population; where it falls below 40 percent nest success typically drops below maintenance levels.

The CRP on the US side of the pothole region was a significant reason the duck population expanded so dramatically during the last wet cycle.

CRP is a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that compensates farmers to put cropland into grass for the duration of 10-year contracts. CRP is good for wildlife and the environment, and it allows soils drained of nutrients to rejuvenate. CRP started in 1985, and today there are 39.6 million acres enrolled nationwide.

The idea that many of those acres could go into crop production in 2007 is keeping waterfowl managers awake nights.

There are several reasons wildlife professionals are concerned about the future of CRP. One is the federal deficit, which is large enough that the next farm bill is likely to come under increased Congressional scrutiny. Wildlife managers fear that conservation titles could be among the first cuts if the farm program is scaled back.

Another worry is that acceptance rates across the Dakotas during the last CRP signup were less than 20 percent, well below the national average of 50 percent. Even if CRP is reauthorized, the acceptance rate across the US portion of the prairie pothole region (PPR) would have to increase dramatically to retain the existing CRP coverage on the breeding grounds.

NAWCA Could Provide Critical Help for the PPR

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—a component of the farm bill—is arguably the most effective vehicle for bringing nesting cover to the prairie breeding grounds in the US. But it isn’t the only one.

Since its inception in 1989, the North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) has provided $350 million earmarked for achieving the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP).

In the last issue of Delta Waterfowl Magazine we pointed out that less than nine percent of NAWCA dollars have been spent in the Dakotas and Montana, where 50 percent of the US-produced ducks originate. Other duck-producing states haven’t fared much better—add Minnesota and Iowa into the mix and the states that produce close to 60 percent of the ducks originating in the US have received less than 15 percent of all the NAWCA dollars.

Delta believes every effort must be made to deliver NAWCA funding for the pothole region. This is critical at a time when large chunks of 12,000-year-old native prairie, particularly in the Missouri Coteau of South Dakota, are being plowed and put into crop production.

Delta recognizes that habitat—particularly wetlands—are at risk in every corner of the country, but we believe protecting existing prairie habitat should be the highest conservation priority at this time.

The Missouri Coteau is a prime example. Using comparatively inexpensive perpetual grassland easements to protect habitat where the ducks need it most—on the breeding grounds—makes more sense than spending dollars outside the prairie.

Apparently, we’re not alone. We asked some respected active and retired waterfowl managers what they feel would be an appropriate level of NAWCA funding for the pothole region, and here are some of their responses:

Harvey Nelson, the first director of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan: “I think everyone needs to take another look at where we’re at and where we’re going. There’s no question the pothole region should receive more. I’d say the Dakotas and Montana should be at 15 to 20 percent, and that’s probably conservative.”

Roger Hollevoet, director of the Devils Lake (ND) Wetland Management District for FWS: “I’d say the Dakotas should be getting 25 percent.”

Mike Johnson, chief of the waterfowl division for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department: “We have to recognize the importance of the wintering grounds, but right now the breeding grounds are the limiting factor, so I’d say the Dakotas should be getting 25 percent.”

Harold Duebbert, retired FWS biologist: “We’re creating more places to kill ducks, but not enough places to raise ducks. Anybody can kill ducks; raising them is more difficult. I’d say 25 to 30 percent for the Dakotas would be very reasonable.”

Rich Madson, FWS realtor from Pierre, SD: “Looking at how we’re losing the best pintail habitat left on the continent, I think it would be logical for NAWCA to mirror the duck stamp money with 50 percent of it coming to the pothole region.”

Joe Duggan, Pheasants Forever: “The political reality is that you have to spread the money around. Biologically, you can make a good case for more than half of NAWCA dollars coming to the pothole region. Blending the two, I’d say 50 per cent for the pothole region, including the northern portion of Iowa and western Minnesota.”

Further fueling concerns about the future of CRP is the ever-widening gap between commodity prices and CRP payments. Experts say CRP payments would have to increase to entice many farmers to re-enroll their land in CRP.

Significant losses of grass cover would have a devastating impact on production of upland-nesting game birds. Wrote Minnesota Outdoor News staffer Shawn Perich: “The good old days of upland bird and duck hunting on the northern prairies may soon be memories.”

Ron Reynolds, the US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who published the definitive study on the impact of CRP on duck populations, agrees. “If we lose CRP, we are going to see some pretty drastic declines in duck production.”

Reynolds’ 1992-1997 study showed that the CRP acreage in North and South Dakota added two million ducks—birds that wouldn’t have existed had it not been for CRP—to the fall flight each of those years. “If we lose CRP, our findings suggest we’re going to lose that many ducks.

“Those two million extra ducks help the population grow from year to year,” Reynolds says. “Think of it as money drawing compound interest in a bank account. It doesn’t take long before you double your money.”

Prime Nesting Habitat at Risk

Subsidies and higher commodity prices not only tempt farmers to abandon CRP, they also have been responsible for the conversion of tens of thousands of acres of native prairie to crop production, particularly in the Missouri Coteau of South Dakota.

The Missouri Coteau has some of the finest natural nesting habitat left on the continent, but large tracts have converted to crop production in recent years, and the losses are exceeding conservationists’ ability to secure funding to take easements from willing ranchers.

“So far the benefits of CRP have offset the losses of native prairie,” says Reynolds, adding that, “CRP is more attractive nesting cover because it’s undisturbed (not grazed). But losses of native prairie are a concern because if we lose CRP, native prairie is about all we’ll have left.”

Reynolds also notes that large blocks of native prairie enhance nest success on adjacent tracts of CRP by elevating larger portions of the landscape to the “habitat threshold”. Reynolds’ study showed that only in areas where 40 percent of the landscape contains grass do ducks consistently achieve the nest success necessary to expand the population.

The bottom line according to Reynolds: “If we lose CRP and we lose more native prairie, we’re in big trouble.”

Thanks to computer modeling, Reynolds knows exactly what impact the loss of nesting cover will have on duck numbers. “For every one percent of existing grass we lose, we’ll see a drop of 25,000 ducks in the fall flight,” he says.

If all the CRP acres set to expire in 2007 are plowed under, an annual loss of 500,000 ducks to the fall flight would result. And just as the two million extra ducks produced by CRP yielded compounded increases in the fall flight, so the loss of 500,000 birds will result in an annual compounded reduction in the fall flight.

Reynolds says there are 20 million acres of grass left in the Dakotas, about 10 to 11 million of those in the areas that are responsible for the bulks of the PPR’s duck production.

The importance of those acres cannot be overstated. “Prairie Canada is pretty beat up right now,” he says. “The Dakotas and Montana, with some help from portions of Minnesota and Iowa, have made up for the decline in Canadian productivity.”

The loss of CRP and native prairie doesn’t bode well for the pintail, which has been in a long-term population decline. If the pintail is the “canary in the mineshaft” signaling a problem on the breeding grounds, Reynolds believes blue-winged teal and gadwall—a true prairie duck—will be the next species to show declines. The adaptable mallard may be more resistant to grassland losses, but he believes “other species will decline at an accelerated rate.”

Wildlife Interests Attend CRP Conference

The challenges facing CRP were discussed in early June in Fort Collins, Colorado at a conference sponsored by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NSCS).

Reynolds was one of many wildlife experts participating in the conference.

The objective, according to a communication from Dave Nomsen, vice president of government affairs for Pheasants Forever, was be to convince lawmakers to make CRP a top priority in the debate over the new farm bill.

Pheasants Forever is the organization most responsible for getting CRP approved as part of the 1985 farm bill and re-authorized in the 1990 farm bill. Pheasant numbers across the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska have jumped to levels not seen since the expiration of the soil bank program in the early 1960s.

“If ever the outdoor community needed to come together to address an issue that has continental impact on wildlife populations, this is the time,” says Joe Duggan of Pheasants Forever. “The loss in populations of all kinds of wildlife is going to be huge and immediate. We’re talking about upland birds, migratory waterfowl and songbirds.”

Reynolds agrees. “This isn’t just ducks we’re talking about,” he says. “We’ll see some big losses of pheasants, prairie grouse, quail and a lot of other wildlife species if we lose CRP.”

Wildlife managers across the PPR are urging sportsmen to get involved by working with local, state and national conservation organizations to lobby Congress for support of CRP.