Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Congressional research reportMay 9, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP): Status and Issues
(name redacted)
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
May 9, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40197
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Summary
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary program that provides
farmers with financial and technical assistance to plan and implement soil and water conservation
practices. EQIP is the largest agriculture conservation financial assistance program for working
lands. EQIP was first authorized in 1996 and was most recently revised by Section 2501 of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, the 2008 farm bill). It is a mandatory
spending program (i.e., not subject to annual appropriations) and is administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Funding
is currently authorized to grow to $1.75 billion in FY2012. Eligible land includes cropland,
rangeland, pasture, non-industrial private forestland, and other land on which resource concerns
related to agricultural production could be addressed through an EQIP contract.
With the 112th Congress’s emphasis on reducing federal spending, EQIP could face tighter budget
constraints with a potential reduction in mandatory funding levels and a continuing backlog of
unfunded applications. Congress will also likely consider reauthorization of the 2008 farm bill
because much of the current law, including EQIP, expires in 2012.
Congressional Research Service
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Contents
Program Overview ......................................................................................................................1
Eligibility and Program Requirements ...................................................................................2
Program Funding ..................................................................................................................3
Subprograms.........................................................................................................................5
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program.......................................................................5
Conservation Innovation Grants ......................................................................................6
Selected Issues ............................................................................................................................7
Mandatory Funding Levels....................................................................................................7
Unfunded Application Backlog .............................................................................................8
Conservation Activity Plans ..................................................................................................9
Measuring EQIP Accomplishments .......................................................................................9
Figures
Figure 1. EQIP Funding and Reductions, FY1997-FY2012..........................................................4
Tables
Table 1. Top Four States with the Most EQIP Funds Obligated, FY2004-FY2010 ........................5
Table 2. Conservation Innovation Grant Funding and Projects, FY2004-FY2010.........................7
Table 3. EQIP Funded and Unfunded Applications and Funds Obligated .....................................8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Program Overview
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary program that provides
technical and financial assistance to eligible agricultural producers who wish to implement soil
and water conservation practices. The purpose of EQIP is to promote agriculture production,
forestry management, and environmental quality as compatible goals, and to optimize
environmental benefits. EQIP was originally authorized in the 1996 farm bill1 as an amendment
to the 1985 farm bill.2 EQIP replaced four conservation programs repealed in the same law. These
were the Great Plains Conservation Program, the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Water
Quality Incentives Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
EQIP is the largest agriculture conservation program for working lands.3 The program encourages
farmers and ranchers to participate in conservation efforts by paying a portion of the cost of
installing or constructing approved conservation practices. Eligible producers enter into EQIP
contracts to receive payment for implementing conservation practices. Approved activities are
carried out according to an EQIP plan developed in conjunction with the producer that identifies
the appropriate conservation practice or practices to address resource concerns on the land.
EQIP was amended and reauthorized in both the 2002 and 2008 farm bills.4 The U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers EQIP
under an interim final rule.5 NRCS implemented EQIP by establishing national priorities to reflect
the most pressing natural resource needs and emphasize offsite benefits to the environment. The
current national priorities set by NRCS are as follows:
1
2
•
reductions of nonpoint source pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides,
or excess salinity in impaired watersheds consistent with Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs),6 where available;
•
the reduction of surface and groundwater contamination;
•
reduction of contamination from agricultural point sources, such as concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs);
•
conservation of ground and surface water resources;
Section 334 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127, 16 U.S.C. 3839aa.
Sections 1240-1240I of the Food Security Act of 1985, P.L. 99-198.
3
Working lands conservation programs are typically classified as programs that allow private land to remain in
production, while implementing various conservation practices to address natural resource concerns specific to the area.
Other conservation programs retire land from production or place restrictive easements on the land.
4
Section 2301 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 107-171, and Section 2501 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246.
5
USDA, NRCS, “Environmental Quality Incentives Program,” 74 Federal Register 2293, January 15, 2009; corrected
by USDA, NRCS, “Environmental Quality Incentives Program Correction,” 74 Federal Register 10674, March 12,
2009; and further amended by USDA, NRCS, “Environmental Quality Incentives Program; Amendment,” 74 Federal
Register 25615, May 29, 2009.
6
For more information on TMDLs, see CRS Report 97-831, Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) of Pollutants, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
1
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
•
reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOX),
volatile organic compounds, and ozone precursors and depleters that contribute to
air quality impairment violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards;
•
reduction of soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on
agricultural land; and
•
promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation.
Eligibility and Program Requirements
Producers with eligible land7 can submit an EQIP plan that describes the conservation and
environmental purposes that will be achieved using one or more USDA-approved conservation
practices. USDA-approved conservation practices may involve structures, vegetation, or land
management. Structural practices include the establishment, construction, or installation of
measures designed for specific sites, such as animal waste management facilities, livestock water
developments, and capping abandoned wells. Vegetative practices involve introduction or
modification of plantings, such as filter strips or trees. Land management practices require sitespecific management techniques and methods, such as nutrient management, irrigation water
management, or grazing management.
Producers can receive technical assistance to develop an EQIP plan and, after approval, to
implement the plan. Decisions about which plans to fund are made by USDA at the state level,
with local input. Applications are accepted and ranked throughout the year within each state.
Applications are grouped with similar crop, forestry, and livestock operation applications and
evaluated within the groups. Additional funding groups may be created to rank applications based
on similar resource objectives, geographic area, or type of agricultural operation. After an
application is selected and approved, USDA provides payments to help the producer offset the
cost of each practice, as well as income forgone relating to that practice implementation.
Participants are eligible to receive payments for both constructing structures and implementing
land management practices. Of the total annual EQIP spending, 60% is allocated to livestock
practices.
Under an EQIP contract, USDA pays up to 75% of the projected costs associated with planning,
design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training, or up to
100% of the estimated income forgone to implement certain conservation practices. This payment
rate can be higher for limited-resource, socially disadvantaged, or beginning farmers and
ranchers,8 provided this increase does not exceed 90% of practice costs. Initial payments are
made in the year in which the contract is signed, but most payments are made after the practices
are completed.
7
Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, pasture, non-industrial private forestland, and other land on which
resource concerns related to agricultural production could be addressed through an EQIP contract.
8
USDA combines these three groups and refers to them as “historically underserved producers.” A limited resource
producer or rancher is defined as having direct or indirect gross farm sales of less than $155,200 in each of the previous
two years (adjusted for inflation) and a total household income at or below the national poverty level, or less than 50%
of county median household income in the previous two years. A beginning farmer or rancher is defined as having
farmed for less than 10 consecutive years. Socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers are defined as having been
subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual
qualities. Previously, USDA included gender prejudice in the definition of a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher;
however, changes in the 2008 farm bill removed gender from the definition, as it applies to conservation programs.
Congressional Research Service
2
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Contracts have a term of one to ten years and payments are limited by direct attribution to
individuals or entities. 9 Total payments a person or entity can receive over any six-year period are
limited to $300,000, except for projects having special environmental significance, which are
limited to $450,000 over any six-year period. Individuals or entities with an average annual nonfarm adjusted gross income (AGI) of $1 million or more for the three years prior to the contract
period are ineligible unless they received at least two-thirds of their AGI from farming, ranching,
or forestry. The 2008 farm bill created a case-by-case waiver to the AGI limitation if it is
determined that environmentally sensitive land of special significance would be protected through
a conservation program.10 The number and frequency of AGI waivers granted is not limited, is at
USDA’s sole discretion, and remains to be determined.
Program Funding
The 1996 farm bill authorized EQIP funding of $130 million in FY1996 and $200 million
annually from FY1997 through FY2002. The 2002 farm bill significantly increased the annual
authorized funding level incrementally from $400 million in FY2002 to $1.3 billion in FY2007.
EQIP funding levels were revised in Section 1203 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109171) to limit funding to $1.27 billion in FY2007, while extending the authorization through
FY2010 and providing $1.27 billion in each of FY2008 and FY2009, and $1.3 billion in FY2010.
The 2008 farm bill further increased the annual authorized funding levels incrementally from
$1.34 billion in FY2009 to $1.75 billion in FY2012. Funding under EQIP is mandatory (not
subject to annual appropriations), and the program receives authorized amounts each year under
the borrowing authority of USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).11 Congress, however,
has limited EQIP funding below authorized levels in every year since FY2005, through annual
appropriations bills. Figure 1 identifies the authorized and actual funding levels for EQIP. The
FY2011 full-year continuing resolution (Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2011, P.L. 112-10) limited EQIP to $1.238 billion for FY2011—a reduction
of $350 million from the authorized level of $1.558 billion in the 2008 farm bill.12 For FY2012,
the Administration has proposed a limit of $1.408 billion—a reduction of $342 million from the
authorized level of $1.75 billion.
9
Direct attribution means that payments must be directly attributed to a living person. If the person is part of a larger
business entity then payments must be directly attributed to that person based on ownership shares in the entity.
Individual people may receive EQIP payments through any number of contracts or ownership arrangement of farms,
but the total amount of payments attributed to each living person may not exceed the statutory limits.
10
Section 1604, P.L. 110-246.
11
The CCC is the funding mechanism for the mandatory payments that are administered by various agencies of USDA.
For EQIP, NRCS provides the staff.
12
For more information, see CRS Report R41475, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations and CRS
Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending.
Congressional Research Service
3
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Figure 1. EQIP Funding and Reductions, FY1997-FY2012
($ in millions)
$2,000
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
Millions ($)
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
Actual
Authorized
$200
$0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
*2007 **2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Source: CRS, based on historical Agriculture Appropriations Reports.
Note: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), limited EQIP spending to $1 billion in FY2008.
This was $270 million below the authorized level. The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), which was passed after the
appropriations act, authorized EQIP spending at $1.2 billion for FY2008, thereby superseding the appropriations
limit and effectively funding EQIP at its authorized level.
Annual funding received for EQIP is allocated to the states by NRCS using a formula based on
national priorities, natural resource need, efficiency and performance measures, and regional
equity.13 The EQIP allocation formula uses 20 weighted factors based on the characteristics of
agriculture and land use and resource considerations. Factors with the largest weights within the
formula include irrigated cropland, non-irrigated cropland, non-federal grazing land, livestock
animal units, cropland eroding above the tolerance level, and impaired rivers and streams.14 States
that receive the largest EQIP allocations have remained consistent from year to year, with Texas,
California, and Colorado receiving the highest levels of funding annually between FY2004 and
13
The regional equity provision was first instituted in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, Sec. 2701) and reauthorized in
the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Sec. 2703). The provision mandates that each state receive annually a minimum
aggregate amount of funding for specified conservation programs. Regional equity affects not only EQIP but also the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the Grassland Reserve Program. The 2008
farm bill increased the minimum level of funding to each state for these combined four conservation programs from
$12 million to $15 million.
14
According to USDA, NRCS, Fiscal Year 2009 Allocation Formulas and Methodologies, Washington, DC, January
2009, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/pdf_files/2009_Allocation_Formulas.pdf. FY2009 is the most recent
information available.
Congressional Research Service
4
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
FY2008 (most recent information available). States who obligate15 the most EQIP funding
annually are similar to those who receive the largest allocations each year (see Table 1).
Table 1.Top Four States with the Most EQIP Funds Obligated, FY2004-FY2010
($ in thousands)
Fiscal
Year
Highest
Obligation
2nd Highest
Obligation
3rd Highest
Obligation
4th Highest
Obligation
Total Financial
Assistance Obligated
2004
Texas
$59,292
California
$46,041
Colorado
$28,237
Nebraska
$24,163
$718,150
2005
Texas
$73,504
California
$49,288
Colorado
$30,182
Nebraska
$26,950
$794,261
2006
Texas
$71,656
California
$48,162
Colorado
$31,305
Minnesota
$25,598
$787,968
2007
Texas
$72,110
California
$48,099
Colorado
$28,540
Minnesota
$26,290
$784,186
2008
Texas
$97,787
California
$57,083
Minnesota
$40,353
Colorado
$39,632
$943,407
2009
Texas
$63,981
California
$57,083
Minnesota
$26,455
Colorado
$23,651
$731,099
2010
Texas
$75,950
California
$75,167
Minnesota
$28,233
Colorado
$28,108
$838,985
Source: Compiled by CRS from USDA, NRCS, EQIP Program Information by Fiscal Year, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/eqip/.
Notes: This table represents financial assistance obligations only. Technical assistance, administrative, and
technology costs are not included.
Subprograms
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
One of two subprograms under EQIP is the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP).
The 2008 farm bill (Sec. 2510, P.L. 110-246) created AWEP to promote ground and surface water
conservation and to improve water quality on agricultural lands. The program replaces two
previous water conservation programs: the Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program and
the Klamath Basin Program.
Eligible partners or groups16 submit project proposals to conserve ground and surface water or
improve water quality in a specified area. NRCS selects projects based on requirements
established in a Federal Register notice17 and enters into agreements with selected partners. In
15
Obligated funds are those committed to an EQIP contract within a specific fiscal year. Obligated funds are paid to the
participant upon completion of the contract, likely not in the same fiscal year in which the funds are obligated.
16
An eligible partner or group may be a federally recognized tribe, state, unit of local government, agricultural or
silvicultural association, or other such group of agricultural producers.
17
USDA, CCC, NRCS, “Agricultural Water Enhancement Program and Cooperative Conservation Partnership
Initiative,” 75 Federal Register 77821, December 14, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
5
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
FY2009, NRCS approved approximately $58 million for 63 projects in 21 states.18 In FY2010,
NRCS approved approximately $19.8 million for 28 new projects in 10 states.19 An additional
$40.4 million was made available in FY2010 for projects approved in FY2009. To date, only $5
million has been made available for new projects in FY2011.20 Once proposals for specific areas
are selected, there are two methods for producers to sign up for an AWEP contract. Producers
may either (1) apply directly to NRCS for approved agricultural water enhancement activities or
(2) apply through the partner or group who submits applications on the producer’s behalf.
Funding is authorized as a separate amount from the general EQIP, at $73 million for each of
FY2009 and FY2010, $74 million in FY2011, and $60 million in FY2012 and each fiscal year
thereafter.
Conservation Innovation Grants
The second subprogram under EQIP is the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program,
created in the 2002 farm bill. The program, implemented through EQIP, is intended to leverage
federal investment, stimulate innovative approaches to conservation, and accelerate technology
transfer in environmental protection, agricultural production, and forest management. Examples
of CIG projects include developing market-based approaches in conservation, demonstrating
precision agriculture, capturing nutrients through a community anaerobic digester, and
establishing a tribal partnership for regional habitat conservation.21 The program was reauthorized
in the 2008 farm bill through FY2012 at an unspecified funding level of general EQIP dollars.
NRCS uses its discretion to determine the level of general EQIP funds for CIG and annually
allocates approximately $15 million for a national competition and up to $5 million for a
watershed competition, such as the Chesapeake Bay or the Mississippi River basin (Table 2). For
FY2011, NRCS announced two funding competitions: a national competition to include the
Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River basin (up to $25 million available), and a separate
competition for practices that reduce greenhouse gases and sequester carbon on agricultural lands
(up to $5 million available). In addition, 32 states conduct, or have conducted, a state-level CIG
competition, which has awarded over $17 million since FY2005. In FY2011, Louisiana, Missouri,
New Hampshire, New York, Pacific Islands, and Washington are holding state-level competitions.
The 2008 farm bill made some modifications to the CIG program. Previously, grants could not
exceed 50% of the project cost, with nonfederal matching funds provided by the grantee. The
2008 farm bill removed this requirement, though USDA still requires a 50% match of nonfederal
funds.22 Also, the farm bill added an air quality component requiring that payments be made
through CIG to producers to implement practices to address air quality concerns from agricultural
operations and to meet federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. This air quality
component is authorized at $37.5 million annually.
18
For a list of approved FY2009 projects, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/2009projects.html.
For a list of approved FY2010 projects, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/2010projects.html.
20
USDA, CCC, NRCS, “Agricultural Water Enhancement Program and Cooperative Conservation Partnership
Initiative,” 75 Federal Register 77821, December 14, 2010.
21
For additional examples of CIG projects, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cig/.
19
22
USDA, NRCS, Conservation Innovation Grants Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Announcement for Program Funding,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.912, January 16, 2009, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/cig/pdf_files/Fiscal_Year_2009_Announcement_for_Program_Funding.pdf, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
6
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Table 2. Conservation Innovation Grant Funding and Projects, FY2004-FY2010
($ in millions)
Fiscal Year
Total Funding
Number of Projects
2004
$12.6
35
2005
$22.0
105
2006
$25.3
161
2007
$26.0
176
2008
$21.0
95
2009
$18.4
55
2010
$17.9
61
Source: USDA, NRCS, CIG Awards From Previous Years, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/cig/index.html.
Selected Issues
EQIP continues to receive widespread support in the farm community and in Congress, as it
remains the major source of financial and technical assistance to help producers implement
conservation practices that address specific resource and environmental problems. During the
112th Congress, several issues may attract congressional interest, including budgetary pressures, a
continuing backlog of unfunded applications, program reauthorization, and measuring program
accomplishments.
Mandatory Funding Levels
The 2008 farm bill reauthorized EQIP through September 30, 2012, with annual authorized
funding levels of $1.2 billion in FY2008, $1.34 billion in FY2009, $1.45 billion in FY2010,
$1.59 billion in FY2011, and $1.75 billion in FY2012. As shown in Figure 1, the authorized
funding level has continued to increase since the 2002 farm bill; however, annual appropriations
acts have reduced the actual funding levels by a total of nearly $1.8 billion from FY2005 through
FY2011.23 With the 112th Congress’s emphasis on reducing federal spending, similar reductions to
EQIP could be considered either in the appropriations process or through possible reconciliation.
Another possible reduction to EQIP funding could come during farm bill reauthorization, as the
authorizing committee seeks to offset funding for other farm bill programs. Most policy observers
expect the next farm bill will be budget-neutral and written using only the current budget
“baseline.”24 No additional money is expected for new programs without corresponding offsets.
Congress faces difficult choices about how much total support to provide agricultural
conservation, and how to allocate it among competing programs.
23
Annual appropriations reduce funding for other agriculture mandatory programs as a means of meeting overall
budget targets. The Administration’s FY2012 budget proposal would limit EQIP to $1.408 billion, a reduction of $342
million below the authorized level of $1.75 billion.
24
For additional information about farm bill spending, see CRS Report R41195, Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost
Estimates.
Congressional Research Service
7
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
Unfunded Application Backlog
A main justification for the large funding increase in the 2002 farm bill was to respond to a large
backlog of producer demand that had been documented during the farm bill debate. Despite this
increase in funding, the number of pending applications continues to exceed the amount of
available funding (see Table 3). Although this gap now constitutes a smaller portion of
applications, it is still an issue for many producers who seek environmental assistance and are
continuously denied funding due to budgetary constraints.25 Many conservation groups worry that
this could deter producers from applying and enrolling in the program. This issue will likely
intensify if annual appropriations continue to reduce actual funding or if funding is reduced to
offset additional funding for other programs.
Table 3. EQIP Funded and Unfunded Applications and Funds Obligated
Fiscal
Year
Total Applications
Funded
Total Applications
Unfunded
Percentage of
Applications Funded
Funds Obligated (Financial
Assistance, $ in millions)
2000
16,249
37,712
30%
$139,606
2001
17,648
29,777
37%
$160,123
2002
19,817
70,495
22%
$322,193
2003
30,251
174,062
15%
$483,484
2004
46,413
135,394
26%
$718,150
2005
49,406
32,708
60%
$794,261
2006
41,190
32,633
56%
$787,968
2007
41,700
40,535
51%
$784,186
2008
48,116
23,803
67%
$943,407
2009
31,960
110,077
23%
$731,099
2010
36,499
39,028
48%
$838,985
Source: Compiled by CRS using USDA, NRCS, EQIP Contract and Funding Information, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
programs/eqip/.
Note: According to NRCS, valid unfunded applications include preapproved, deferred, eligible, pending, and
disapproved applications.
One reason why higher funding has not resulted in the elimination of the backlog is that the
average contract size has grown since the 2002 farm bill. The average cost of an EQIP contract
has more than doubled from almost $7,800 per contract prior to 2002 to over $16,000 per contract
since 2002.26 One reason for this increase could be the higher funding cap established in the 2002
farm bill that allowed large-scale livestock operations to fund waste management facilities and
allowed the installation of more expensive conservation practices. According to NRCS, between
1997 and 2007, the top practice by cumulative cost-share dollars was waste storage facilities,
25
At the conclusion of FY2010, states with the highest total of unfunded applications were Oklahoma (2,560),
California (2,482), Nebraska (2,286), Missouri (2,270), and Texas (2,200).
26
Contracts can vary from one to ten years; however, most are between two and five years in length and include
between two and five practices. Data compiled by Soil and Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)—Program Assessment, March 2007, http://www.swcs.org/
documents/filelibrary/EQIP_assessment.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
which totaled $486 million over the ten-year period.27 Though the 2008 farm bill lowered the
payment limitation to $300,000 over any six-year period, the average contract is still considerably
less ($16,000) than the limit. This will continue to be an issue as it is widely believed that the
lower payment limitation will not greatly reduce the number of unfunded applications.
Conservation Activity Plans
Section 2502 of the 2008 farm bill made certain conservation activities involving the
development of plans eligible for financial assistance under EQIP. Traditionally, technical
assistance provides the planning, design, and technical consultation functions, while financial
assistance offers monetary support for implementation capacity. NRCS refers to these plans as
conservation activity plans (CAPs). While the 2008 farm bill amendment specifically includes
comprehensive nutrient management planning (CNMP), NRCS has expanded the list of eligible
CAPs to include forestry management, energy management, and pollinator habitat, among
others.28
CAPs are performed by third-party technical assistance providers, referred to as technical service
providers (TSP), and must meet NRCS standards and requirements. EQIP payments are made to
the EQIP participant, who then reimburses the TSP for the CAP. NRCS continues to provide the
majority of technical assistance for EQIP, including development of plans eligible under CAPs;
however, EQIP continues to serve as the primary program for funding third-party technical
assistance activities. 29 The use of CAPs and other third-party services could be a way to free up
NRCS staff time for other EQIP activities. On the other hand, the additional administrative
measures required to write CAP contracts could offset time savings devoted to technical
assistance. This issue could be debated in the next farm bill as CAPs and their implementation are
reviewed.
Measuring EQIP Accomplishments
From available records, NRCS can provide considerable information about EQIP contracts,
including which conservation practices are being installed, and their design and maintenance
standards. However, until recently, relatively little was known about what is actually being
accomplished through EQIP contracts. To begin filling this void, NRCS has compiled information
about various resource concerns that EQIP addresses. These data show that in 2007, the primary
resource concerns addressed through EQIP spending included water quality (20%), plant
condition (17%), soil erosion (16%), water quantity (13%), domestic animals (12%), soil
condition (10%), wildlife and fish (7%), and air quality (5%).30 Little is known, however, about
27
Other top practices between FY1997 and FY2007, by cumulative cost-share dollar, were irrigation systems ($337
million), fence ($329 million), brush management ($190 million), pipeline ($187 million), irrigation pipeline ($168
million), and nutrient management ($164 million). The term cost-share describes the percentage of the cost to install
conservation practices paid by USDA. This term does not represent incentive payments and was removed from the
program in the 2008 farm bill.
28
In FY2010, forest management plans and CNMPs received the highest percentage of participation with 41% and
45% respectively. A total of $14 million was obligated to CAP activities in FY2010. Source: USDA, NRCS, Technical
Service Provider Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Office of Management & Budget, Washington, DC, October 2010.
29
Other conservation programs also fund TSP activities, however, EQIP accounts for 51% of all TSP funds since its
inception in 2003. Source: Ibid.
30
USDA, NRCS, Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Program Information Review, Fiscal Year 2007.
Congressional Research Service
9
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues
how enduring those conservation practices might be after the contract ends. Among the questions
that NRCS is trying to address for all of its conservation activities, including EQIP, are how to
(1) evaluate performance, (2) measure environmental changes, (3) evaluate cost-effectiveness, (4)
determine which methods to use to identify environmental effects, and (5) determine which types
of data should be collected to measure output.
NRCS initiated a national review in 2003, called the Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP), in an attempt to develop better answers to all these questions. CEAP was originally
intended to account for the benefits from the 2002 farm bill’s substantial increase in conservation
program funding through the scientific understanding of the effects of conservation practices at
the watershed scale. 31 Only a few initial results are currently available based on cropland in the
upper Mississippi River basin and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Initial findings show beneficial
effects from conservation practices as well as additional application needs.32 EQIP offers financial
assistance to producers to implement many of the conservation practices analyzed in the CEAP
assessment; however, the assessment does not correlate the effects and benefits of conservation
practice to any one federal program.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
31
Lisa F. Duriancik, Dale Bucks, and James P. Dobrowolski et al., “The First Five Years of the Conservation Effects
Assessment Project,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 63, no. 6 (Nov/Dec 2008), p. 185A.
32
For more information on CEAP, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/.
Congressional Research Service
10
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.