This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Prairies and CRP, tree-planting requirement

Andy has made some excellent points.  I'll try to respond and clarify 
information on two of them.

(1)  Regarding the provision that allows land to qualify for CRP after just 
two years of rowcrops:   I want to emphasize that I am not certain about what 
follows.   But as I recall, prior to 1996, land had to be in crop production 
in 1985 in order to qualify for CRP.   Then the law was changed to say that 
land only needed to be in crop production for two of the five years prior to 
CRP enrollment.   Obviously this change created a new opportunity and/or 
incentive to convert prairies and other grasslands into cropland for two 
years and then be able to enroll in the CRP, whether that was the intended 
result or not.   I've been told that some agricultural interests like the new 
opportunity and wouldn't want to give it up.

(2)  Regarding the national tree-planting requirement:   I certainly agree 
with Andy that it would be very good to keep riparian pastures eligible for 
CRP, especially since some of those pastures are native prairie remnants.   
However, I and some others don't think there is any good alternative to 
removing the tree-planting requirement.   Decreeing that every marginal 
riparian CRP pasture must be planted with woody vegetation, whether that 
pasture is in Maine, Iowa, or Arizona, makes no ecological or financial 
sense.   

Landowners as well as conservationists are complaining about having to spend 
money to plant woody species where they aren't needed for soil and water 
protection.  Also, some landowners like those attractive flowers and grasses 
on their pastures (whether or not they are recognized as prairie species) and 
don't want woodies instead.   Many natural resource agency staffers are 
caught in the middle and consider the national requirement a big headache.

I certainly agree with Andy that a grassland easement program would be a 
better alternative.   Another alternative would be to remove the 
tree-planting requirement and allow states to decide whether new plantings 
are needed on marginal CRP pastureland, and what should be planted on land 
where new plantings are needed.   If we spent less public funding to put new 
plantings on some already-vegetated areas, like prairie remnant pastures, we 
could potentially use that money to do much better plantings where new 
plantings really are needed, like rowcropped land.  

As for what happened in Iowa, the Iowa state soil conservation technical 
committee worked hard to soften the impact of the national tree-planting 
requirement.   What they did is commendable, but what they could do, legally, 
was limited.   The problem is far from solved.   

Certain woody prairie species, such as leadplant and wild rose, can be 
planted instead of conventional trees and shrubs.  But some of those woody 
prairie species are not readily commercially available.   And planting 
commercial stock on or next to native prairie remnants raises genetic and 
ecotype questions.   Ironically, the Iowa CRP rules recommend using only 
local-ecotype seed near native remnants.  Planting non-local-ecotype woody 
prairie species on prairie remnant pastures contradicts that.

The required planting density, while commendably lowered from the original 
requirement, is still high.   And the success of these Iowa rules is very 
much dependent on the ability of local staff to know how to interpret the 
state rules, and also to recognize which land qualifies for the state rules.  
 Both can be a challenge.   While many staffers are making laudable efforts 
to increase their prairie knowledge (on top of their big workloads), the 
ability of USDA staff to recognize prairie plants, especially lesser-known 
species often found on pasture remnants, varies widely across the state.  

What's actually needed on many riparian pastures in Iowa and some other 
states, if we want to benefit native plants and declining grassland wildlife 
as well as soil and water protection,  is the removal of many non-prairie 
woody species.   Burning (limited and controlled to protect invertebrates) 
can also help a lot.   The national tree-planting requirement is in direct, 
basic opposition to what is really needed and makes the most sense for many 
riparian pastures.   

As a landowner, I can testify that tree and brush removal and controlled 
burning can have remarkable effects on native plants and wildlife in pasture 
prairie remnants.   We continue to find new native species on our land.    On 
some prairie pastures, a case could also be made for controlled grazing.

I am helping two local landowners affected by the tree-planting requirement, 
and am growing local-ecotype woody prairie species to plant on their 
prairie-remnant former pastures.  On one hand, I am very grateful to the Iowa 
technical committee for giving us this option instead of a straight tree and 
shrub planting.   On the other hand, I resent having to spend valuable time, 
effort, and money on plantings that aren't needed because of a federal 
requirement which basically makes no sense.   

Cindy Hildebrand
Ames, IA  50010
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index