Transforming Conservation Policy Conservation Policy: ... Table 3: Acres Offered & Enrolled in...

Transforming Conservation Policy: Providing Greater Public Benefits Through Private Working Lands Conservation Background paper prepared for: Private Lands, Public Benefits: A Policy Summit on Working Lands Conservation National Governors’ Association Washington, DC March 16, 2001 Prepared by: Tracey L. Wolff Policy Analyst Natural Resources Policy Studies Division NGA Center for Best Practices National Governors’ Association

Since their initial meeting in 1908 to discuss interstate water problems, the governors have worked through the National Governors Association to deal collectively with issues of public policy and governance. The association's ongoing mission is to support the work of the governors by providing a bipartisan forum to help shape and implement national policy and to solve state problems. The members of the National Governors Association (NGA) are the governors of the 50 states, the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. The association has a nine-member Executive Committee and three standing committees-on Economic Development and Commerce, Human Resources, and Natural Resources. Through NGA's committees, the governors examine and develop policy and address key state and national issues. Special task forces often are created to focus gubernatorial attention on federal legislation or on state-level issues. The association works closely with the Administration and Congress on state-federal policy issues through its offices in the Hall of the States in Washington, D.C. The association serves as a vehicle for sharing knowledge of innovative programs among the states and provides technical assistance and consultant services to governors on a wide range of management and policy issues. The Center for Best Practices is a vehicle for sharing knowledge about innovative state activities, exploring the impact of federal initiatives on state government, and providing technical assistance to states. The center works in a number of policy fields, including agriculture and rural development, economic development, education, energy and environment, health, social services, technology, trade, transportation and workforce development. Copyright 2001 by the National Governors Association, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001-1512. All rights reserved. The responsibility for the accuracy of the analysis and for the judgments expressed lie with the authors; this document does not constitute policy positions of the National Governors Association or individual governors. For more information on other publications by the NGA Center for Best Practices, visit the center’s web site at www.nga.org/center.

Transforming Conservation Policy: Providing Greater Public Benefits Through Private Working Lands Conservation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page Executive Summary 1 Background 3 Table 1: How Our Land is Used 3 Public Benefits of Working Lands Conservation 4 Economic Pressures on Private Working Lands Owners 5 Growth Pressures Facing Working Lands Owners 7 Table 2: Type and Amount of Land Converted to Developed Land from 1992-1997 7 Policy Pressures Facing Working Lands Owners 8 Table 3: Acres Offered & Enrolled in Specific CRP Enrollment Periods 9 Considering the Landowner in Conservation Policies 10 State Best Practices: Flexible Program Leads to Conservation Success in North Carolina 11 State Best Practices: Wetlands Mitigation Banking for Farmers in Missouri and Minnesota Could Provide Benefits While Protecting Private Property

12

State Best Practices: Sharing Farm Machinery in North Dakota Reduced Costs to Comply with CRP 12 State Best Practices: Outreach Helps Enroll Iowa Landowners in Conservation Program 13 Considering the Public in Conservation Policies 14 State Best Practices: Innovative TV and Web Broadcasting Helps Illustrate the Public Benefits of Conservation in Pennsylvania

14

Considering the Formulation and Implementation of Conservation Policies 14 Table 4: District, State, and Federal Resources for Conservation District Operations 15 State Best Practices: Michigan Implements a Comprehensive Program to Reduce Agricultural Pollution Without “Reinventing the Wheel”

16

State Best Practices: Maryland Develops an Innovative Program for Disposing of Animal Waste 17 State Best Practices: Oklahoma Invests in Training State Conservation Leaders 17 Sample Coordinating Strategies 17 Conclusion 20 Appendix A: Summary of USDA Private Working Lands Conservation Policies 21 Appendix B: List of Internet Sites Providing Assistance Information 25

Transforming Conservation Policy Page 1

Ø Executive Summary Because farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners own and work so much of the land, their conservation activities have a tremendous impact on our wildlife and natural resources, and consequently we receive many benefits from their stewardship. Conservation on our privately owned working land provides clean water and clean air, it keeps soil healthy and productive, it provides habitat for fish and wildlife, and it contributes to our overall quality of life. Owners of working lands are stewards to approximately sixty-nine percent of the acreage in the United States, 1 yet they only total about two percent of the population.2 Government policies play an important role, therefore, in distributing the costs of stewardship to all those who benefit and reflecting the priority we place on protecting environmental health and quality of life. Currently, conservation policies are not meeting all of the public’s demands or landowners’ needs that they could. A great deal of federal and state money is dedicated to conservation on working lands, but:

• The programs themselves are complicated, • The agencies implementing them are varied and labyrinthine, • Compliance criteria maintain no uniformity over time, and • The neediest landowners often do not even know what assistance is available to them.

Moreover, landowners face a great deal of pressure from encroaching development and reduced commodity support. Without policies that provide more support for landowners to implement conservation strategies, the nation will not accrue all of the possible conservation benefits from private working lands. Policy makers should consider a complementary “third way” to design conservation programs, a way that meets the needs of the public and the landowners at the same time. The typical methods of protecting environmental and natural resources amenities are regulation and acquisition of private lands. Farmer, ranchers, and forest landowners are businesspeople first. They will of course meet conservation requirements mandated by regulatory policies, but these sorts of policies will never enable or encourage them to do more than required. They simply cannot afford to do all the public, or they, would like to do to be good stewards while also maintaining a productive enterprise. Furthermore, acquisition of environmentally sensitive land is sometimes important, but it is infeasible for government to acquire all of the lands necessary to achieve the same benefits private landowners can provide. Working lands are also taken out of production when acquired, thus impacting secondary businesses, stressing remaining working lands, and reducing the level of day-to-day monitoring. Conservation goals could be better met by providing support to private landowners through comprehensive, flexible, voluntary programs that promote a coordinated approach to conservation. One of the first steps in achieving this comprehensive approach is the development of a state/federal strategy to coordinate the formulation and implementation of conservation programs among all levels of government and all agencies.

1 This figure excludes Alaska. “Percent of Land in Private Ownership.” 1997 National Resources Inventory, USDA-NRCS. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m5116.html . 2 America’s Private Land: A Geography of Hope. USDA-NRCS: 7. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/GHopeHit.html.


Several examples of coordinating strategies exist from which policy makers might be able to draw ideas: • The National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), • The Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management, • The state conservation agency and conservation district model, • The Invasive Species National Management Plan, and • Resource management planning.

Each of these strategies has unique attributes but also important similarities that a state/federal conservation strategy might emulate. They work to coordinate efforts across media and across units of government. They take a holistic approach to natural resource conservation, usually using watersheds as an appropriate delineation of projects. Most of all, they try to simplify program information and requirements so that those people for which the programs are designed can easily understand what is expected of them and know where to find help to meet expectations.


Ø Background Many US farms, ranches, and woodlots—our working lands—are suffering from biological degradation and contributing to the degradation of larger ecosystems. The high salinity of soils has stunted plant growth on over forty-eight million acres of cropland and pastures. 3 Soil compaction from heavy farm machinery and acidification from overproduction have also adversely impacted the sustainability of millions of acres. Erosion, nutrient loading, carbon releases, manure management, and invasive species contribute to soil, water, wildlife, and air quality problems across the nation. If the nation’s communities are to protect their green spaces, their agricultural heritage, and their quality of life, then land conservation must include conservation on our working lands. Approximately sixty-nine percent of the land in the United States, exclusive of Alaska, is privately owned.4 Approximately 1.4 billion acres of our nation are working lands, 98 million acres are developed, and 402 million acres are federally owned. 5 About 4.7 million landowners6 work the 1.4 billion acres in agricultural production (See Table 1). Table 1: How Our Land is Used (USDA-NRCS National Resources Inventory, 1997)

7 Total US land = 1,894.2 Private land (including tribal) = 1,335.0 State/local government land = 157.1 Federal land = 402.1 Rural land = 1,393.8 Developed land = 98.3 Cropland = 377.0 (32.7 in CRP) Pastureland = 120.0 Rangeland = 406.0 Forest land = 407.0 Miscellaneous rural = 51.1

3 Sorenson, A. Ann, Richard P. Greene, and Karen Russ. “Discussion.” Farming on the Edge. Center for Agriculture in the Environment, American Farmland Trust: Mar. 1997. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/foe2/foetoc.html. 4 “Percent of Land in Private Ownership.” 1997 National Resources Inventory, USDA-NRCS. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m5116.html. 5 “How Our Land is Used.” 1997 National Resources Inventory. USDA-NRCS. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m5116.html. 6 America’s Private Land: A Geography of Hope. USDA-NRCS: 7 and 19. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/GHopeHit.html. 7 “How Our Land is Used” and “Percent of Land in Private Ownership, 1997.” 1997 National Resources Inventory. USDA-NRCS. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m5116.html and http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m5555.html.


Private landowners generally welcome the opportunity to contribute to environmental protection and land conservation, but they cannot always afford to do so. Landowners realize that the benefits of their work accrue to a larger population beyond their lands. It only makes sense that everyone who benefits should help pay, especially because extensive population and economic growth have increased the value of working lands conservation and because greater regulatory requirements benefiting the public, such as TMDL and AFO/CAFO requirements, have increased the cost of environmental compliance. In 1999, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) held a working lands conservation summit hosted by Secretary Dan Glickman. A participant from the Ames, Iowa Resource Conservation District stated:

Society is demanding that we produce more than food and fiber. We are being asked to filter water as it enters our land and clean it before it reaches others who use it. We are being relied on to produce open spaces and viewscapes. Global warming research points to agriculture and timber as an ideal way to sequester carbon, offsetting that produced by industry and high population areas. We are also being asked to raise and harbor the fish and wildlife for everyone to enjoy. This is OK with us Mr. Secretary. We are eager to do our part to help society by producing more than just food and fiber. But we desperately need your help. We can’t sell enough food and fiber now to keep the family farm and ranch alive, so how do we offset the heavy costs of these other products? We need society to partner with us in meeting these goals.8

If the public values conservation on private lands, public policy should reflect its priority. Improved federal, state, and local programs and policies should provide landowners with more adequate assistance to help them meet the public’s conservation needs. This paper seeks to answer the questions: why is working lands conservation important to everyone, and what policies can better it? Ø Public Benefits of Working Lands Conservation Private landowners are uniquely suited to help achieve many of the nation’s conservation and environmental goals. Private lands conservation can be a powerful tool to:

• Reduce air and water pollution; • Preserve open and green spaces; • Preserve fish and wildlife habitats, endangered species, and biodiversity; • Manage and protect watersheds and wetlands; • Maintain scenic landscapes and recreational amenities; • Reduce soil erosion and improve soil quality; • Reduce the negative impacts of flooding; • Improve resilience to drought and invasive species; • Help reduce the level of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere; and • Protect sustainable capacities to produce food and fiber.

Almost ninety percent of the rain and snow that falls on the contiguous United States falls on private lands before making its way to streams, lakes, and rivers. More than seventy percent of wildlife finds food and shelter on working lands.9 About half of the nation’s federally protected species rely on private lands for at least eighty percent of their habitat.10 8 “Analysis of Verbal and Written Comments: Private Land Conservation Forums and the National Conservation Summit.” Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/anritvrb.html. 9 “Preserving the Health of the Land: America’s Conservation Challenge” brochure. USDA: Dec. 1999. 10 Losing Ground: Failing to Meet Farmer Demand for Conservation Assistance. Environmental Defense: 1 Mar. 2001. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/programs/Ecosystems/losingground.html .


The practices a landowner chooses to employ greatly determine the quality of our air and water and greatly affects whether fish and wildlife thrive or decline. For example, a stream buffer can filter water before entering a watershed, thus preventing fertilizer or animal waste from degrading a watershed’s health. No till practices, rotational grazing, and sustainable timber harvesting can all reduce soil erosion, thus helping to sequester carbon and reduce the levels of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Certain harvesting practices can protect wildlife habitats and migratory corridors. The public realizes these benefits, too. A poll conducted in just one Virginia county in January 2001 found that ninety-four percent of county taxpayers think it is important to preserve family farms. The poll also found that citizens think efforts to preserve farms and rural areas are a good investment because they stabilize taxes by avoiding expansion of costly local services and infrastructure.11 Ø Economic Pressures on Private Working Lands Owners Economic pressures create disincentives to practice conservation on America’s working lands, and private landowners certainly face economic pressures in today’s environment of sprawl and competing environmental priorities:

• Conservation practices can be prohibitively expensive. Without assistance in developing and executing conservation plans, private landowners are often not able to afford to both produce commodities on their land—often with poor economic returns—and conserve natural resources.

• Some regulatory demands place a requisite economic burden on landowners that makes it difficult for them to invest in a streamlined, comprehensive resource conservation plan that could address numerous environmental needs at once.

• Historic price and/or commodity support programs upon which landowners used to rely have been cut as a result of international trade requirements. The loss of this assistance has limited what conservation practices landowners are able to afford.

Federal programs for working lands, both commodity and conservation programs, receive less support than they once did. Programs that historically provided price and/or income support to farmers, ranchers, and timber producers have been reduced or eliminated. In fact, traditional commodity support programs are prohibited under several trade agreements, most notably the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).12 International trade agreements have pledged the United States to liberalize trade and remove subsidies to agricultural producers that are linked to production. Direct payment programs for working land producers cannot be tied to the quantity they produce in order to be “GATT-legal.” Instead of commodity support programs, GATT-legal conservation programs have emerged;13 but conservation programs do not receive the level of funding or technical support that the commodity support programs once did. Annual spending for USDA conservation assistance on private lands was about $2.5 billion in 1999. In adjusted dollars, this amounts to less than half of the funds dedicated to workings lands conservation sixty years ago, when land conservation programs were in their infancy. Recent UDSA spending amounts to

11 Press Release: “Poll Shows Taxpayers Want Family Farms Preserved for Future Generations.” American Farmland Trust: 29 Jan. 2001. http://www.farmland.org/news/012901.htm. 12 Batie, Sandra S. “Green Payments as Foreshadowed by EQIP.” Center for Agriculture in the Environment, American Farmland Trust: Aug. 1998. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/wp/wp98-8.html. 13 Ibid.


less than $2 per acre spent on the nation’s private lands, as opposed to about $10 per acre the federal government spends annually to protect and manage the nation’s public lands.14 Craig Cox, Executive Vice President of the Soil and Water Conservation Society and Paul Johnson, Director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, testified at US Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee hearings on February 28 and March 1, 2001. They stated that $10 billion in federal funding per year would be necessary to begin to see environmental protection improvements on private working lands.15 Inadequate funding for federal conservation programs has prevented thousands of farmers and ranchers from receiving needed technical and financial assistance so that they might address pressing environmental challenges, such as water quality and habitat protection. Approximately fifty percent of the farmers and ranchers seeking basic technical assistance from their local conservation districts on methods to filter polluted runoff, combat global warming, or provide habitat for wildlife fail to receive it.16 Although emergency spending measures have assisted landowners in recent years when commodity support programs were unable to do so, these stopgap measures have not helped to produce environmental amenities on working lands. Only improved conservation programs can achieve both environmental benefits for the public and economic benefits for the landowner. Many regulatory programs in place right now target specific environmental problems. For instance, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements specify the maximum amount of a pollutant that a lake, river, stream, or estuary can receive without seriously harming its beneficial uses (swimming, drinking, aquatic life, etc.). Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are a category of point source under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Title 33, Chapter 26, § 1311, USC), discharges of pollutants from CAFOs to waters of the United States are prohibited unless authorized by an NPDES permit. Finally, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) compels a landowner to protect habitats with the threat of punishment, but it essentially does nothing to encourage or reward conservation on private land. 17 These regulations require a landowner to take certain remedial actions, some of which might be more expensive or less efficient than alternative options not permitted under the regulations. More importantly, these regulatory programs focus on discharge to watersheds alone. Carbon sequestration, habitat protection/restoration, soil erosion, and other conservation issues facing landowners are not considered as part of the programs’ requirements or monitoring. If conservation programs were streamlined and consolidated in a way that was made simple for landowners and that pooled available resources to most effectively use program dollars, broad conservation programs tailored to each ecosystem’s needs could be put in place. Landowners could address numerous environmental needs at once rather than devoting their scarce economic resources to remediation and reporting requirements for several different programs that each require different compliance actions from them. 14 Summit brochure on “National Summit on Private Land Conservation.” National Association of Conservation Districts. 7 Dec. 1999. 15 Henry, Natalie M. “Senate Farm Bill Reform Hearing Focuses on Conservation.” Environment & Energy Daily. 2 Mar. 2001. 16 Losing Ground: Failing to Meet Farmer Demand for Conservation Assistance. Environmental Defense: 1 Mar. 2001. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/programs/Ecosystems/losingground.html . 17 Restoring Balance to the Endangered Species Act: An Outline for Federal Legislation. National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition. http://www.nesarc.org/compbill.htm.


Ø Growth Pressures Facing Working Lands Owners Between 1992 and 1997, more than eleven million acres of land were developed in the United States. (See Table 2 below for a breakdown of what types of land was converted in what amounts.) Clearly, sprawl is a very real problem facing owners of working lands. Table 2: Type and Amount of Land Converted to Developed Land18 from 1992 to 199719 Type of land Amount converted (in acres) Prime farmland20 3,225,400 Cropland 2,902,100 Pastureland 2,000,000 Rangeland 1,283,200 Forest land 4,771,100 Other rural land21 448,500 Moreover, urban sprawl fragments working lands, thus limiting what agricultural production is possible on it. Consequently, the total acreage lost does not accurately illustrate how great of an impact low-density development has on working lands’ sustainability. The changing population of developing rural areas affects the ability of landowners to respond to development’s pressures, as well. Though they value the rural heritage of the area they now call home, new residents do not always support the agricultural practices of their neighboring farmers, ranchers, or foresters. Irene Bonertz owns a horse farm in John’s Creek, Georgia, called Rose Ridge; and over the past thirteen years, luxury homes have been built around it. Irene did not want to sell her farm, but rising property values forced her to come up with an alternative to maintaining the increasingly expensive land22: She sold one third of her twenty-one acres to a developer, who intends to build forty-eight luxury townhomes on the site. The remaining land will be preserved as a horse farm, and the development rights donated to a land trust in perpetuity. 23

18 A combination of land cover/use categories: Urban and built-up areas, and Rural Transportation Land. See USDA’s National Resources Inventory (NRI) definitions at http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m5077.html. 19 Based on several tables available at USDA’s NRI web site (“Annual Rate of Development, 1992-1997),” “Acres of 1992 Prime Farmland Converted to Developed Land in 1997,” “Acres of Cropland Converted to Developed Land, 1992-1997,” “Acres of 1992 Pastureland Converted to Developed Land in 1997,” “Acres of Rangeland Converted to Developed Land, 1992-1997,” “Acres of Forest Land Converted to Developed Land, 1992-1997,” and “Acres of Other Rural Land Converted to Developed Land, 1992-1997”). http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/index/nri97maps.html. 20 Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these uses. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding. [SSM, USDA Handbook No. 18, October 1993] 21 “Other rural land” includes farm and ranch headquarters; other farmland; salt flats; bare rock; mines and quarries; beaches; sand dunes; mixed barren; mud flats; river wash; oil wasteland; other barren; snow and ice fields; marshland; and all other land. See http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m5108.html. 22 Tofig, Dana. “Horse Farm Owner Wants to Sell, But Not Sell Out.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution . 27 Oct. 2000. 23 Tofig, Dana. “Plan to Save Farm Rides Up.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 8 Feb. 2001.


Many residents are excited by the proposal because it preserves green space in a rapidly growing area. However, some neighbors are upset because the townhomes will ruin their views of the farm, and they do not believe townhomes are appropriate in an area of large, single -family homes. The Fulton County planning staff agreed with these concerns and recommended that the plan be denied because townhomes do not fit the zoning regulations. The Fulton County Planning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of the plan, however.24 Thus, Irene Bonertz was able to save some of the green space she and her neighbors cherish so much, despite the objections of some neighbors who will lose a part of their view—neighbors who did not consider the impact they had on the rural landscape when their own homes were built.

State and local development policies usually seek to protect working lands, but they could be improved by an awareness of the pressures they can create. Some smart growth plans set aside large tracts of land through direct acquisition of the property or through the purchase or trade of development rights. Removing lands from productive use, as these development decisions do, places added strain on remaining private landowners to over-produce or to sell their lands.

Private property rights also are at issue as development and agricultural uses of lands come into conflict. Oregon voters passed a ballot initiative (Measure 7) on November 7, 2000, that requires state and local governments to compensate property owners when regulations, including environmental and conservation regulations, restrict the use of property and reduce its value. Currently, the Oregon Constitution prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, but it does not require any payment when only specific uses are restricted. Farming organizations opposed Measure 7 because it “would cripple local communities across the state in their efforts to manage unplanned development.”25 Implementation of the measure has been temporarily blocked in court,26 but its very passage illustrates the enormous pressure facing landowners, even over the very rights they have as property owners. Landowners cannot preserve the rural heritage that so many people value if they cannot afford to maintain the productive capacity of their lands. They cannot afford to maintain the productive capacity of their lands if sprawl threatens their private property rights and/or pressures them to overproduce. If they are unable to make economically viable decisions due to property restrictions or if they must stress their lands to meet ever-growing production demands, then they likely will not be able to maintain the quality of their lands. And if the working landscape disappears, eventually the community’s rural heritage, quality of life, and environmental quality will be damaged. All that will be left is increased sprawl, with scattered public green spaces. Ø Policy and Program Pressures Facing Working Lands Owners Throughout the 1970s, agricultural producers brought additional land into production to meet increased demand for agricultural exports. In the early 1980s, excessive rates of erosion, said to rival those of the 1930s dust bowl, and excess supply, caused by an abrupt end to the boom, were caused by the rapid expansion in the previous decade.

24 Ibid. 25 “National Farmland Conservation Group Opposes Measure 7.” (Press Release) American Farmland Trust: 3 Nov. 2000. http://www.farmland.org/news/110300.htm. 26 “Judge Prevents Takings Measure From Being Implemented on Schedule.” Daily Environment Report. Environmental News Service: 8 Dec. 2000. http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/DEN.NSF/f253ebd124fb4b52852564800058047d/1635e5acda8b8e50852569af0011867a?OpenDocument. (Subscription required.)


Federal policies had yet to promote multi-year planning strategies that would produce either lasting environmental benefits for the public or enduring economic benefits for the landowners. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), first established in the 1985 Farm Bill, emerged in response to this need.27 The $1.6 billion FY2000 estimated cost of the CRP equals more than half of all federal conservation spending.28 Yet, CRP illustrates that, since 1985, support for conservation programs has been erratic. CRP enrolled 36.4 million acres between 1986 and 1992, retiring highly erodible or environmentally sensitive acres from productive use (generally for ten years) and establishing conservation mechanisms to protect natural resources. The average erosion rate on these acres was reduced from twenty-one tons of soil per acre per year to less than two tons per acre per year. 29 Despite this success in reducing erosion rates, CRP was capped at 36.4 million acres in the 1996 Farm Bill. During every enrollment period, applications to enroll acres have exceeded those that USDA can accept by millions of acres. (See Table 3.) For every landowner who has sold a conservation easement, another six are waiting for the opportunity to do so.30 (A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and land trust or government agency that protects the conservation values of a piece of land by permanently limiting its present and future uses. Land subject to a conservation easement remains privately owned and managed by the landowner, but enforcement of the easement restrictions becomes the permanent responsibility and legal right of the land trust.31) Table 3: Acres offered and enrolled in specific CRP enrollment periods32

Enrollment Number/Date

Acreage Offered for Enrollment (millions of acres)

Acreage Accepted (millions of acres)

No. 15/Mar. 1997 23.3 16.1 No. 16/Nov. 1997 9.5 5.9 No. 18/Dec. 1998 7.1 5.0 No. 20/Feb. 2000 3.5 2.5

Another popular program that has received limited support is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP sets up multiyear contracts with landowners to implement new conservation practices that improve water quality. Approximately seventy-five percent of farmers seeking EQIP funds to share the implementation costs of land and manure management practices are rejected due to lack of funding or program caps. Less than twenty thousand of the seventy-five thousand farmers who sought assistance through EQIP in FY2000 received assistance.33 In addition, more than twenty-seven hundred landowners have offered to enroll more than 560,000 acres of wetlands into the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), but have not been accepted. Three out of four farmers and ranchers seeking federal assistance to restore lost wetlands are rejected due to inadequate funding or program caps. Yet, many of the lost wetlands being offered by farmers and ranchers are in 27 Zinn, Jeffrey. “Conservation Reserve Program: Status and Current Issues.” Congressional Research Service: 23 May 2000 (updated). Rpt. #97-673. http://www.cnie.org/nle/ag-65.html. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Sorenson, A. Ann, Richard P. Greene, and Karen Russ. “Discussion.” Farming on the Edge. Center for Agriculture in the Environment, American Farmland Trust: Mar. 1997. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/foe2/foetoc.html. 31 See http://www.gatheringwaters.org/resource_cons_easements.html. 32 Zinn, Jeffrey. “Conservation Reserve Program: Status and Current Issues.” Congressional Research Service: 23 May 2000 (updated). Rpt. #97-673. http://www.cnie.org/nle/ag-65.html. 33 Losing Ground: Failing to Meet Farmer Demand for Conservation Assistance. Environmental Defense: 1 Mar. 2001. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/programs/Ecosystems/losingground.html.


places where scientists have concluded wetlands restoration is among the most cost-effective solutions to many environmental problems. 34 The Farmland Protection Program helps to combat sprawl through the voluntary purchase of a landowner’s development rights. In the fiscal years when it has been funded, farmer and rancher demand to enroll in the program has exceeded available funds by a six-to-one ratio. 35 More generally, conservation program staffing levels have been reduced as fewer funds have been dedicated to protecting private working lands. While landowner demand for NRCS technical assistance has grown, NRCS technical assistance staff levels have fallen by seven percent over the past ten years, from 10,870 in 1990 to 10,085 in 2000. Total NRCS staff levels have fallen by thirteen percent, from 13,406 in 1990 to 11,601 in 2000, and may drop by 1,000 additional field staff during this fiscal year. Yet, NRCS estimates that 41,300 local field staff would be needed by 2005 to provide the basic technical assistance landowners demand.36 Appendices A and B list dozens of programs that are designed to aid landowners in their stewardship efforts. Yet, landowners are not enrolling in these programs in desired numbers, and the programs are not as successful as they could be. For instance, only five percent of forest owners have forest management plans.37 Why?

Examination of the literature and discussions with landowners provide these answers: • Federal and state policies are not adequately structured to provide the needed incentives for

landowners to engage in the conservation strategies that the policies promote. Often, funding limitations or program caps repeatedly turn away interested landowners, eventually discouraging these landowners from participating.

• Criteria a landowner must follow to insure compliance with all the programs related to their business change too often.

• Programs are sometimes managed by too many different agencies for them to make sense to the landowner.

• Outreach efforts are not always targeted to the landowners who need the most assistance. The next three sections of this paper will explore the pressures brought by conservation policies and offer possible solutions for how to better articulate landowners’ and public needs through federal, state, and local policies. Ø Considering the Landowner in Conservation Policies Though conservation efforts are designed to protect public health, environmental quality, and quality of life, they cannot be fully successful if the needs of the private landowners are ignored when designing conservation policies. After all, landowners and operators must ultimately serve as the stewards of much of the nation’s rural landscape. To this end, programs could be improved by:

• Providing more flexibility to allow landowners to meet goals in the most efficient manner for their land’s unique attributes. (See Figure 1.)

• Respecting the private property rights of landowners in order to build broader support. (See Figure 2.)

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 “Analysis of Verbal and Written Comments: Private Land Conservation Forums and the National Conservation Summit.” Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/anritvrb.html.


• Linking conservation to profits, demonstrating that environmental protection is not simply a public necessity but smart business. (See Figure 3.)

• Including plans and funding for outreach and education in order to focus programs on the lands most in need of specific conservation measures. (See Figure 4.)

It is difficult to balance the rights and the needs of private landowners with the demands of the public, but working lands conservation must consider both if it is to be successful. A good example of the conflict between the value of private property and the value of public goods is the tensions inherent in the current ESA. Under the current law, endangered species are designated as public trust resources, and thus not subject to private ownership. Although these species are a public resource, however, wildlife habitat most frequently is not; land is a commodity that can be owned and traded between private parties.38 Government regulation of endangered species, therefore, stands as a threat to the financial value of a private commodity. This value is protected by the Constitution’s safeguards against uncompensated takings of property. Thus, the ESA cannot avoid the conflict between public and private interests, even at the most fundamental legal level.39 This fundamental conflict presents a challenge for the formulation of policies and programs that support conservation on private working lands. As Boyd, Caballero, and Simpson write, “Land use regulation is an ‘extreme’ option in that is does a relatively poor job of weighing (or compensating) private interests. Cost effective, and politically pragmatic, land use policies require a more effective weighing of private interests than direct regulation can provide. For this reason, there is growing interest in flexible, ‘market-based’ incentives to motivate conservation by landowners.”40

38 Boyd, James, Kathryn Caballero, and R. David Simpson. “The Law and Economics of Habitat Conservation: Lessons from an Analysis of Easement Acquisitions.” Resources for the Future, Apr. 1999: 1-2. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.

Figure 1 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Flexible Program Leads to Conservation Success in North Carolina The Herrings Marsh Run watershed* is a 5000-acre coastal watershed in Raleigh, North Carolina. Before 1990, it had the potential for tremendous water quality problems due to growing hog and poultry industries, agricultural production, and human populations. Nitrogen concentrations were cut in half over eight years (1990-1998) through a voluntary partnership among area producers, state agencies, and federal agencies. The project included traditional conservation strategies such as conservation tillage and buffer strips, as well as innovative practices such as animal mortality composting and variable rate fertilization experiments. Perhaps most innovative of all, however, was growers’ use of the hog manure and poultry litter from neighboring animal producers. Applying animal waste as fertilizer put tons of waste into use, replaced approximately 180,000 pounds of commercial nitrogen fertilizer per year, kept nutrients out of nearby streams, and saved thousands of dollars for growers. The flexible approach to conservation programs allowed participants to find innovative ways to reduce nutrient runoff and resulted in unexpected benefits, such as reduced costs and increased partnerships between growers and animal farmers. * See http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/success/Herring.html for more information.


Figure 3 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Sharing Farm Machinery in North Dakota Reduced Costs

to Comply with the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Carl Madsen, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Private Lands Coordinator in Brookings, South Dakota, noticed that South Dakota farmers did not have the specialized machinery necessary to plant warm season native grasses ideal for wildlife and waterfowl on the prairies.* FWS; the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; and Ducks Unlimited contributed half the cost for thirty specialized grass-seeding drills that conservation districts can rent to landowners or operators during a five-year period. Local conservation districts paid the other half, either from their own funds or with the help of local partners. Pooling funds enabled purchases that none of the partners could have afforded alone. Madsen estimates that the drills could plant native grasses on up to 225,000 acres in the next five years. This is a significant share of South Dakota’s CRP acres, many of which are newly enrolled and need to be seeded to new cover. * See http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/sd3part.html for more information.

Figure 2 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Wetlands Mitigation Banking for Farmers in Missouri and Minnesota

Could Provide Public Benefits While Protecting Private Property* The Missouri Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center (ACIC) have been working with federal and state resource agencies on the first wetlands mitigation bank specifically designed for farming activities. The project was approved by federal and state resource agencies in December 1999. The mitigation plan will result in the restoration of a seventy-three acre wetland complex, currently a prior converted cropland, in the southeast region of the state. Each acre of restored wetland will be equal to one wetland credit, and landowners will be able to purchase these credits when applying for a permit to convert wetlands, thus allowing the landowner to work his private property while creating and/or maintaining important wetland functions within the watershed. The Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service are working to establish a pilot wetland mitigation bank project in Roseau County, Minnesota that will provide environmentally sound mitigation opportunities at an affordable price for producers. Program staff is currently working with landowners to determine what prior converted croplands they might be interested in restoring to wetlands to establish the bank. * See http://www.agconserv.com/projects.html for more information.


Figure 4 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Outreach Helps Enroll Iowa Landowners in Conservation Programs This year, two partnerships among Iowa and federal conservation and wildlife agencies, landowners, and local interests have resulted in practices to improve habitat and water quality in Iowa.* First, in northeastern Iowa’s Alamakee County, NRCS district conservationists targeted local farmers whose land adjoined certain trout streams in order to reduce the runoff from their lands. Over the course of several months, the NRCS officials’ outreach persuaded county farmers to enroll approximately 1700 acres of land and forty stream miles in USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Second, a coalition of federal and state agencies and local conservation and environmental groups targeted local landowners who could help protect the Middle Raccoon River, just west of Des Moines. The coalition has asked these farmers to participate in a program of cost sharing, low-cost equipment rentals, and other incentives to install streamside buffers. To date, landowners have installed about seventy-five miles of buffer and protected 1000 acres of sensitive riparian habitats. Outreach to owners of key working lands, such as that performed in these two Iowa examples, can lead to better protection of an ecosystem or watershed. *See http://www.asafishing.org/newsroom/pressreleases/farmbill.htm for more information.


Ø Considering the Public in Conservation Policies Public support of private working lands conservation helps insure its success. Policies that promote conservation could increase public acceptance by making clear the connections between the natural resource amenities the public values and the practices of working lands’ owners and operators:

• Government policies could seek increased input from the public about what conservation goals are most important to them in order to develop priorities for support.

• The government could institute policies to build broad, national support for private lands conservation. Conservation programs could include mechanisms to educate the urban public, particularly school children, about the benefits they receive from rural conservation and land management. (See Figure 5.)

Ø Considering the Formulation and Implementation of Conservation Policies Conservation policies can sometimes have unintended consequences, as the “Policy Pressures” section above illustrates. Improved formulation and implementation of working lands conservation policies might help insure their success:

• Improved coordination of policies within and among agencies, among all levels of government, and with private entities in order to help make sense of the responsibilities working lands owners and operators have under various programs. State governments are particularly suited to head coordinating efforts since they are large enough to encompass all or a great deal of a watershed affected by agricultural practices, but still small enough to understand the unique characteristics of it. (See Figure 6.)

• Better coordination could help lead to cost savings and new partnerships, as well. (See Figure 7.)

Figure 5 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Innovative TV and Web Broadcasting Helps Illustrate the Public

Benefits of Conservation in Pennsylvania The Environmental Fund for Pennsylvania (EEP) produces www.GreenWorks.tv and the Emmy Award winning GreenWorks for Pennsylvania television series, in partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.* GreenWorks for Pennsylvania airs monthly and showcases individuals, communities, businesses, and government bodies that are taking innovative, positive steps to help preserve and protect the Pennsylvania environment. In order to demonstrate that environmental protection produces tangible results, the shows focus on real-life actions taken in familiar Pennsylvania communities that have provided direct benefits to area citizens. The program was awarded the 2000 Mid-Atlantic Emmy for Outstanding Public Affairs Series this past September and was nominated for Outstanding Documentary Program. The accompanying Internet site, GreenWorks.tv, allows continuous access to the television shows and provides links to contacts related to each show’s topic. GreenWorks for Pennsylvania and GreenWorks.tv reach over ten million viewers, delivering practical environmental and natural resource information in an engaging format. The show currently airs on over eighty public access stations throughout the state and secured its first series run on public television’s Philadelphia station in November 2000. EEP produces the GreenWorks Gazette, a circular distributed in newspapers throughout the state that reaches over one million people. They also provide low-cost, expert production services to other environmental nonprofits in the state who wish to produce a video product. *See www.GreenWorks.tv for more information.


• Constancy in government programs’ compliance criteria could help eliminate some of the disincentives to participate in them. Landowners are wary of instituting a comprehensive management plan—a costly and time-consuming undertaking—if the work they perform only serves to meet their conservation responsibilities for one or two years. (See Figure 6.)

• Programs could help to measure success and to demonstrate that suggested remediation achieves the promised outcomes by providing greater assistance with scientific monitoring.

• Greater numbers of well-trained conservation staff would help landowners by making expert technical assistance available to them. (See Figure 8.)

• Perhaps most importantly, conservation programs could assist the public and landowners more by providing more funding. Private landowners often do not employ conservation measures because they cannot afford them, not for lack of interest in or concern for their desired better environmental protection.

State and local governments have taken the lead in protecting farmland in many ways over the past forty years. All states provide property tax relief for owners of agricultural land and protection from nuisance lawsuits for private landowners. Twenty-one states have authorized conservation easement programs that offer landowners compensation for giving up the right to develop their land. Sixteen states allow farmers to form special agricultural districts where commercial agriculture is encouraged and protected.41 Local communities use comprehensive land use planning and/or farm-friendly zoning ordinances to control growth in certain agricultural areas. Some counties and town also have their own conservation easement programs.42 State and local governments are increasingly providing the funding and the expertise to implement federal conservation programs, as well. Over the past decade, state and local funding and staffing levels have risen to about even with federal commitments.43 (See Table 4.) Table 4: District, State and Federal Resources for Conservation District Operations44

Partner Staff Operating Funds* Financial Incentives* USDA

• NRCS • FSA

11,900

$827.025 million

$416.829 million

$1.660 billion Conservation Districts

• District Officials • District Employees

16,500 7,100

State Conservation Agencies • State Employees • Commission Members

1,100 270

$750 million

$450 million

*Funding levels were derived from several sources detailing FY1999 and FY2000 appropriations and outlays. Consult NACD for further information. The changing relationships between federal and state/local assistance suggests that federal policy could be improved by considering:

41 “How to Save Farmland: Farmland Protection Tools and Techniques.” American Farmland Trust. http://www.farmland.org/how/tools.htm. 42 Ibid. 43 Interview with Roland Geddes, National Association of State Conservation Districts, and Ernie Shea, National Association of Conservation Districts. 14 Nov. 2000. 44 Table. “The Conservation Partnership: USDA, Conservation Districts, and State Conservation Agencies.” National Association of Conservation Districts: May 2000.


• The important role state and local governments can play in meeting national stewardship goa ls in a manner consistent with the needs and desires of a region’s public and landowners

• The flexibility within federal programs necessary to give state and local governments the ability to tailor them to their unique regions

Witnesses at the US Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee hearings held on February 28 and March 1, 2001, testified to the need for programs that are flexible, voluntary, and incentive-based. To this end, states should have significant authority in formulating conservation goals and allocating assistance; and federal programs should be based on flexible contracts between landowners and the USDA.45 The next section explores how a state/federal coordinating strategy might help create a more coordinate, flexible approach to working lands conservation.

45 Henry, Natalie M. “Senate Farm Bill Reform Hearing Focuses on Conservation.” Environment and Energy Daily: 2 Mar. 2001.

Figure 6 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Michigan Implements a Comprehensive Program to Reduce

Agricultural Pollution The Michigan Department of Agriculture has instituted an innovative environmental stewardship program called the “Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program.” * It is a comprehensive, voluntary program, begun by the agriculture industry, which seeks to assure that a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) implemented by a landowner will meet the requirements of federal and state nutrient management regulations. The program was developed through the collaboration of many interested parties: the Michigan Department of Agriculture, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), USDA-NRCS, Michigan State University, and several environmental groups. It has three phases:

1. Education about the Assurance Program and about what makes a good CNMP. 2. On-farm risk assessment and development of a CNMP for farmers who volunteer to enter the program. 3. At the farmers’ request, verification that the CNMP will meet federal and state standards and, if

successfully reviewed, issuance of an environmental certification. Program staff plan to have nineteen meetings across the state in early 2001 to implement Phase 1. Landowners will leave the meetings with a list of trained “CNMP providers” who are available to provide technical assistance. The staff expects to begin issuing environmental certificates by June 2001. The Agriculture Department and DEQ will issue a joint environmental certification assuring that the farming operation meets the nutrient management standards required under state and federal laws. Although it does not exempt landowners from any action if they do discharge pollutants, the certification gives them a first line of defense against litigation and DEQ enforcement actions, since the CNMP is considered a good faith effort to comply with all applicable laws. It also lets local governments and landowners’ neighbors know landowners are implementing sound environmental practices. The program has been reviewed and approved by federal AFO/CAFO officials. According to Vicki Pontz-Teachout, Michigan’s Environmental Stewardship Division Director, it will likely become the model by which national standards for a nutrient management program are developed. Insurance and farm credit corporations are interested in this new program, as well, and they are considering offering incentives for participation. *Some information on the program can be found in the “Agricultural Pollution Prevention Implementation Plan,” http://www.mda.state.mi.us/environm/pollimple.html.


Ø Sample Coordinating Policies Throughout history, private landowners have achieved conservation outcomes in cooperation with USDA. USDA has achieved conservation and environmental protection by relying on incentive-based programs that actively seek the voluntary participation of landowners. The foundation of this approach is the Mutual Agreement (MA)—a document signed by the Secretary of Agriculture with State and Territory Governors, Tribes, and individual conservation districts. The MA provides the basic framework for cooperation between USDA and landowners, and facilitates not only access to USDA programs but also allows for implementation of State, Tribal, and local conservation initiatives. This unique delivery system has allowed some eight thousand district and state conservation employees to work side-by-side with NRCS conservation staff on conservation efforts.

Figure 7 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Maryland Develops an Innovative Pilot Program for Disposing of

Animal Waste The Office of Resource Conservation under the Maryland Department of Agriculture helps animal operations make positive use of excess manure.* The agency’s Poultry Litter Transport Project offers cost-share assistance to help farmers transport poultry litter further away from the farm. To complement it, the Manure Matching Service links animal operators with individuals or businesses that can safely use manure as a nutrient source. Poultry farmers have traditionally applied litter to neighboring farms where crop producers can use it for fertilizer. An over-application of the waste to the same soils has resulted in high concentrations of phosphorus in the soil and sometimes even in the groundwater. The Transport Project helps fund transportation of the waste further away from the farm. It provides added incentive to move poultry litter away from the four Lower Eastern Shore counties where phosphorus concentrations are at their highest due to large numbers of poultry producers. Over the past year, the project has moved about twenty thousand tons of animal waste away from the most phosphoric lands. Project staff expects that number to double next Spring as the project gains popularity and animal waste brokers are allowed to apply for cost sharing. Maryland’s Office of Resource Conservation provides no real regulation beyond approving applications for funding. It simply provides funds and helps form partnerships between farmers with supply and those with demand. This simple formula has met with success in developing new partnerships and in cost savings for the poultry farmers and those businesses wishing to use poultry litter and manure as fertilizer. *See http://www.mda.state.md.us/resource/agenviro.html for more information.

Figure 8 STATE BEST PRACTICES: Oklahoma Invests in Training State Conservation Leaders

Oklahoma’s year-long Leadership 2000 Program*—sponsored by the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and NRCS—trains future conservation leaders. Class members gain a thorough understanding of Oklahoma’s conservation history; current resource conservation issues; and local, state, and federal conservation programs. The course also provides opportunities for leadership development. Training and education is provided by state and federal agencies, farm organizations, and others on subjects such as water quality, concentrated animal feeding operations, environmental education, abandoned mine reclamation, small watershed programs, wetlands, USDA agencies and their responsibilities, irrigation, tillage methods, and other resource issues. Program graduates are taking a stronger leadership role in their own conservation districts and on a state, regional, and national level. *See Conservation Across America: Partnerships that Work, produced by USDA-NRCS for their December 7, 1999, private land conservation summit, for more information.


Every federal dollar devoted to working lands conservation is also matched by state and local contributions. However, the partnership between NRCS and state and local conservation agencies does not cover the breadth of programs impacting landowners’ conservation efforts. Constructing a state/federal strategy to help guide the universe of conservation policy making by building on this delivery system could lead to greater success in meeting the nation’s conservation goals. Some coordination efforts exist whose designs could help inform policymakers on how such a coordinating conservation strategy might be structured:

• As was just mentioned, the states’ conservation agencies and some three thousand conservation districts throughout the nation provide “one-stop shopping” for many conservation programs. NRCS, state, and district officials share resources and funding responsibilities to maintain conservation district offices. These offices provide seamless service to urban and rural landowners alike; customers rarely know who employs the conservation staff assisting them. However, the conservation districts do not always funnel all conservation programs through their office. EPA, DOI, or NOAA programs are often outside of the conservation district’s purview. Thus, the landowner still is met with a myriad of programs and compliance criteria by various programs. Still, NRCS/conservation district system is a vehicle by which conservation programs might be better coordinated.

• In 1995, EPA and state leaders agreed to establish the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS). NEPPS is designed to give states a stronger role in priority setting, focus scarce resources on priority issues, and tailor the amount and type of EPA oversight to an individual state’s performance. EPA also has a new performance partnership grant authority that allows states to combine funds from multiple EPA grants to address their highest environmental priorities across all media; more effectively link program activities with environmental goals and program outcomes; and carry out innovative pollution prevention, cross media, ecosystem, and community-based strategies.46

• In 2000, the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Army Corps of Engineers announced a unified policy to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems on federal lands titled “A Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management.” It is to serve as a framework for land and resource management that focuses on total watershed health, includes assessment and monitoring of numerous conditions, and identifies priority watersheds.

• The National Invasive Species Council is comprised of eight federal departments (Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, State, Treasury, Defense, Transportation, and EPA) and charged with preparing a plan to minimize the economic and ecological impacts and the harm to animal and human health associated with invasive species. More than twenty federal agencies now share responsibility and authority over some facet of invasive species management, along with various agencies of all fifty states and territories. To coordinate the policy formulated and implemented by these various authorities, the Council will establish an oversight policy, a crosscutting budget, and a flexible dispute resolution mechanism. The Council has already established a comprehensive web site where users can learn about the various laws, at all levels of government, concerning invasive species in their region (www.invasivespecies.gov) in order to begin outreach and education efforts. 47

46 “New Ways of Achieving Our Overall Mission: Key Cross-Agency Programs.” EPA Strategic Plan . p. 82. 47 “Draft Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge.” National Invasive Species Council: 2 Oct. 2000. pg. 2.


These programs are, of course, not without problems. For example, the National Academy of Public Administration writes of NEPPS:

Better environmental data and a better understanding of program effectiveness can make it easier for managers to make choices, but they do not alone guarantee better decisions. Negotiating agreements among EPA regional offices and state agencies can lead to a more effective allocation of responsibilities, but negotiations can break down over truly trivial issues of enforceability or precedent. A focus on environmental results can engage the public, but only if federal and state regulators make an effort to open the doors. Those problems notwithstanding, the NEPPS process still holds potential as a tool for reconciling state and federal interests in environmental protection in specific places.48

Although all of these strategies seek to coordinate certain aspects of conservation policy, none of them provide a strategy that harmonizes all of the numerous programs that impact the day-to-day activities of private landowners. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) probably comes closest to suggesting a vehicle for such a coordinating strategy. A state/federal strategy that would direct all conservation programs to work in harmony (using a tool such as an RMP) could allow for planning unique to each landowner and still meet national goals. NRCS, which supports wider use of RMPs, describes what makes them desirable:

Successful resource management planning is based on a philosophy exhibited countless times over the last 60 years. When producers develop plans on their own initiative, with technical input from a variety of public and private sources, they will implement many more actions to maintain and enhance natural resources than they would with other policy mechanisms such as regulation, public sector-controlled planning efforts, or compliance programs.49

Through RMPs, individual landowners voluntarily develop comprehensive, site-specific plans to practice conservation on a parcel of land. An RMP often is a part of a landowner’s general business or operational plan. NRCS and other public and private groups assist landowners in designing it. NRCS organized a Materials Development Team in 1996 to discuss how to best institute RMPs. The team included representatives of NRCS, EPA, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the Farm Services Agency, the Cooperative Extension Service, FARM*A*SYST, and the Conservation Technology Information Center. All of these groups agreed that NRCS needed to enter into memoranda of understanding with other federal and state agencies to ensure that producers implementing plans with appropriate resource management practices are found to be in compliance with specific environmental laws and regulations.50 In short, these various agencies at various levels of government all agreed that RMPs needed to have more legitimacy as a tool that can meet the requirements of numerous programs. Until RMPs, or a similar planning tool, are accepted as a legal method for meeting the requirements of all the conservation programs and regulations applicable to landowners’ property, it will be difficult for the programs to realize the maximum conservation benefits available from the land. A landowner has less incentive to develop a natural resource protection plan if they must constantly change it to meet shifting 48 Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century. National Academy of Public Administration: Nov. 2000, p. 136. 49 “Resource Management Planning: Materials Development Team Report to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.” NRCS: 11 Sept. 1996. 50 “Resource Management Planning: Materials Development Team Report to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.” NRCS: 11 Sept. 1996.


policy requirements from a myriad of agencies or if future programs offer incentives to those landowners who newly institute conservation programs but do not award landowners who have historically been good stewards. The RMP program offered by NRCS may be a good tool within a state/federal strategy to coordinate conservation policies on working lands. It is only a method by which policies can be harmonized, however. It alone does not constitute a holistic strategy. A state/federal strategy could draw attributes from all of the coordinating strategies mentioned above:

• A state/federal strategy could pool federal, state, and local funds to address the highest environmental pr iorities first, as EPA and the National Invasive Special Council do.

• It could provide more coordinated, efficient protection by calling for a watershed or ecosystem approach rather than a division of the work into media -related programs, as the new watershed approach on federal lands seeks to do.

• Like conservation district offices do for some programs, the strategy could call for one-stop shopping for educational, technical, and financial assistance and outreach.

• A state/federal strategy could call for a tool to be developed, such as the RMP or some expanded version of it, that gives the landowner the decision making power to determine how best to meet the goals defined by the coordinated policies presented.

• Finally, it could develop an oversight policy and dispute resolution mechanism in order to help coordinate various programs, as the National Invasive Species Council is developing.

Ø Conclusion Conservation on private working lands is a basic concern for each and every American, whether they live on a farm or in a city, because conservation on private working lands provides cleaner water and air, improved habitats for fish and wildlife, healthier and more productive soil, and an increased quality of life. Since so many benefits accrue to the public, public policies play an important role in helping to distribute the cost of working lands conservation to everyone who benefits. The policy challenge is twofold: policies must consider the realities of rural economies and also address the broader public’s desire for increased environmental amenities. The conflict between development and conservation is one between the public interest in preservation and the private interests that must be sacrificed if preservation is to be achieved.51 More coordinated and flexible assistance, perhaps even a state/federal coordinating strategy, could help to better meet each landowner’s specific circumstances, as well as more efficiently address the most important conservation issues of a specific location. More funding for conservation programs could help with technical assistance, outreach, and education efforts that could better serve the landowners and with scientific monitoring that could better determine program success. Landowners comprise less than two percent of the US population, but they are the stewards for fifty percent of the nation’s land.52 By the nature of their work, they are close to the land and deserve their reputation as the “first conservationists.” State and federal policies must assist them in safeguarding the nation’s natural resources treasury for future generations.

51 Boyd, James, Kathryn Caballero, and R. David Simpson. “The Law and Economics of Habitat Conservation: Lessons from an Analysis of Easement Acquisitions.” Resources for the Future. Apr. 1999: 1. 52 America’s Private Land: A Geography of Hope. USDA, NRCS: 7. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/GHopeHit.html.


APPENDIX A: Summary of USDA Private Working Lands Conservation Policies The following USDA programs provide direct assistance to farmers, ranchers, and foresters to implement conservation practices on their lands. The USDA agency responsible for each program is noted in parenthesis at the end of each paragraph. The Agroforestry Program is a joint venture of the USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Its purpose is to educate technical assistance providers, landowners, and stakeholders about the benefits of agroforestry, resulting in increased adoption. Through research, development, applications, and training, the Program provides appropriate technologies, documentation, and tools to extension agents and others participating in efforts to incorporate agroforestry into conservation and production systems for farms, ranches, and communities. (Forest Service, NRCS) The 1996 Farm Bill set up the Conservation Farm Option (CFO). This pilot program is for producers of wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice who are eligible for Agriculture Market Transition Contracts. Under this voluntary program, landowners must create a conservation farm plan and will receive one annual CFO payment when they agree to forego CRP, WRP, and EQIP payments. (NRCS) The Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative (CPGL) is a nationwide collaborative process of individuals and organizations working to maintain and improve the management, productivity, and health of the Nation’s privately owned grazing land. This process has formed coalitions that represent the grass root concerns that impact private grazing land. The coalitions actively seek sources to increase technical assistance and public awareness activities that maintain or enhance grazing land resources. (NRCS) The purpose of the Conservation Plant Material Centers program is to provide native plants that can help solve natural resource problems. Beneficial uses for which plant material may be developed include biomass production, carbon sequestration, erosion reduction, wetland restoration, water quality improvement, streambank and riparian area protection, coastal dune stabilization, and other special conservation treatment needs. (NRCS) The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), part of CRP discussed in the next paragraph, allows USDA to work in partnership with states and local stakeholders to meet four specific conservation objectives: reduce erosion, improve water quality, enhance wildlife and improve air quality by improving stream habitats. Currently, thirteen states participate in CREP: Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wisconsin have submitted CREP proposals but have not yet been approved. (FSA) The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) seeks to both provide farm income support and environmental protection. CRP is a voluntary program in which farmers and ranchers enter into 10- to 15-year contracts with USDA to take highly erodible land and other environmentally sensitive cropland out of production by applying protective vegetative cover best suited for wildlife. CRP is the nation’s largest private lands, long-term retirement conservation program. (FSA) The Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program is unique in that it offers site-specific technical assistance to private land-users, communities, units of state and local government, and other Federal agencies in planning and implementing conservation systems. It provides the core funding for the nation’s conservation delivery system and provide the foundation upon which most other conservation programs rely. (NRCS) The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) provides financial assistance to farmers and ranchers for the restoration of farmlands on which normal farming operations have been impeded by natural disasters.


ECP also helps with funds for carrying out emergency water conservation measures during periods of severe drought. (FSA) The USDA secretary can purchase floodplain easements on lands that have serious recurring flooding problems under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Assistance also includes both removing and establishing vegetative cover; controlling gullies; installing stream bank protection devices; removing debris and sediment; and stabilizing levees, channels and gullies. (NRCS) The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) replaces several older programs: The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), the Water Quality Incentives Program, the Great Plains Conservation Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. It was created in response to criticisms of the ACP, which was said to be inflexible and too much of a command-and-control program. 53 EQIP provides cost-share assistance for up to 75 percent of certain conservation practices. (NRCS) Under the Farmland Protection Program, USDA partners with state or local governments to purchase conservation easements from farmers who volunteer land they wish to preserve for agricultural use only. The program provides funding to State, local or tribal entities with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements or other interests. (NRCS) The Flood Risk Reduction Program was established to allow farmers who voluntarily enter into contracts to receive payments on lands with high flood potential in return for agreeing to forego certain USDA programs benefits. These contract payments provide incentives to move farming operations from frequently flooded land. (FSA) The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) protects private lands from being converted to non-forest uses through the purchase of conservation easements or fee simple titles from willing private landowners. The program is voluntary on two levels; state decide whether or not to join and private forest landowners voluntarily agree to place conservation easements on their properties. The purpose of FLP is to keep forestland available for traditional uses. (Forest Service) The Forest Products Conservation and Recycling Program helps communities and businesses find new and expanded business opportunities based on forest resources. (Forest Service) The Forest Stewardship Program brings professional natural resource management expertise to non-industrial private forest landowners to help them in developing Forest Stewardship Plans. Properly managed private forests provide timber, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, recreational opportunities and other benefits. Forest Management Plans encourage the landowners to become active in planning and managing their forests. This greatly increases the likelihood that their forests will remain productive and healthy, and that the social, economic and environmental benefits of these lands will be realized. (Forest Service) The Forest Taxation Program provides non-industrial private forest landowners with a consolidated source of information on the complex tax issues associated with forest maintenance and management. (Forest Service) The Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) supports good forest management practices on privately owned, non-industrial forestlands nationwide. Eligible practices for which landowners can receive assistance are

53 Batie, Dr. Sandra S. “Green Payments as Foreshadowed by EQIP.” Center for Agriculture in the Environment, American Farmland Trust: Aug. 1998. See http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/wp/wp98-8.html .


tree planting, timber stand improvement, site preparation for natural regeneration, and other related activities. (NRCS) The Market Development and Expansion Program helps develop new markets for natural resource based goods and services. (Forest Service) The National Conservation Buffer Initiative is a public-private partnership that is committed to helping America’s farmers install two million miles of conservation buffers by the year 2002. The Buffer Initiative is a partnership with other USDA agencies, other federal agencies like US EPA, state conservation agencies, conservation districts, agribusinesses, and agricultural and environmental organizations. There are approximately 100 partners total. (NRCS) The National Cooperative Soil Survey Program (NCSS) is a partnership of federal land management agencies, state agricultural experiment stations, and local units of government that provide soil survey information necessary for understanding, managing, conserving, and sustaining the nation’s limited soil resources. (NRCS) The 1996 Farm Bill created the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation, a charitable nonprofit corporation that funds research and educational activities relating to conservation on private lands. (USDA) The purpose of the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program is to accelerate the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources; improve the general level of economic activity; and enhance the environment and standard of living in authorized RC&D areas. The program establishes or improves coordination systems in rural areas. (NRCS)

The Rural Community Assistance programs help rural communities build skills, networks, and strategies to address social, environmental, and economic changes. Specifically, the Forest Service: has a presence and vested interest in communities which have a natural resource base; carries out land management responsibilities which affect the opportunities available to local communities; has professional expertise needed by communities; and can provide seed money to catalyze local action and leverage other resources. (Forest Service)

The Rural Forestry Management (RFM) program provides a foundation for Federal technical assistance to the States, and helps the States field well informed, trained, and equipped forest professionals to help non-industrial private forest landowners with the confounding set of forestry related issues which confront them. RFM matching funds are offered to the States to support their on-the-ground technical assistance programs. RFM provides matching funds directly to State forestry programs, which in turn assist NIPF landowners in answering their questions about forest management. (Forest Service)

The Small Watershed Program and Flood Prevention Program works through local government sponsors and helps participants solve natural resource and related economic problems on a watershed basis. Projects include watershed protection, flood prevention, erosion and sediment control, water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands creation and restoration, and public recreation in watersheds of 250,000 or fewer acres. (NRCS)

The Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecast program provides Western states and Alaska with information on future water supplies. (NRCS)


The Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) provides technical and financial assistance to encourage non-industrial private forest landowners to keep their lands and natural resources productive and healthy. (Forest Service) The Wetland Conservation Program (Swampbuster) assists in mitigating wetland degradation, allowing for restoration, enhancement, or creation of wetlands in order to mitigate the loss of wetland function or value. (NRCS) The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) is a cost-sharing program that funds permanent easements, 30-year easements, or restoration cost-share agreements with private landowners to preserve environmentally sensitive wetlands. (NRCS) The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) helps landowners improve wildlife habitat on private lands through technical assistance and up to seventy-five percent cost-share payments. (NRCS) See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/NRCSProg.html for a complete list of USDA conservation programs and activities.


APPENDIX B: List of Internet Sites Providing Assistance Information Many other programs support conservation on private working lands than the USDA programs listed in Appendix A. Several websites exist to help the landowner make sense of the various agencies they might approach to seek assistance:

• Environmental Laws Affecting Agriculture is a state-by-state inventory of federal and state programs affecting landowners. Every state will have its own report eventually. Presently, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Utah have inventories online. (http://www.nasda.org/nasda/nasda/Foundation/state/states.htm)

• Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection, Second Edition, prepared by the US EPA Office of Water. (http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/fund.html)

Transforming Conservation Policy Conservation Policy: ... Table 3: Acres Offered & Enrolled in...

Documents

Transcript of Transforming Conservation Policy Conservation Policy: ... Table 3: Acres Offered & Enrolled in...