Abstract
This publication offers an overview of the major federal conservation programs that provide resources
for farmers and ranchers to enhance and maintain sustainable farming and ranching practices. The level
of available conservation resources for this area has dramatically increased since 2002. This guide helps
farmers and ranchers make their way through the often complex and difficult application processes.
Access to these resources can open new opportunities to preserve agricultural lands, develop sustainable
practices, and open new markets.
Table of Contents
Introduction
![Mike Natvig and Amy Miller.](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090115205612im_/http://attra.ncat.org/images/federal_resources/mike.jpg)
Mike Natvig and Amy Miller on their 420-acre organic
farm. Photo by Mike McGrath, courtesy of Minnesota
Project, Conservation and Crop Diversity. |
Mike Natvig and Amy Miller are fourth
generation farmers in northeast Iowa
farming 420 certified organic acres.
Because they have excellent records, have
undertaken extensive planning, and have an
excellent organic system of production, Natvig
and Miller have captured an additional
$17,890 in benefits the first year of a 10-year contract under the Conservation Security
Program (CSP). This publication assists
the reader in understanding how to capture
such benefits that help the bottom line and
promote a more sustainable agriculture.
The Nativig-Miller farm is a diversified row
crop and grazing operation, producing hogs,
cattle, corn, soybeans, and hay. Finished
hogs are raised on pasture and marketed
directly to consumers and specialized buyers
such as the nationally known Organic
Valley label.
The livestock operation includes a herd of
beef cattle. Some of the steers are marketed
directly to consumers while others
go to a niche market. The remaining calves
are sold on the open market or kept as
replacements. The cattle are on rotationally
grazed pasture.
The crop program incorporates a long-term,
resource-conserving crop rotation that
includes corn, soybeans, hay, peas, small
grains, and “green manure” cover crops.
This rotation provides the Nativig-Miller
operation with a diversity of feed for livestock,
cash crops for market, and conservation
practices that build soil tilth and prevent
disease and erosion. The farm also
includes oak savannah native prairie restoration
and timber for wildlife habitat.
Earning a CSP Contract
The Natvig-Millers were awarded a CSP contract to reward them for addressing resources
of concern on their entire farming operation. Meeting the eligibility requirements was
not difficult. “We had most of the detailed records because we are certified organic,” explained Mike.
Determining an accurate Soil Conditioning Index, or SCI, was a little more difficult because
of the organic production practices. “The (RUSLE2) program* defaulted to ‘harvesting’ cover
crops and to fall tillage resulting in low SCI scores,” Amy explained. “But fortunately our
NRCS conservationist devoted many hours to correcting all the computer’s mistakes in our
seven-year crop rotation.”
When the assessments were completed, the NRCS determined that 365.4 of the 420 acres
were eligible for stewardship payments at the Tier III level for $4,230 per year. Added to
that was $1,508 for an existing practice payment and $12,602 for enhancements payments,
for a total of $18,340 the first year.
The Natvig-Miller farm received enhancement payments for performance-based management
activities in the categories of energy, nutrient management, soils management, grazing,
and habitat. Existing practices eligible for energy enhancement payments included
recycling of all used motor oil, use of perennial legumes in rotations and manure applications
to reduce fertilizer needs, and the use of biodiesel fuels.
When asked what he thinks of the Conservation Security Program after having undergone
the application process, Mike’s response was quick. “It’s the only program I’ve seen that
makes sense,” he said. “With CSP, taxpayers pay for clean water and wildlife habitat.”
*A computer model that provides an estimate for erosion potential.
|
Back to top
Federal Conservation
Resources and Your Farm or
Ranch
Beginning in 1985, the federal government
has provided significant benefits to American
farmers and ranchers by either retiring
marginal and environmentally sensitive
lands or by cost sharing the adoption of
improved conservation practices on working
lands. Since 2002, working lands conservation
has known accelerated support. Programs
that support agricultural land preservation
(Figure 1) have also been initiated.
Learning how to take advantages of these
important but often complicated programs
can help farmers and ranchers lower operational
risk, provide tangible rewards for the contribution that conservation practices provide
in improving soil, air and water quality,
increase profitability, and in general make
farming and ranching more rewarding.
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090115205612im_/http://attra.ncat.org/images/federal_resources/fig1.jpg)
Conservation Program Design—contrasting working-land and land retirement programs. (ERS, 2006)
Another important reason to take advantage
of expanding federal conservation resources
is that the application process itself helps
farmers and ranchers see their operations
from new perspectives. This alone can
alert farmers and ranchers to new market
opportunities. For, example transitioning to
an organic production system on your farm
or ranch may lead to higher value for your
crops and livestock. (See ATTRA publications: Entertainment Farming and Agri-Tourism and Green Markets for Farm Products.)
Engaging in federal conservation programs
can also move your farm or ranch in more
sustainable directions. (See ATTRA publication, Sustainable Agriculture: An Introduction.) “Whole” farm or
ranch planning—which assesses the goals
and potential resources of the farm or
ranch—will likely be necessary for farmers
or ranchers interested in maximizing the
benefits of these federal conservation programs.
Even those unable to take advantage
of a particular program come away with a
valuable learning experience through the
very process of applying. Learning how
federal conservation programs work and
going through the application process usually
helps you better understand current
innovative farming and ranching practices.
Also, by engaging in federal conservation
programs, you learn to be a more active citizen
to make these programs work better for
all farms and ranches in your community,
state, and nation.
Finally, if you are of limited resources,
socially disadvantaged, or a beginning
farmer or rancher, most programs provide
either a competitive advantage or high levels
of support. The definitions of these special
categories are very specific, however, so
make sure you meet the definitions before
assuming eligibility. When in doubt regarding
eligibility requirements, check with the
local office of the federal agency in charge
of the specific program (see Resources at
end of this publication).
Some Definitions
- Limited-Resource Farmers and Ranchers. A limited resource farmer or rancher
is defined as (a) a person with direct or indirect gross farm sales of not more
than $100,000 in each of the previous two years (increased each fiscal year since
2004 to adjust for inflation), and (b) has a total household income at or below
the national poverty level for a family of four, OR less than 50 percent of county
median household income in each of the previous two years (to be determined
annually using Commerce Department data). USDA offers an online Limited
Resource Farmer/Rancher Self-Determination Tool to determine whether you
meet the definition.
- Beginning Farmer or Rancher. A beginning farmer or rancher is defined as an
individual or entity who: (a) has not operated a farm or ranch, or who has operated
a farm or ranch for not more than 10 consecutive years (required of all members
of an entity); and (b) will materially and substantially participate in the operation
of the farm or ranch.
- Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher. A socially disadvantaged group is
one whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because
of their identity as members of the group, without regard to individual qualities.
Socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher is a member of a socially disadvantaged
group. Groups in particular localities subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice are
determined by the United States Secretary of Agriculture. Check with your local
or state NRCS offices for more details (see Further Resources).
|
Back to top
What’s Available? Overview
of Federal Conservation
Resources for Working Lands
The complexity of federal conservation programs—and in particular the application
process itself—is perhaps one of the biggest
reasons many farmers and ranchers do
not access these resources. The programs
are voluntary, and many opt out of using
the programs simply because the process
is often difficult and intimidating. The programs
contain an “alphabet soup” of acronyms
and bureaucratic jargon particularly
difficult to understand for first-time applicants.
The goal here is to present a simplified overview that outlines the essential
step-by-step process to access these
resources and benefits. The intent is also to
help you understand the general purpose of
the programs.
The GRP was created in the 2002 reauthorization of USDA programs (known as the Farm Bill) and was only funded in 2005. The program is very similar to CRP, but was designed to preserve native grasslands through long-term or permanent easements. Funding was suspended in 2006. |
This publication specifically concentrates
on resources available from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
This United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) agency is the one most engaged
with agricultural conservation practices.
The other major USDA agency involved in
conservation efforts is the Farm Service
Agency (FSA). The FSA shares administrative
responsibility with the NRCS for the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and
the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).
The FSA also has responsibility for the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP) and the Emergency Conservation
Program (ECP). Finally, in the most recent
reauthorization of all USDA programs in
2002 (known as the Farm Bill), a special
program was created that offers grants and
loan guarantees for certain energy projects.
Agricultural producers and rural small businesses can receive assistance to
purchase renewable energy systems and to
make energy efficiency improvements demonstrated
to have broadly defined conservation
implications (see chart below).
USDA Agency |
Program |
Description |
Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) |
Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP)
|
Cost-shares for conservation improvements
and to meet regulatory requirements |
Conservation Security Program (CSP) |
Cost-shares for current and future conservation improvements |
Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) |
Similar to EQIP; limited to 15 states shared with Risk Management Agency (RMA) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) |
Farm and Ranchland Protection Programs (FRPP) |
Cost-share for farm and ranchland protection through easements |
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
And NRCS |
Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) |
Annual payments to keep sensitive land out
of agricultural production |
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) |
Annual payments to keep land in native
grasslands |
Farm Service Agency (FSA) |
Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) |
Annual payments to keep riparian areas out
of agricultural production (requires state
matching funds) |
Emergency Conservation Program
(ECP) |
Rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural
disasters and for carrying out emergency
water conservation measures in periods of
severe drought |
Section 9006: Loans, Loan Guarantees, and Grants |
The Section 9006 program is named after the section of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (known as the Farm
Bill). Since 2002, this program has awarded 435 grants totaling $66.7 million and two loan guarantees worth $10 million in 2005. The goal of the program is to assist farmers, ranchers, and small businesses to reduce energy costs and consumption as well as to
set up new renewable energy production systems. According to USDA, the key provisions of the program are the following: -
Applicants may qualify for a grant, a guaranteed loan, or a combination of both.
- Grant request must not exceed 25 percent of the eligible project costs. Renewable energy grants can range from
$2,500 to $500,000. Energy efficiency grants can range from $1,500 to $250,000.
- A simplified application process is available for projects under $200,000 total project costs.
- Loan guarantees can be for up to 50 percent of total eligible project costs. Guarantees can range from $5,000 to
$10,000,000 per project.
- Projects can qualify for combined grant and loan guarantee, but the grant portion is still subject to the above limits
and combined funding assistance cannot exceed 50 percent of total eligible project costs.
Further information on the program is available at: www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/what_is.html
The following are three examples of projects funded under this program: -
Camelina sativa: A Multiuse Oil Crop for Biofuel, Omega-3 Cooking Oil, and Protein/Oil Source for Animal Feed, Great
Northern Growers Cooperative, Sunburst, Montana, $80,000. This Phase I project will evaluate a new crop for the
Northern Plains states that is suitable for economic conversion into biodiesel, biolubricants, and an Omega-3 fatty
acid-rich cooking oil for human consumption.
- Wind Energy for Grain and Livestock Production, Colwell, Iowa, $45,540. On-farm wind generator for farm use with
excess sales to local power company.
- Ventilation Fan Efficiency, Gold Top Farm, Knox, Maine, $4,462. Project to install very large, high volume, low speed
ventilation fans that use less energy.
|
Back to top
Conservation Programs and
USDA Agency Responsibilities
The first step in accessing these federal
resources should be development of a
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) conservation plan. An NRCS conservation
plan is helpful because it involves
the agency early in the process. Even if you
have done prior planning, it is still important
to get NRCS assistance in translating
your existing planning efforts into agency
language. The local NRCS agent can evaluate
the kinds of federal programs available
to you.
While this may be the ideal process, finding
available NRCS staff to assist with this
kind of planning is often difficult. The
actual process often begins with the farmer
or rancher contacting the local NRCS field
staff office (see Resources section) about
a specific conservation program. The conservation
planning begins with a discussion
of the application process and eligibility
requirements for that program, rather
than with development of a comprehensive
conservation plan. Indeed, NRCS recognizes
the difficulty in assisting farmers and
ranchers in preparing comprehensive conservation
plans. In 2005 the agency began
a special pilot project to bring additional
resources to planning efforts. Unfortunately,
the pilot project is only available in limited
areas of nine states. It is unknown if additional
resources to expand this work will be
available on a broader basis. A link to this
pilot project is: www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/planning/consplngsignup/consplngsup.html
Barring the local NRCS staff, however,
farmers and ranchers should still attempt
to undertake some effort in farm or ranch
planning. Doing so prepares applicants to
interact effectively with NRCS staff. NCAT/
ATTRA has several resources to help with
the effort, available online or at 800-346-9140.
Back to top
Know the Programs: Working
Land vs. Retiring Land
Federal conservation programs can perhaps
be divided into two broad categories: working
lands programs and land retirement or
easement programs.
The working lands programs provide financial
resources. These may be either incentive
payments or “cost-share” for farmers
or ranchers to implement the practices or
structures on working agriculture lands.
The NRCS has extensive information on
quality criteria for resource management.
A further list of hundreds of technical
practice standards define NRCS minimal
level of acceptable quality to conserve
natural resources.
Understanding these technical standards
can be complicated for many people not
familiar with NRCS protocols and jargon.
However, if you are serious about taking
full advantage of the programs, some understanding
of these standards and the systems
of resource management is important. The
major resource to understand technical
standards and the general program evaluation
processes is the Field Office Technical
Guide (FOTG). This document is available
online and is called the eFOTG. This document
is “localized” down to the county
level, so obtain the copy relevant your farm
or ranch locale. The NRCS prides itself in
soliciting local input for program development.
Consequently, there is some variation
among available programs, particularly for
working lands.
Another program discussed in this publication
is the Farm and Ranchland
Protection Program (FRPP), which provides
protection to preserve working farms and
ranches. Technically, this program might
not be a working lands conservation program.
It is in a sense “conserving” working
farm or ranch land, however, as opposed to
suburban or urban development use.
Land retirement or easement programs, on
the other hand, are those that either permanently
or temporarily pay farmers or ranchers
to keep land out of agricultural production
entirely. Some easement conservation
programs do allow certain productive uses
of easement land, but generally these programs
were established to take land out
of substantial productive use. These programs
will not be discussed in this publication,
but can be found in a forthcoming
ATTRA publication, Protecting Grasslands,
Wetlands, Wildlife and Habitat: A Guide to
Federal Conservation Resources.
National vs. Local Differences in
Program Details
Another important point to know before
applying for federal conservation programs
is that program details can change substantially
from state to state and even county
to county. As noted above, the NRCS has
been an agency that prides itself on being
adaptable to state and local concerns. The
logic of this approach makes some sense.
Land use for agriculture varies dramatically
between different parts of the country.
For instance, the best conservation grazing
management practices for southwest Montana
are substantially different from those
in central Florida.
Note: Check with both local and state-level NRCS staff. Sometimes local staffers do not know that funding differences exist between areas. State-level staffers often have that information. |
On the other hand, local determination of
program criteria is often a source for confusion
about what programs can and do
offer. In Montana, for instance, some NRCS
programs provide resources for ranchers
to improve fish passage around irrigation
diversions. But the programs apply only to
certain areas of the state, despite the fact
that most areas have important fish passage
issues. The best way to avoid confusion is
to go to the respective NRCS Web site to
pursue specific details of a program for that state. Another way to clear up confusions
is to talk with local and state-level
NRCS staff.
Back to top
Working Lands Programs
Conservation Security
Program (CSP)
The newest and perhaps the most confusing
federal conservation program is the
Conservation Security Program or CSP.
This program is unique in that unlike
other federal conservation programs it
provides substantial resources for current
conservation efforts in addition to payments
to change to better or improved practices.
As of 2006, some 20,000 farmers and
ranchers in 280 watersheds have enrolled
16 million acres in CSP, securing more
than $2 billion in long-term commitments to
ensure sustainable conservation practices. Moreover, the CSP currently has $6 billion
in authorized funding through 2011.
The CSP provides four types of payments:
stewardship per-acre payments, existing
practices, new practices, and enhancement
payments. All farmers and ranchers
can apply for this program (in watersheds
selected for the sign-up period),
but the standards for eligibility are fairly
high. In other words, since this program
rewards conservation practices, eligibility
for the program requires documentation
of past and current conservation practices.
The program also allows producers to
enter all or part of a farm or ranch into the
program. Annual payment limits depend
on whether you place the entire farm or
ranch into the program and the level of
conservation effort achieved. These levels
are known as “tiers.”
The program was originally intended to be
made available to all eligible farmers and
ranchers in the United States. As of 2006, however, the program has not been fully
funded by Congress as authorized in 2002.
To keep program costs within budget limitations,
the NRCS decided to implement
the program on a watershed rotation basis.
This means that in a given fiscal year only
eligible farmers or ranchers in designated
watersheds can apply (Figure 2). In theory,
the program will eventually be made
available to all eligible farmers and ranchers.
The intent is for all watersheds in the
United States to be offered a sign-up year.
The downside is that if you miss applying
for the CSP in the year it is offered in your
watershed, it may be many years before an
opportunity again comes available.
Figure 2—Eligible Watersheds for 2006![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090115205612im_/http://attra.ncat.org/images/federal_resources/2006cspwatersheds13.jpg)
The CSP offers five-year to ten-year “contracts,” which are legal agreements outlining mutual obligations over the life of the
agreement. |
Finally, the CSP program was originally
intended to provide resources for any eligible
farmer or rancher (known as an entitlement
program). However, budget limitations
have also forced the NRCS to limit funding
to applicants that meet higher levels of conservation
practices than originally intended
by the legislation. This has essentially made
the CSP a “competitive” program—those
with higher levels of current conservation
practices are more likely to be awarded
resources under the program.
Eligibility
The first step in applying for the CSP program
is to make sure your farm or ranch is
in an eligible watershed. Each state NRCS
office maintains a website and maps of eligible
watersheds and their boundaries. Local
NRCS offices can also provide maps of eligible
watersheds (see Resources section).
The next step in determining eligibility is to
work through the current edition of the CSP
Self Assessment Workbook. This workbook
is available via the Internet or by obtaining a copy
through your local or state NRCS offices.
The importance of maintaining accurate
records and having developed written plans
becomes evident as you work through this
self-assessment. The workbook self-assessment
is a series of questions with “yes,” “no,” and “not-applicable” answers. Any “no” answers effectively render an applicant
ineligible for the program.
However, the assessment is just a tool which,
in part, is designed to “weed-out” ineligible
applicants. If you have any doubts about the
proper answer to a particular question, do
not give up. Get assistance from your local
or state NRCS office. For example, one of
the questions in this document refers to
cropland and asks: If you apply pesticides,
do you use a schedule or a Pest Management
Plan to conduct pest control activities
on your cropland? An organic farmer
might want to answer “no,” because certification disallows use of synthetic pesticides.
However, all certified organic farmers are
required to have an organic plan. Generally,
this requires some “plan” to control
pests, including the use of some approved
non-synthetic pesticides, like BT (Bacillius
thuringiensis). Hence the correct answer
is likely to be “yes.” Again, contact NRCS
should any doubts arise.
Finally, below are the essential questions
and items to know before beginning the
assessment process. Being prepared to document
and respond to these items and questions
makes the process easier: - You must have some records to justify
your answers to assessment
questions.
- You must have some previous record
of soil sampling and the use of the
sampling in nutrient management.
- Have you safely protected ground
water?
- Have you safely protected surface
water?
- Do you make some effort to
employ conservation tillage or crop
rotations?
- Do you manage grazing distribution?
- Do you monitor salinity problems if
applicable?
When you have finished the national self-assessment,
there is also a state-based supplemental
self-assessment that provides further
information in assessing eligibility.
Determining CSP Program
Benefits
Below is a schematic that
helps put together in a single picture both
eligibility determination and the actual calculation
of program benefits process. As
noted earlier, this is a complicated program
to apply to.
Resource concern refers to the condition of natural resources that may be sensitive to change by natural forces or human
activity. Resource concerns include soil erosion, soil quality, soil deposition, water quality, water quantity, air quality, plant
management, and animal habitat and management. |
However, a unique aspect of the
CSP is that the determination of eligibility
is immediately relevant to program benefits. Once self-assessment work is complete
and necessary documentation collected, the
local NRCS agent can largely determine
your level of benefit. In addition, the CSP
is particularly interested in practices that
relate to soil and water quality and efforts
to address these “resources of concern” are
important to determine level of benefits.
NRCS makes three major determinations
when evaluating the level of benefits you
will receive. These are: tier level, enrollment
category, and types of payments.
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090115205612im_/http://attra.ncat.org/images/federal_resources/CSP_App.jpg)
Note: Compliance with HEL—Highly Erodable Lands and Swampbuster regulations—are a requirement for eligibility to all federal agricultural
programs. Ask your NRCS agent whether you meet these regulations. Chart courtesy of USDA/NRCS
|
Tier-Level
The NRCS categorizes all eligible applicants
into one of three levels. A Tier I applicant
must have already addressed soil and
water quality to a minimum level of treatment
on only a part of the farm or ranch
land base. A Tier II applicant must meet
this same level of treatment on the entire
farm or ranch and must meet an additional
level of treatment for an additional resource
of concern, for instance water quantity.
Finally, a Tier III must have addressed
all applicable resources of concern on the
entire farm or ranch to the standards set by
NRCS in its Field Office Technical Guide,
as well as have adequately protected all
riparian zones on the farm or ranch. Thus,
each tier level represents a higher level of
conservation effort with a corresponding
greater level of potential resource gain in
each tier. The program caps the total annual
payment in each tier level to $20,000 (Tier
I), $35,000 (Tier II), and $45,000 (Tier
III). Also, applicants in Tier I are limited
to five-year contracts, while Tiers II and
III can be between five-year and ten-year
contracts. Theoretically, the “best” CSP applicant could receive up to $450,000
in total payments over the life of a
ten-year contract.
Enrollment Categories
After the tier level is determined, the NRCS
will determine the enrollment category,
which is based on a benchmark inventory-a part of the self-assessment process. Your
category determines the priority your application
gets if there are not enough funds to
enroll everyone who applies.
The enrollment categories are labeled A–E.
The labels are analogous to a grading
system with A being the highest conservation
effort within a given tier and E the least
effort. While enrollment categories were not
part of the original authorizing legislation,
the NRCS opted to use enrollment categories
to control program funding levels which
had been capped by Congress. So after
all applications are submitted, the NRCS
decides who will receive funding based
on categories. The 2006 signup put Tier 3
and Tier 2 applications in the highest categories.
Indeed, few if any Tier 1 contracts
were enrolled.
Payment Types
The final step for NRCS in putting together
a CSP contract is to determine type and
specific amount of program payments
to be received. There are four types of
payments. The chart below presents a
simple overview.
Type of Payment |
Defined |
Calculation |
Stewardship |
Annual acreage-based payment that
rewards benchmark level of conservation
effort. |
• Local rental rate of land summed across land.
• Types (cropland, irrigated cropland, pastureland,
rangeland). In the law these payments
are referred to as base payments, fixed at a
specific % of local rental rates. NRCS has lowered
that % to contain costs. |
Existing Practices |
Annual payment that is no more than
75% of the cost of maintaining existing
conservation practices. |
A fixed 25% of the stewardship payment across
land types. |
New Practices |
A one-time, cost-share payment to
establish additional conservation
practices. |
Based on list of NRCS sanctioned new practices,
cost-share percentage determined by NRCS in
a specific sign-up year. Limited resource farmers
are provided with higher NRCS contribution.
Cost-share can be in-kind. In fact, few cost-share
payments have been approved so far. |
Enhancement |
Annual payments made for conservation
activities that exceed minimum
requirements of a specific tier level. |
Each state NRCS selects specific enhancement
practices from a national list. By law they are to
be flat annual payments throughout the contract
period. In 2005 they were set up as variable
declining payments. |
To gain a fuller understanding of how these
calculations work, see the full case study
of a Massachusetts farm
in the study done by Tufts
University and American Farmland Trust, available online at www.farmland.org/programs/states/documents/NECSP.pdf. (PDF / 2.8M) (Lundgren et al., 2006) Below is a summary
chart from that case study. This Massachusetts
farm is a mixed dairy, beef, and
organic vegetable farm. The farm is a total
of 650 acres with 25 acres of organic vegetables
sold through a Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA) program. The producer
rotationally grazes 130 head of beef and
dairy and has non-organic fields of hay and
pasture. The farm was enrolled at the
Tier I level.
Tier 1 |
Stewardship |
Existing Practice |
New
Practice |
Enhancement |
Total Payment |
Year 1 |
$85 |
$22 |
$0 |
$5,970 |
$6,077 |
Year 2 |
$85 |
$22 |
$0 |
$3,582 |
$3,689 |
Year 3 |
$85 |
$22 |
$0 |
$2,786 |
$2,893 |
Year 4 |
$85 |
$22 |
$0 |
$1,990 |
$2,097 |
Year 5 |
$85 |
$22 |
$0 |
$1,194 |
$1,301 |
Total |
$425 |
$110 |
$0 |
$15,522 |
$16,057 |
Interestingly, the farmer chose not to sign
up for any new practices and was not eligible
to enter the program at a higher tier
level because the organic vegetable acreage
did not meet soil conditioning standards
due to tillage practices.
Another important point is that enhancement
payments make up the bulk of the CSP payments. This has two implications.
First, because the size of both the stewardship
and existing practice are determined
by acreage, the programs may not offer sizable
benefits to smaller farms. Even the
enhancement payments are often based on
a per-acre application of a practice, making
the CSP more beneficial for larger farms.
Nonetheless, it is not easy to determine what
the total benefits to your farm or ranch may
be without going through the determination
in your prospective watershed.
CSP Changing Rules
It is important to note that the program is
relatively new and has only been implemented
for three years (2004-2006).
The NRCS has changed many aspects of
the program in each year of the operation.
Many believe that over the next few years the program will gain popularity
and NRCS will improve how the program
is implemented. The NRCS has been
soliciting a great deal of input from many
farmers, ranchers, and organizations to
improve the program. At the same time,
NRCS remains concerned that the program
operate within the budget caps placed by
Congress. Indeed, part of the complexity of
the program is directly related to Congressional
funding limits since it was created in
2002. The program is an entitlement program,
which means that all eligible farmers
and ranchers can potentially sign up
for the program. Limiting participation and
placing caps on the program’s annual budgets
has caused great consternation among
the broader agriculture community. When
a few farmers or ranchers receive benefits
within a state and others have to wait for an
extended period to reap similar benefits, an
inevitable cry for fairness is raised by those
who have to wait.
CSP and Organics
The CSP has in several states been particularly
beneficial to organic production systems.
Conservation is largely inherent to
organic systems of production and this has
been recognized by NRCS.
For instance,
in 2006, the Montana state office offered
CSP applicants enhanced payments of $10
per acre and $5 per acre for certified
organic production of crops and livestock
respectively.
Interestingly, this was justified
under the conservation practice of nutrient
management, since—at least in Montana— most organic crop producers use green
manure or legume crop rotations to provide
some plant nutrients rather than synthetic
fertilizer applications (prohibited by organic
certification rules). Many would argue
that there are additional aspects of organic
production systems, such as energy efficiency, that could also warrant further CSP
payment support.
CSP and Energy
Many farmers and ranchers do not realize
that since 2002, several of the NRCS
conservation programs provide resources
for energy efficiency and renewable energy
production. For example the chart below
shows the practice standard energy management
enhancements offered by the
NRCS in California. Many of the energy
enhancements are also related to cropping
system practices. Indeed, though not mentioning
organic production directly, the
enhancement payment for the use of perennial
legumes in crop rotation is a common
practice in organic crop production. So as
noted above, indirectly NRCS is recognizing
the inherent energy efficiency of organic
systems of production.
CSP Energy Management Enhancements |
Practice Standard |
Type |
Amount |
EEM41 Recycling of all used motor oil for tractors
and lubricating oil for other farm equipment such
as irrigation pumps or grain drying motors |
Year |
$200.00 |
EEM42 Use of perennial legumes in the crop
rotation to reduce energy need for production of
nitrogen |
Acre |
$0.70 |
EEM43 Use of annual legumes in the crop
rotation to reduce energy need for production of
nitrogen |
Acre |
$0.10 |
EEM47 Renewable energy generation (solar, wind,
water, geothermal, methane) |
100
KWh |
$2.50 |
Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP)
The Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP) is the largest NRCS
working lands program with annual budgets
around $1 billion dollars since 2002. EQIP
provides incentives to farmers and ranchers
for two major purposes. First, the program
helps farmers and ranchers reach improved
levels of conservation practices. Second, the
program helps farmers and ranchers to be
in compliance (or stay in compliance) with
federal environmental regulations such as
the Clean Water Act.
The EQIP has provided substantial federal
resources to assist farmers and ranchers
to stay in compliance with regulations
in regard to the operation of Confined Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFO’s) and Animal
Feeding Operations (AFO’s). This has included controversial issues involving
large-scale dairies and commercial feedlots.
Since 2002, the NRCS is required
to try to achieve a target of 60 percent
of EQIP expenditures for livestock conservation
practices. While not all of that livestock-related EQIP funding has gone to
resolve CAFO/AFO issues, a large percentage
has. However, despite these environmental
regulatory aspects to EQIP, there
have been many farmers and ranchers who
have improved conservation practices and
their bottom lines by participating in this
program (see box).
EQIP Helps Cranberry Growers |
In 2004 and 2005, 13 Wisconsin cranberry growers signed EQIP cost sharing contracts to help address the unique environmental
concerns with surface and ground water quality associated with that crop. Irrigation water management and pest management
are being implemented on all of the participating marshes, and 9 of the 13 contracts also include nutrient management.
These three management practices form the basis of comprehensive Resource Management Systems on cranberry marshes.
By necessity, cranberries are grown very close to water in order to flood the beds for frost protection and harvest. Cranberries
are native to wet soils with typically high water tables. Even with very careful management, nutrients and pesticides may be
easily transported to surface and groundwater. Nutrient management activities are focusing on reducing applications of phosphorous
fertilizer to protect water quality. Pest management incentive payments are being used to offset the costs associated
with implementing integrated pest management (IPM) and to reduce the environmental hazards associated with using high-risk
pesticides.
And, irrigation water management is focused on increasing irrigation application efficiencies and uniformity of application,
to conserve water, and to limit leaching and runoff of fertilizers and pesticides. Additional conservation effSorts being funded
through EQIP include erosion control projects, replacing inefficient irrigation systems, and installing irrigation tailwater recovery
systems for the recycling and reuse of water.
More than $500,000 in EQIP funding has been obligated to these contracts. These funds will result in conservation efforts in
excess of $1 million when labor, equipment, and material costs to participants are complete. |
Unlike the CSP, the EQIP has from time
to time allocated resources to special sub-programs
as determined by the NRCS. Currently
there are three special regional and
national EQIP sub-programs:
-
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program—The program reduces
salinity by preventing salts from
dissolving and mixing with the Colorado
River’s flow.
- Ground and Surface Water Conservation
Program—Focuses attention
on conservation practices to those
that result in net saving of ground
and surface water as determined by
state NRCS offices.
- Klamath Basin Program—a locally led
conservation effort for farmers,
ranchers, tribes, and other private
landowners in the Klamath River
Basin in northern California and
southern Oregon.
These special EQIP sub-programs will not
be discussed here, but further information
can be obtained from your state NRCS
office. Finally, even within states, the leading
administrative agent for the NRCS, the
State Conservationists, can also set aside
part of the state EQIP allocations for special
projects of importance to the state. For
instance, in Montana, a special EQIP project
was set up to provide resources for the
Big Hole River watershed. The drainage
has faced severe drought and a population
of Arctic grayling—the last remnant of this
trout species in the lower forty-eight—may
be enhanced through the funding.
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090115205612im_/http://attra.ncat.org/images/federal_resources/map86231.jpg)
Figure 3.
Map courtesy of USDA/NRCS
Finally, the EQIP is a very competitive
program and is under-funded relative to
demand by farmers and ranchers (see Figure
3). This means you must make sure to
develop a comprehensive plan of the conservation
practices integrated into your farm
and ranch before you apply for the EQIP.
Also, pay close attention to those elements
of your plan that fit with the priorities that
NRCS has identified as important for funding
in the year you wish to apply.
EQIP Eligibility
There are only three exceptions to EQIP
eligibility. First, the applicant must be
in compliance with highly erodible
land and wetland conservation practices.
Known commonly as “sodbuster” and “swampbuster” provisions, EQIP is prevented
from extending benefits to producers
who have previously brought highly erodable
land and converted wetlands into agriculture
production.
Second, individuals or entities that have an average adjusted gross income exceeding
$2.5 million for the three tax years preceding
application are not eligible. There
is an exception to this rule if the individual
or entity can document that 75 percent
of the adjusted gross income ($1.875 million)
came from farming, ranching, or forestry
operations. Essentially, this provision
limits very wealthy individuals who don’t
receive income from agricultural and
forestry operations from receiving federal
conservation benefits.
Third, a person or entity cannot apply for
EQIP if they have already reached a maximum
benefit of $450,000 through the program
over the past five years.
All categories of land usage are eligible,
including non-industrial forest lands.
Interestingly, any land determined to
pose a serious threat to soil, air, water or
related resources is also eligible.
Remember, the NRCS runs on the federal government fiscal cycle of October 1–September 30, and not the standard calendar
year. Funding allocations are available to each state for that fiscal year only. |
Finally, applications are accepted by state NRCS
offices all year round, but there are specific
dates by which you must be in-application to
be eligible in any particular funding year.
Each state sets its own deadlines, so check
with your local NRCS agent or state office
for the deadlines for your state.
Determining EQIP Benefits
Benefits are determined by an NRCS evaluation
of the farmer’s or rancher’s application
against a set of funding priorities known as
the “ranking criteria.” These criteria are
set at the national, state and county levels.
In some larger states such as California,
or where demand for program benefits
is high, a “pre-screening” set of selection
criteria is often used. As noted, this is a
competitive program and each state has the
ability to prioritize which resources are of
special concern, even down to the county
level.
The NRCS gets advice on setting these priorities from two governance committees: the state technical advisory committee
(state-level) and the “local working groups” (see governance section). |
Thus, each state’s set of priorities
is different and in any given year may not
reflect the needs you have identified in your
planning efforts for your farm or ranch.
However, there is often a fairly wide variety
of conservation practices available to
applicants and it is often hard to tell without
going through the process how your planned
changes will be “ranked.”
Below is a copy of just one part of the ranking
criteria from Reeves County, Texas.
This illustrates several aspects of EQIP in
Texas. First, the state NRCS—at least in
this county—has identified Animal Feeding
Operations (AFO/CAFO) issues and salt
cedar removal as high priority concerns.
The local county group has added priorities
related to conservation practices that
promote plant health and water use efficiency. Both the state and county clearly
recognize that when limited resource or
beginning farmers or ranchers apply they
are entitled to higher benefits (cost-shares).
Finally, the county has placed limits on the
extent of funding by identifying specific priority practices and assigning points to
those practices. Thus, in Reeves County,
Texas a farmer or rancher is clearly
at a funding advantage from EQIP if
CAFO-AFO issues, salt cedar removal,
plant health and water quantity issues are
important to the applicant’s farm or ranch
conservation plan.
EQIP Program in Reeves County, Texas, 2006 |
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) offers cost-share assistance to agricultural producers to implement on-farm
conservation practices. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) determines eligible producers for the EQIP
program and determines eligible land. Eligible producers may apply for cost-share assistance on conservation practices that
will address the resource concern identified by the Local Work Group (LWG).
Reeves County Office Information
Interested agricultural producers may apply in person at the Reeves County USDA Service Center. Applicants may
also request EQIP assistance by telephone, fax, e-mail, or letter.
State Resource Concerns Priority Areas that include part of Reeves County |
Specific State Concern |
State Resource Concern |
AFO-CAFO—Poultry |
Water Quality/Air Quality |
AFO-CAFO—Swine |
Water Quality/Air Quality |
AFO-CAFO—Beef |
Water Quality/Air Quality |
AFO-CAFO—Dairy |
Water Quality/Air Quality |
Salt Cedar |
Invasive Species |
Limited Resource Farmer or Rancher |
All |
(AFO—Animal Feeding Operation) (CAFO—Confined Animal Feeding Operation) |
Objective:
The objective of the Reeves County Local Work Group (LWG) is to promote the use of conservation practices for improving
natural resources throughout the county with major emphasis on improving plant health and water quantity.
County EQIP Resource Concern:
In Reeves County for 2006, the LWG has identified Plant Health and Water Quantity as the major resource concerns.
Priority for Funding:
Water Quantity—High Priority for funding
Land leveling, concrete ditch lining, irrigation water conveyance, sprinkler, sprinkler conversion, and drip irrigation.
Plant Health—High Priority for funding
Fencing, livestock water development, brush management, range ripping and seeding.
All practices receive 50 points.
Eligible Practices and Cost-Share Rates:
Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers—90 percent.
Beginning Farmers and Ranchers—75 percent.
Other—50 percent.
Practices will be cost-shared based on the established average cost of the practice. The amount of cost-share earned will be
the number of units certified after completion, multiplied by the average cost multiplied by the cost-share percentage. |
However, even if these conservation measures
are relevant to the applying farmer or
rancher, there is still no guarantee that the
producer will ultimately be provided EQIP
benefits. This is true because the applicant
is also competing with every other applicant
in all other counties. Ultimately, the state
NRCS office places every applicant on a list
in order of total ranking criteria points with
associated total benefits requested. The process
plays out until that year’s state allocation
of EQIP resources are expended.
What this example shows is that applying
for EQIP benefits is a little like applying
for a grant. The grantor (NRCS) gets to
decide the criteria for grant awards and the
applicant must match those criteria in order
to increase the probability of acceptance.
Also, an application for a single practice
change is unlikely to be funded. It is useful
to have a holistic plan of all the changes
you wish to make on your farm or ranch
and then apply for every relevant change
that will garner the highest level of ranking
criteria points possible. While NRCS does
not want to encourage what it often refers to
as “point shopping,” farmers and ranchers
must put together the best package possible
to realize any benefit. For instance, in Montana
there is an EQIP benefit of $3,500
over three years to help farmers or ranchers
transition to organic production. However,
very few farmers or ranchers have received
benefits under that option because they
often apply only for that benefit and hence
are out-competed by farmers and ranchers
who present a more comprehensive application
with higher total ranking points.
Applicants to EQIP are eligible for up to
$450,000 in program benefits. Though it
is unusual for any single annual “contract” to be that high, the limit applies to the total benefits in any previous contracts in the
last five years. Thus, if you had received
$300,000 in EQIP benefits in the previous
five years, you could only receive
$150,000 in program benefits in the current
year. As noted earlier, benefits are
based on a percentage of the total cost of
adopting the conservation practice up to
a maximum of 75 percent. Again, limited
resource and beginning farmers and ranchers
may be up to 90 percent cost-share.
Figure 4 is an example from Maine NRCS
of how actual dollar amounts are calculated
to come up with the total contract benefits.
Essentially, if the contract is selected based
on ranking criteria, then each practice is
applied for and a total contract benefit package
is awarded.
Figure 4. 2006 Androscoggin/Sagadahoc Counties, Maine, EQIP Cost Lists |
Practice
Code |
Practice Name |
Component |
Unit Type |
Unit Cost $ |
Share Rate % |
560 |
Access Road |
All components excluding crossings |
foot |
17 |
75 |
560 |
Access Road |
Stream crossing |
no. |
55,000 |
75 |
702 |
Agrichemical Handling Facility |
All components |
no. |
51,750 |
75 |
575 |
Animal Trails & Walkways |
All components excluding crossings |
foot |
17 |
60 |
575 |
Animal Trails & Walkways |
Stream crossing |
no. |
55,000 |
60 |
707 |
Barnyard Water Management |
All components |
s.f. |
8 |
75 |
314 |
Brush Management |
Brush Management |
acre |
55 |
100 |
326 |
Clearing and Snagging |
Clearing and snagging |
foot |
50 |
60 |
317 |
Composting Facility |
All components |
no. |
125,000 |
75 |
100 |
Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plan |
Development of CNMP (one time
payment) |
a.u. |
10 |
100 |
100 |
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan |
Implementation of CNMP (one time
payment) |
a.u. |
40 |
100 |
327 |
Conservation Cover |
Grass establishment |
acre |
330 |
60 |
328 |
Conservation Crop Rotation |
Conservation crop rotation |
acre |
55 |
100 |
332 |
Contour Buffer Strips |
Grass establishment |
acre |
330 |
60 |
330 |
Contour Farming |
All components |
acre |
22 |
10 |
340 |
Cover Crop |
Cover crop |
acre |
55 |
100 |
324 |
Critical Area Planting |
All components with heavy site prep |
acre |
800 |
60 |
342 |
Deep Tillage |
Deep tillage |
acre |
22 |
100 |
362 |
Diversion |
All components |
foot |
5 |
60 |
For example, if one of the applicant’s “practices” was installation of a composting facility,
then the applicant, if successful, would
receive $75,000 (60 percent cost share) to
build the facility—assessed by Maine NRCS
to cost $125,000. For a successful candidate,
this would continue until all other
practices were assessed and a total contract
amount set. It is important to remember that “contracts” can be made for up to 10 years.
Payments are made when the practice is
completed (adopted) or installed. Thus,
for example, the development of a compost
facility might take several years to be complete
and would likely require a multi-year
EQIP contract.
The benefits of obtaining an EQIP contract
can be substantial, but it does require a
real commitment by the applicant farmer
or rancher as well. Again, careful planning
and optimization of program criteria is critical
for success.
Agricultural Management
Assistance (AMA)
Agricultural Management Assistance Program States:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming
|
The Agricultural Management Assistance
(AMA) program was created in 2000 and is
very similar to the EQIP, except that it is a
joint program involving two additional agencies
of USDA, the Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) and the Risk Management
Agency (RMA). Also, the program is only available in 15 states. The AMA program
was created for only these 15 states because
these states have historically low participation
in Federal Crop Insurance programs.
Under AMA, the AMS provides management
of an organic agriculture certification
cost-share program that assists new organic
farmers and ranchers with support in certification costs. The RMA provides special
mitigation of risks through a cost-share program.
Finally, the NRCS implements all
conservation provisions within the AMA.
Conservation cost-shares are 75 percent of
eligible practices and total payments from
all three sources cannot exceed $50,000
per participant per year.
Eligibility
Eligibility for the conservation aspects of
AMA are the same as EQIP. Eligibility for
the RMA and AMS parts of the program
have requirements specific to each agency.
AMS implements the organic certification
cost-share program within the National
Organic Program (NOP). It is open to all
organic growers who apply in the respective
15 states. There is an Internet link for this part
of the AMA.
The eligibility for the RMA portion of the
AMA is simply a percentage cost reduction
of a producer’s crop insurance cost.
If you live in one of the 15 states and are eligible for crop insurance, then you get this
added discount.
Benefit Determination
As noted above, the AMA for insurance
cost-share is a simple percentage discount
on current crop insurance costs. The special
organic cost-share offers 70 percent of
the costs associated with organic certification
up to a maximum of $500. Conservation
benefits for AMA are based on the set
of specific practices in the respective state
and are calculated like the EQIP. Again,
total program maximum benefits per year
are $50,000.
Farm and Ranch Land
Protection Program (FRPP)
Though the Farm and Ranch Land Protection
Program (FRPP) is essentially an easement
program, it is included in this publication
because it provides resources to
keep farms and ranches as working lands
by protecting them from being converted to
other uses. The program is unique in that
it is only indirectly supportive of conservation
practices. As noted below, some of
the eligibility requirements of the program
require prior conservation efforts, but nonetheless,
the benefits essentially support an
easement. The program is also unique in
that the NRCS only matches resources with another non-federal entity. These entities
are state, tribal and local government and
non-governmental easement programs. For
instance, the American Farmland Trust
(AFT) has an agricultural easement program
and a farmer or rancher could enter into an
agreement with AFT and then together with
AFT could apply for FRPP to help support
the total cost of the easement. The program
is competitive and the demand for FRPP
resources far exceeds supply. Funding for
the program varies across the United States
(see Figure 5). Finally, the program also
assesses the historical and archeological
significance of the easement property.
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090115205612im_/http://attra.ncat.org/images/federal_resources/frpp.jpg)
Figure 5. Map courtesy of NRCS/USDA.
FRPP Eligibility
The FRPP is a competitive program and
each state NRCS office has very particular
eligibility requirements for the program.
However, each has to meet the following
minimum set of national criteria:
- Does the farm or ranch contain
prime, unique, productive soil, historical
or archeological resources?
- Is the farm or ranch included in a
pending offer from a state, tribal,
local government, or non-governmental
organization easement program?
- Is the land privately owned?
- Is the farm or ranch covered by a
conservation plan for highly erodible
land?
- Is it large enough to sustain agricultural
production?
- Does the farm or ranch have access
to markets for its products?
- Do the farms or ranches that surround
the applying farm or ranch
support long-term agricultural production?
- Does the owner meet the Adjusted
Gross Income (AGI) limitation? (This is the same income limitation for all other NRCS programs.)
FRPP Benefit Determination
The NRCS share of the cost of the easement
cannot be larger then 50 percent of
the appraised market value. The applying
farmer or rancher can contribute up
to 25 percent of the cost with the cooperating
entity contributing up to another 25
percent. The total benefit is calculated by
all partners to the agreement and available
funding. The selection is made by the state
conservationist in each state. The size of the
benefit is variable depending on the value
of the easement. For instance in Montana in
2005, five easements were awarded under
the FRPP at a value of $2,221,000.
Implementation
Being awarded an NRCS working lands
conservation program contract is really
only the beginning of the process. NRCS
working lands “contracts” are legally binding
and commit you to fulfilling your end of
the bargain. With contracts lasting in some
cases 10 years, it is important to be absolutely
clear on your commitments. By the
same token the NRCS has also made significant commitments as well. During the
implementation phase, there will be a need
to regularly work with your local NRCS
agent to make sure you are making timely
progress on your contract.
While ideally avoided, there may be disputes
about either the fairness of the application
process or about your obligations
during the implementation of the contract.
Federal law does provide for formal processes
of appeal. While NRCS works hard
to make sure you understand the details of
a program contract prior to implementation,
knowing your rights for appealing decisions
is important.
Appeals
The appeals process—like the programs
themselves—is complex. The first question
to be clear about is the basis for your appeal. For instance, if you appeal
the rejection of your application for
program benefits, remember first that the
programs are competitive and losing in that
competition is not itself a reason to appeal.
The general basis for an appeal includes
the following:
- Denial of participation in a program.
- Compliance with program requirements.
- The payment or amount of payments
or other program benefits to a program
participant.
- Technical determinations or technical
decisions that affect the status
of land even though eligibility for
USDA benefits may not be affected.
There are specific reasons that an appeal
can be rejected by NRCS:
- General program requirements
applicable to all participants; that
is, you cannot make your farm or
ranch a “special” case.
- Science-based formulas and criteria;
for example, eligibility for CSP
is based on a certain minimum Soil
Conditioning Index (SCI) score. You
cannot appeal your eligibility on the
basis that the SCI index is the wrong
criteria to use. (However, if you think the wrong information was used to calculate the score, then an appeal may be warranted.)
- The fairness or constitutionality of
federal laws; for example, arguing
that it is unfair that you can’t apply
for the CSP because you don’t happen
to live in the watershed where
the program is being implemented
in that year.
- Technical standards or criteria that
apply to all persons.
- State Technical Committee membership decisions made by the State
Conservationist.
- Procedural technical decisions relating
to program administration.
- Denials of assistance due to the lack
of funds or authority.
Once you have established a basis for an
appeal, determine whether you are appealing
a “technical determination” or a “program
decision.” An appeal of a technical
determination challenges the correctness
of “the status and condition of the natural
resources and cultural practices based on
science and best professional judgment of
natural resources professionals concerning
soils, water, air, plants and animals” (NRCS).
For example, the stocking rate of cattle on a
particular range or pasture could be a contested
technical decision.
An appeal of a program decision, on the
other hand, challenges the correctness of
the determination of eligibility, or how the
program is administered and implemented.
For example, if the local NRCS is wrong in
its determination that your farm or ranch
is in an eligible watershed for application
to the CSP, then you could appeal that program
eligibility decision.
Chapter XII refers to the title of the Food Security Act of 1985, when the current appeals process was established |
After you have decided the basis for an appeal and the type of appeal, the next step
is to make sure the program you applied for
is a “Chapter XII” program. All the programs
outlined in this publication are Chapter
XII programs. Check with your local
or state NRCS office for a list of non-Chapter XII programs (See Resources Section below).
To begin the preliminary phase of the
appeal process, ask in writing for one of
three actions to take place within 30 days
after notification of the decision you wish
to contest. - Make a request for a field visit and
reconsideration of an NRCS decision.
- Ask for mediation of the contested
decision.
- Appeal directly to the local Farm
Service Agency (FSA)—usually
county-based—for a reconsideration
of a decision.
Which of these three routes to take in the
appeals process is up to you. It may be hard
to evaluate which is of greater benefit. Even
though the first choice explicitly provides for
a “field visit,” all others will require a field
visit anyway. The reconsideration and mediation
routes should be completed within 30
days of the request.
Finally, even after these appeal routes are
exhausted, you can still appeal a decision
to the National Appeals Division (NAD)
of the USDA. This agency is independent
of the other USDA agencies and provides
participants with the opportunity to have a
neutral review of an appeal. The NAD can
make independent findings but also must
apply laws and regulations of the respective
agency to the case.
Conclusion
The conservation programs outlined in this
publication are complex; accessing these
resources requires significant effort and an
investment in time and energy. The complexities
of the programs are in part due to
sincere efforts by a large federal agency to
make the programs locally relevant. If you
do not like the way programs are designed
and implemented, the NRCS is unique in
that it also provides at least two ways for
you to be engaged in changing them.
Local Working Groups
Local work groups are essentially a form
of local governance of federal conservation
programs. The meetings are open to the
general public, but formal membership is
limited to federal, state, tribal, or local government
representatives. The meetings are
convened by the local conservation district
in each state and the purpose of the group
is to provide advice to the NRCS on conservation
programs. Contact your local NRCS office about the meeting schedule in your
area. As a farmer or rancher you can attend
these meetings and offer public comment
on the decisions being made. Incumbents
of any of several local government offices
usually serve as leaders of these groups.
The local working groups provide representatives
to serve on a multi-state committee.
Additionally, the working groups provide
advice in the following general areas:
- Conditions of the natural resources
and the environment;
- The local application process,
including ranking criteria and application
periods;
- Identifying the educational and
training needs of producers;
- Cost-share rates and payment levels
and methods of payment;
- Eligible conservation practices;
- The need for new, innovative conservation practices;
- Public outreach and information
efforts;
- Program performance indicators.
(Montana NRCS, 2006)
State Technical Committee
Each state NRCS office has a State Technical
Committee (STC). The committee is
comprised of groups or individuals who
represent a wide variety of natural resource
issues. If you wish to serve on your state
STC, either as an individual or as a representative
of a group, you must write a letter
to your State Conservationist explaining
your interest and credentials. Several federal
agencies must be represented on the
committee by law and many non-governmental
and state agencies are encouraged
to participate as well. Unlike local working
groups, STC members do not have to
be “elected” officials. Public notification
of meetings must be accomplished no later
then 14 days prior to the meeting and the
state conservationist is required to prepare meeting agendas and necessary background information
for the meetings. There is no requirement for any
number of meetings in any given year, but any USDA
agency can request that a meeting be held.
There is an extensive list of conservation programs
that the STC has responsibilities to address. The list
is available on the Internet or by contacting
your local or state NRCS office (see Resource list).
However, it is important to remember that the STC is
only an advisory body and has no legal enforcement
or implementation authority. Nonetheless, even without
this statutory authority, members of the STCs are generally
the leaders of agriculture in a particular state. It
would be difficult for any State Conservationist to not
give strong consideration to the recommendations of
this important group.
Final Word: Is Conservation a Public
Good?
There are some farmers, ranchers, agricultural, and
conservation organizations that have had philosophical
issues with the very intent of working lands conservation
programs. For the CSP, the concept of rewarding
farmers and ranchers for their current conservation
efforts is fundamentally different from all other federal
conservation programs. Some have argued that if some
farmers and ranchers are already providing these benefits without public support, then why should scarce
public resources be provided to continue these efforts?
(Batie, 2006) Others have argued that good stewardship
by farmers and ranchers provides a public good or
investment. It is argued that we all benefit from these
stewardship efforts and public incentives are required
to continue good stewardship of the land and—more
importantly—to encourage those who do not provide
these public benefits. (Kemp, 2005)
The EQIP program supports farmers and ranchers to
move toward improved conservation practices that protect
natural resources and the environment. The additions
to social benefits seem clearer than with the CSP.
However, EQIP also has a role to regulate environmental
damages resulting from agriculture by ending poor
farming and ranching practices before governmental
enforcement actions are imposed. In this regard, EQIP
is often criticized for rewarding the worst environmental
actors in the agriculture system.
These issues—like many others in our democratic system—strike at the broader issue of the proper role
of government engagement in protecting both the environment and the future productive capacity of
natural resources. Even with the substantial federal
resource increases in conservation since 2002, federal
conservation programs still only represent about
8 percent of all USDA expenditures. So even at this
higher level of activity, the federal government is far
more engaged in agriculture and food systems in
ways not related to the protection of our agricultural
resource base and natural environment. Perhaps conservation
efforts need to be of even higher priority in
the United States.
References
Batie, Sandra, 2006. Green Payments Discussion Continues,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
January/February, Vol. 61, No. 3.
ERS, 2006. Contrasting Working-Land and Land
Retirement Programs. Economic Research
Service, USDA, Economic Brief No. 4.
Kemp, Loni, 2005. Conservation Investments: Green
Payments Can Replace a Broken Policy. Conservation
Planner, Vol. X, No. 3, Minnesota
Project.
Lundgren, Britt, Jody Biergiel, Meaghan Donovan, Christine Lee, and Kathleen Merrigan. 2006. The Conservation Security Program: Rewards and challenges for New England farmers. Tufts University and American Farmland Trust. www.farmland.org/programs/states/documents/NECSP.pdf (PDF / 2.8M)
Back to top
Further Resources
Internet, Intranet, and Phone
The NRCS has an excellent intranet-based information
system. The national NRCS Web site links to all state
NRCS Web sites. In turn state Web sites link to local
NRCS office Web sites if the local office maintains a
site. Starting at the national NRCS site is the best way
to begin a search of all the programs and services the
NRCS provides.
If you do not have Internet access, your phone
book should list your local county NRCS office in the“blue” federal government sections. If not call the following
state offices to get the phone number of your
local office.
State Office Contacts
The Natural Resources Conservation Service has offices
at state, area, and district levels. For information on
conservation for a specific state or county, phone the
state conservationist listed below.
Federal Resources for Sustainable Farming and Ranching
By Jeff Schahczenski
NCAT Agriculture Specialist
Paul Driscoll, Editor
Tracy Mumma, HTML Production
IP294
Slot 290
Back to top |