Innovative Approaches to Natural Resource Protection

A Resource Management Planning Process Guide/Model for State Agencies and Others

March, 1998

Compiled by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) Research Foundation with support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

Resource Management Planning (RMP)

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide a step-by-step "how-to" guide for use by agricultural organizations; agricultural consultants and service providers; local, state, and federal agencies; or others who are interested in starting a voluntary, site-specific, comprehensive resource management planning (RMP) program for individual farmers and ranchers in a local community, watershed, or other geographic area. (See Appendix A for information on the Philosophy of the RMP concept.) This guide is an effort to bring together "the best of the best" ideas, approaches, and concepts of successful RMP programs which exist at the local and state level.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) Research Foundation met with almost 400 farmers, ranchers, agricultural organizations or state and federal agency representatives in 26 states and Canada to identify the most successful efforts. The state visits included the six NRCS whole farm/ranch planning pilot projects. It became apparent that there were many similarities or common threads to the most successful initiatives or programs. (See Appendix B for a Summary of Successful State Comprehensive RMP Initiatives.) Each state has a different approach to its planning effort and different reasons (legislation, special financial or technical assistance programs, better service to customers, court rulings, safe harbor, environmental assurances, etc.) for what it is doing. Successful efforts have been obtained where the activities were voluntary, used partnerships in a team approach, and meet the specific needs of each area. All of this has occurred without legislation or regulation from the federal level. A major reason for this success, was the input and buy in of key stakeholders. This guide provides flexible processes that will ensure stakeholder input and buy in on a watershed or other geographic area while allowing for voluntary individual, site-specific resource management planning. It is designed to provide advice on major common threads or key components of a successful RMP program. By following this guide; individuals, organizations, or agencies will improve their chance for a successful RMP program and acceptance of the program by the agricultural community.

This guide contains information on:

• The common threads and key components of successful RMP programs;

• A natural resource planning approach on a watershed or other geographic area basis;

• A voluntary RMP program with individuals;

• The steps to initiate a local or state RMP program; and

• Support materials and examples of successful programs.

Background

Congress recognized that natural resources can be managed better if conservation and environmental programs are simplified and coordinated to provide farmers and ranchers with one-stop shopping for assistance. The 1996 Farm Bill significantly improves the way the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is to develop and oversee conservation programs for agricultural land. The 1996 Farm Bill establishes a number of new programs which require resource management planning. These programs include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Farm Option (CFO), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI). Of critical importance to the inter-relationship of these programs, Congress directed USDA to develop guidance to reduce duplication of the planning requirements for these and other government programs and regulations. Clear direction has been given to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) -- the USDA agency with the technical capabilities of implementing these programs -- and local conservation districts and state agencies -- the level at which implementation should occur -- to develop regulations for conservation and related programs. (See Appendix C for additional information on the Congressional direction to USDA.) In order to protect and enhance natural resources, it is essential that all federal conservation programs and environmental laws and regulations recognize the importance of state and local leadership. They must also recognize the role that state agencies, conservation districts, and agricultural organizations play in coordinating, communicating and facilitating the acceptance and implementation of programs by agricultural producers.

The NASDA Research Foundation is providing leadership in an effort to improve the understanding of farmers, ranchers, the agricultural community, and state agencies of a comprehensive approach to address environmental quality through a RMP concept in a manner consistent with the direction of the 1996 Farm Bill. Resource Management Plans (RMPs) are technically, environmentally and economically feasible. They provide the most effective basis in a single site-specific resource plan to meet the requirements of several environmental laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Conservation provisions of the two previous Farm Bills have contributed significantly to the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the reduction in soil erosion. Significant improvements in water quality have also been achieved. Conservation provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill continue to facilitate environmental accomplishments in agriculture while enhancing agricultural competitiveness and farm profitability.

It has been suggested that Farm Bill dollars should be the major source of funding for RMP implementation. While states and USDA agencies should work together to integrate their programs with other environmental regulations where possible to enhance effectiveness of voluntary programs, Farm Bill conservation program funding is not adequate as the sole source of funds available to assist in the development and implementation of RMPs.

States should develop strategies which combine and leverage funding under Farm Bill programs, CWA, SDWA, CZMA, and ESA programs with state and local sources, as well as private sources such as private utilities, local conservation organizations and cooperating landowners. Private financial and technical assistance sources should be considered for providing in-kind or non-federal matching funds required under certain programs, to leverage and maximize available funding to make a difference at the local level. USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other federal agencies and the states should provide maximum availability of funds to local agencies and agricultural producers to develop and implement RMPs, i.e., to put BMPs on-the-ground. (See Appendix D, Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection.)

Funding for NRCS conservation technical assistance is the foundation for most federal as well as many state conservation policies and programs on private lands. Many states rely on the NRCS technical assistance for implementation of state conservation programs. Equally important is funding for technical assistance of soil and water conservation districts at the local level, the important delivery point for federal, state and local conservation programs. Lastly, adequate funding for technical assistance to implement program neutral planning (program neutral doesn't identify specific agencies' programs or sources of financial or technical assistance) and implementation of soil and water conservation programs and mandates is essential to protecting and enhancing natural resources. Delivery of conservation technical assistance in order to achieve environmental goals is a process that works best as a partnership using a team to interact with individual decisionmakers. It requires trained professionals working with individual farmers to assess resource protection needs and develop practical, economical solutions. Previous Farm Bills have not been accompanied with adequate funding to implement federally-mandated programs as well as state and local conservation programs. This has forced NRCS staff to concentrate on addressing federal mandates, causing many equally important state and local conservation priorities to be set aside.

The flexible model process covered in this guide has been developed from information obtained during field reviews and discussions with almost 400 farmers, ranchers, agricultural organizations, and state and federal agency representatives in 26 states and Canada to learn about their specific RMP initiative. Each state had a different approach to its effort and different reasons (state legislation or regulation, special financial or technical assistance programs, court rulings, safe harbor, compliance, better service to customers, etc.) for what it is doing.

While the specifics of successful RMP programs vary as local conditions warrant, there are common threads to these approaches. Each successful program has recognized the importance of the voluntary nature of resource management planning, specifically the producer's lead role as decisionmaker in the planning and implementation of the RMPs. The programs have also incorporated the importance of landowner control, local input and stakeholder coordination, and recognizing that members of local communities have the most knowledge of their needs and concerns.

Resource assessment and planning are also central in these programs. Many programs give producers a chance to assess their resources first through a simple self-assessment questionnaire, and then through a more in-depth review of their operation and practices. (See Appendix E, Farm & Home Resource Management Assessment as an example.) Based on that assessment, producers work with conservation districts, state and federal agencies, and other service providers to develop and implement alternatives which will enhance the protection of their natural resources.

Successful RMP programs incorporate the following concepts:

• Integrated Service Delivery (One Stop Shopping) -- Federal legislation, such as the CWA, the SDWA, the CZMA, the ESA, and the various Farm Bills, has resulted in a maze of government programs to protect water quality, public health, wetlands, and other natural resources from the impacts of agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Additionally, citizen suits and regulatory enforcement actions have exposed some producers to enormous costs and confusion as to how to address legitimate environmental concerns while maintaining an economically viable agricultural business. Farmers and ranchers should be able to document good environmental stewardship; improve production practices to meet all the environmental requirements for their operation; and identify and utilize educational, technical and financial resources for environmental planning and implementation that integrates and balances all requirements through participation in one program.

• Voluntary Participation -- The program should represent a proactive effort and investment from the agricultural community. It should incorporate the principles of personal initiative and responsibility based on the willingness of informed producers to participate in a program which benefits both the environment and their individual farm or ranch business. The program should rely on incentives, encouragement from peers, and producer confidence in the process to achieve the anticipated results.

• Technical Team Approach -- Voluntary producer participants should be able to work with local groups consisting of representatives of agencies such as soil and water conservation districts, the NRCS, the Cooperative Extension Service, appropriate state agencies, and other service providers who are familiar with needs of the local community. It is desirable to include agribusinesses, agricultural consultants/advisers, agricultural organizations, and environmental organizations in development of the program. Team members must, of course, recognize that the key to success is meeting the needs of the landowner and assuring that the farm or ranch business can feasibly (economically) achieve the desired results. The technical team approach has been the most successful when the appropriate state and federal agencies have combined staff, whose primary function is RMP in a watershed(s) area, into a single office separate from the typical agency office. This has facilitated the watershed RMP staff to work together cooperatively regardless of agency affiliation or individual agency program orientation. The use of a technical team has demonstrated better coordination, broader more comprehensive assistance with a better end product for farmers and ranchers.

• Watershed or Other Geographic Basis Approach -- The program should encourage a pragmatic assessment and targeting of priority watersheds. An understanding of current and future land management objectives and potential water quality impacts of these objectives should be included when prioritizing program objectives. Recognizing that cost-sharing and other financial assistance to address environmental issues may be limited, the highest concerns of local stakeholders should be identified and addressed. The watershed approach also serves the broader interests of other state and federal programs as set forth in the CWA, SDWA, and CZMA.

• Stakeholder/Community Awareness and Support through Communications -- Local support for the program will increase its effectiveness, enhance funding opportunities and encourage producer participation. Efforts should be made to increase public awareness of program goals; the benefits of agriculture to the economy, the community, and the environment; and the economic and regulatory challenges facing farmers and ranchers as they strive to provide high quality food and fiber to the community at a reasonable cost.

• Local Development and Implementation -- The program should be developed at the local level to promote a sense of ownership and commitment by participants, and to better tailor programs to local needs.

• Site-Specific Assessments -- Each watershed and agricultural operation is unique. Consideration should be given to the mission and objectives of local watershed groups and the individual producer, as well as water quality and other environmental criteria, when considering alternatives in the recommendation or development of watershed or site-specific RMPs.

• Total Resource Management -- RMPs are normally designed to protect a variety of natural resources both on and off the farm or ranch. Resources (i.e. soil, water, air, plants and animals) are considered, as are human interests both on and off the farm or ranch. This proposal recommends the NRCS planning process as a starting point for addressing agricultural/environmental issues in a comprehensive way. This can involve a "tiered" planning approach which could integrate farm/ranch business plans into the planning process. Several related concerns are managed under this single approach. (See Appendix F for a description of the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program used in New York.)

• Participation Through Incentives -- An integral component of the program is cost-sharing to offset a portion of the planning and implementation costs associated with BMPs. Other financial incentives include low interest loans, tax credits, and the like. This is especially true for BMPs with large capital costs where there are significant public benefits but limited economic return to the producer. Program administrators should continually identify and develop financial, educational, technical, and other incentives (including compliance measures) to promote participation. Producers must be able to recognize the economic, regulatory, and public awareness benefits of the program to voluntarily participate, and to ensure that the program succeeds over the long term.

The most important common threads of the very successful programs or initiatives included:

• A watershed or other geographic area approach;

• The use of a technical team on a watershed basis;

• Technical team staff dedicated solely to individual site-specific planning;

• Open communications and input from all stakeholders; and

• The use of a trained neutral party as a facilitator.

On the other hand, programs that were less successful did not:

• Fully utilize partnership opportunities;

• Use a watershed or area approach to identify and prioritize resource issues and concerns;

• Use open communications with all potential stakeholders; and

• Target resources to individual farmers and ranchers who want to pursue an RMP type concept.

Natural Resource Planning (Watershed or Other Geographic Basis)

The natural resource planning process involves a procedure that requires the interaction of interested local parties. It is based on the principle that community stakeholders are best suited to identify and resolve local natural resource problems. Thus, community stakeholders are key to successfully managing and protecting their natural resources. It challenges neighbors, both urban and rural, to work together and take responsibility for addressing local resource needs. Local can mean a county, a portion of a county, a watershed, a multi-county region, or whatever geographic area is best suited to address the resource needs identified.

It is important to keep in mind that this planning must be natural resource needs driven (program neutral), rather than specific program driven. The program neutral approach doesn't identify specific agencies' programs or sources of financial or technical assistance. Instead its primary focus is to identify natural resource concerns, as well as economic and social concerns. Once the natural resource concerns are identified, appropriate local, state, federal, or non-governmental program tools can be used, singly or in combination, to address the identified concerns and meet the established goals of the stakeholders. Natural resource planning is for larger geographic areas. While farmers or ranchers can consider the issues and priorities of a natural resource planning area in the development their individual RMPs, they are not required to.

While there is a wide range of groups which may be in a position to lead a local natural resource planning effort, local conservation districts, under state or tribal law, are charged with facilitating cooperation and agreements between landowners, agencies, and others or developing comprehensive natural resource plans or RMPs. Conservation districts, as well as members of the local USDA working group (made up of local, state, and federal agency representatives), are experienced in assessing resource needs, determining priorities, and coordinating programs to meet those needs and priorities.

The natural resource planning process for a watershed usually includes the following steps.

• Set Priorities and Goals -- Before starting the planning process the local conservation district or other entity should establish guidelines, goals, and objectives within which the process operates. This normally happens as a result of a review of long range plans, individual or group requests, or expressed concerns. However it occurs, the prioritization of local watersheds help focus limited resources into areas with the greatest needs.

• Compile Basic Background Data -- Once a request for assistance is received or a watershed has been targeted for a planning effort, some basic information is required. Among this base data are maps, drainage area, soils, social, economic, topographic, and other pertinent information. Ideally, one or two of the concerns identified for a priority watershed should be inventoried. This information provides "lead in" material for the local coordinating committee.

• Identify Local Coordinating Committee Members -- Local community leaders, groups and agencies usually identify from five to 25 key people in the watershed, whose support is essential. Once these key leaders have been identified, a member of the initial group or conservation district should visit each potential member and discuss the objectives and goals of the program. Items normally discussed include:

• The planning area and concerns;
• The planning process and expected results;
• The need for local input and ownership;
• The need to further identify concerns and opportunities; and
• The establishment of a date for an organizational meeting.

• Hold Local Coordinating Committee Meetings -- An organizational meeting should be held to select a chair person, discuss resource concerns, establish specific goals and objectives, and decide on the level of detail to be used to inventory and analyze the resources in the area of concern. A plan of work should be prepared which describes the steps needed and the responsible person or agency charged with carrying out each step. As part of the planning effort, a public participation plan should be prepared with supporting documentation that demonstrates the public participation required for most funding sources.

• Educate the Public -- A letter, news article, or other means of communication should be utilized to convey information to stakeholders in the watershed area. The information should convey:

• The purpose of the effort;
• The identity of the local coordinating committee members;
• A list of problems, concerns, and opportunities as perceived by the committee;
• A request for help in clarifying the list of concerns; and
• An invitation to call or visit any of the committee members to discuss the activities.

It is important that the local coordinating committee obtain feedback from the people in the area. This feedback will determine the expected level of participation, the need to expand the planning activities, the need to elicit help from other agencies, and the level of the assessment needed.

• Identify Local Technical Committee Members -- The local technical committee is established by the local coordinating committee after they identify who or where assistance might be available to help them find ways to solve the problems identified. The local technical committee is usually made up of specialists from the private and public sector. The local USDA working group can be used as a starting point. These people coordinate input from other sources, provide resource assessments, and develop alternative solutions for treatment. The decision to seek additional planning assistance is fundamentally a two-step process. First is the composition and range of expertise of the local people. Second is the complexity and nature of the problems being evaluated. Whenever it is determined that additional specialists are needed, the local coordinating committee should take steps to secure them.

• Prepare Technical Assessments of Resources -- Resource assessments are conducted to the degree of detail needed for each situation and are dictated by the complexity and scale of the concerns being addressed. Resource conditions and trends are quantified in detail during this part of the process. It is important that all resources be examined. Modifying one resource always has effects on others. These resource assessments either verify or modify the list of concerns, problems, or opportunities. Basic findings are presented to the local coordinating committee and the public in order to further refine goals and objectives.

• Develop Alternatives -- The technical specialists, working in concert, help the local coordinating committee in identifying at least two viable alternatives to each of the identified concerns. Each alternative must be consistent with objectives established and should contain sufficient benefit-cost data to guide the decisionmaking process. It is important to the entire process that alternatives be formulated without regard to particular programs that may later provide monetary resources or incentives for implementation. Alternatives developed with a funding source in mind quickly become limited by the restrictions carried by that funding source.

• Conduct Public Meetings -- After the local coordinating committee has evaluated the alternatives, it should conduct a series of public meetings. These meetings provide an opportunity for face-to-face exchange of information. All the data collected, all alternatives developed, and all the actions taken are reviewed with the general public. The public's input is requested. It is important to inform the public that before any alternatives are finalized, before any course of action is set, and before implementation begins, all of the inputs will be considered for incorporation into the plan.

• Select Alternatives -- After sufficient consultations with the public, local technical committee, and others, the local coordinating committee selects the preferred alternative(s). The selected alternatives should specifically indicate who will do what and when the action(s) will be taken.

• Adopt Plan -- In adopting the natural resource plan, the local coordinating committee and other key stakeholders need to ensure that the public's concerns, problems, and opportunities have been addressed. Formal adoption should be recorded in the local coordinating committee minutes.

• Implement Plan -- The nature of the concerns identified and the alternatives selected will lead local officials to seek funds and technical assistance for implementation from sources whose intent and interests will be served by the plan. Local sources should be considered first, as well as private sector contributions. The strategy and actions outlined in the plan are now set into motion. Any data needs for monitoring implementation progress should now be established. Copies of the final plan should be provided to all persons or groups who will participate in the implementation and made available to the interested members of the general public. Agricultural service providers such as consultants, agri-business representatives, and agency representatives should communicate the identified concerns and priorities to individual farmers and ranchers during their site-specific RMP development process.

• Review, Evaluate, and Update Plan -- Implementation progress should be monitored and reviewed by the local coordinating committee. This will permit the committee to evaluate the impacts of the actions taken and make any necessary revisions in a timely manner. This review should involve the technical specialists and the public. As new information is received it should be incorporated into the plan. Members of the local coordinating committee must continuously monitor implementation against quality criteria established in the plan. A final evaluation after completion is also recommended to develop a complete assessment of the impacts and glean new information.

Stakeholder Coordination (Watershed or other Geographic Area basis)

Multiple use of natural resources and increasing public awareness has led to greater demand for public involvement. Stakeholder involvement in any program to address natural resources issues is important. All interested parties must be included in the program development phase. (This stakeholder coordination relates to watershed or other geographic area basis and is on a broader scale than individual site-specific RMP with farmers and ranchers.) Local, state and federal agencies should share their expertise in program requirements and administration, while farmers and ranchers bring their knowledge of production agriculture and their operations to the table, and local citizens play a significant role by outlining the concerns of the community. It naturally follows that the need for greater cooperation and coordination must also increase. With this in mind, farmers, ranchers, landowners, absentee landowners, land managers, interest groups, agencies and other stakeholders must work together as a team or committee from start to finish. Local soil and water conservation districts, in many instances, are natural coordinators for this type of effort. The following guidelines, developed by those involved in a process called Coordinated Resource Management (CRM), are provided to enhance the success of a stakeholder committee. The Guidelines are:

• Voluntary -- The program must strictly be voluntary.

• Landowner -- The program should be landowner initiated. It is imperative that local landowners accept and support natural resource management strategies, goals and objectives, and, if possible, that landowners take the leadership.

• Involved -- All interested or concerned agencies, organizations, and interest groups must be involved. To overlook an interest group is to invite an attack on your plan.

• Facilitated -- A neutral party that is trained in facilitation processes should be used as a facilitator. The facilitator must constantly focus the group on common goals and effectively neutralize "aggression and arguments." The good facilitator is a highly skilled professional. The role of the facilitator is based on flexibility and accommodation of the needs of the group. It is impossible for a facilitator to follow a step-by-step procedure when dealing with group dynamics. Instead, the facilitator must be able to guide the group, not lead them. The facilitator creates an effective learning climate, increases the feeling of belonging to the group, and prevents barriers from being constructed.

• Gets agreement on desired outcomes/agenda;
• Suggests ways to proceed and checks for agreement, as a process advocate;
• Makes sure everyone has a chance to participate;
• Keeps discussions and interactions orderly and on track;
• Ensures that time is monitored and information is recorded;
• Listens and observes;
• Defends others from personal attack;
• Remains neutral and does not contribute content ideas or evaluate group members' ideas;
• Knows when and how to get others to perform the facilitating and recording functions;
• Balances process and content focus; and
• Creates a safe working environment in which members can contribute their thoughts and ideas.

• Ground Rules -- Ground rules need to be established, by group consensus, before the committee starts working together. These rules can be modified or revised at any time to allow for a fair process. Ground rules establish guidelines of behavior for the group and can be considered as "rules of conduct" for participants. One important ground rule should relate to communications and statements outside of the committee to ensure that the same messages are being reported.

• Common Goals -- Goals must be developed at the very beginning of the process. Focus should be on goals before tools. Talk about what you want for the area (i.e. clean water, healthy vegetation, wildlife, etc.) before you talk about how to obtain them (i.e. seedings, tree plantings, fences, roads, etc.). This allows you to open the lines of communication and identify middle ground.

• Authority -- All agency and organization representatives must have the authority to speak and make decisions for their respective entities. If not, a lot of time is wasted getting approval and much confusion is created due to misunderstanding. Those with authority need to delegate that authority to those who represent them. It is essential for every member to be accountable and have the ability to represent their group. By this it is meant that not only must each member be committed to making the process work, but each member must have the authority to speak for the group they represent at the table. A common negotiating tool or crutch is to refer to some higher authority. This must be challenged in order for the process to move forward. The team must state that, if you as a member of this team are unable to represent your group, then perhaps someone else needs to be at this table.

• Decision Making By Consensus -- All committee members must agree to making decisions by consensus. This prevents "stacking the deck" such as an interest group constantly voting against an individual or other interest groups to get their way. Every member deserves respect regardless of differences of opinion, goals, or objectives. Each member must focus on the common goals and work to achieve them. Consensus has been called the ultimate risk in a negotiation setting. By making the commitment to operate by consensus, a group is saying that they are agreeing to place their trust in one another. All decisions, recommendations, and actions are only made after unanimous agreement. All members of the group must voice publicly their support for the groups decisions, recommendations, or actions. By extending this principle to all levels, no level can pass on recommendations without unanimous agreement. This concept is frightening to some. Everyone is at least apprehensive, but the longer it is used the greater the confidence and trust levels become.

A working definition of consensus would be "Collective opinion arrived at by a group of people working together under conditions that permit communications to be sufficiently open, the group climate to be sufficiently supportive, so that everyone in the group feels they have had their fair chance to influence the decision. When a decision is made by consensus, all members understand the decision and are prepared to support it."

Operationally, consensus means that all members can rephrase the decision to show that they understand it, that all members have had a chance to tell how they feel about it, that those members who continue to disagree or have doubts will nevertheless, say publicly that they are willing to give the decision a try. ⁽¹⁾ To reach consensus, you need to:

• Try to get underlying assumptions regarding the situation out into the open where they can be discussed.

• Listen and pay attention to what others have to say. This is the most distinguishing characteristic of successful teams.

• Be cautious of early, quick, easy agreements and compromises. They are often based on erroneous assumptions that need to be challenged.

• Avoid competing and arguing. In a consensus group either the group wins or no one wins.

• Avoid voting. It will split the group into "winners" and "losers;" it encourages "either or" thinking and it fosters argument rather than rational discussion.

• Encourage everyone, particularly the quieter ones, to offer their ideas.

• Needs Versus Position -- Expressing positions generates confrontation. Expressing needs generates compassion and trust, and the committee will take care of legitimate needs. Needs versus position is an important concept, one which each person taking part in any group must understand. Focus on what management practices are currently needed to improve the natural resource and not the agency policies or positions that have been implemented in the past. "Needs" are something that people, and the group, accept and work to satisfy. A "position" sets up a right/wrong or win/lose scenario that forces people to choose. The establishment of win/win situations is the goal. If each person participated fully, then each person understands the "needs" of the others, and will publicly support the group's decision.

• Stakeholder Team -- Create a team by developing an understanding among committee members and build trust. This is probably the hardest goal to achieve and usually requires team building training. Teamwork is the essence of a successful program. Everyone involved, everyone participating is responsible for building the team. The quality of the final product produced by the stakeholder team is a direct result of the members ability to form and function as a team. Individual members of the team must be familiar with issues and local conditions and have skills associated with the objectives. They must also have the desire to collaborate with the other members. The members build trust which allows them to stay focused on the issues, promotes more efficient communication and coordination, improves the quality of collaborative outcomes, and leads to compromising.

The development of a group into a stakeholder team takes time, commitment, and a lot of hard work on the part of the participants. This conversion process begins the moment members begin to interact with one another, the moment they begin to communicate. The first stage in a team's development is called the forming stage. In this stage people really don't know one another. They are usually very hesitant to talk, they feel unsure. The second stage is labeled the storming stage. Here people often struggle for power and position. Leaders within the group begin to step forward. This level is characterized by conflict between group members. The third stage is called norming. The "team" is beginning to form at this level. People begin to trust one another, and some compromising takes place. True team function takes place in the performing stage. Teams at this level have little difficulty dealing with issues. There is strong support among the members. The team has a clear vision of where it wishes to go.

Essential points in teambuilding are to:

• Involve key people in planning and decisions;

• Keep all members informed;

• Listen to and act on what people have to say;

• Recognize individuals and the team for its achievements;

• Know and respect people's skills and abilities;

• Give people "ownership" of the job;

• Give people feedback on how they are doing;

• Communicate clearly and spell out responsibilities; and

• Be fair, open and accessible.

• Commitment -- All participants must be committed to the success of the program. They must feel needed and have something to contribute. There must be respect among committee members and everyone must have ownership in the plan. There must be a sense of accomplishment and progress.

• Management Objectives -- Objectives must be developed and prioritized. They should be measurable, attainable, and strive towards accomplishing common goals. An Action Plan should then be prepared to identify who, when, where, and what will be accomplished. Assignments should be given to individual committee members and subcommittees should be formed to accomplish separate tasks.

• Monitoring -- Monitoring is very important to provide baseline data and to provide direction in accomplishing goals and objectives. If monitoring indicates downward trends then replanning can take place to get back on track.

• Flexibility -- Plans must be flexible to allow for weather, ownership changes, management changes, new technology, etc.

Resource Management Planning and Implementation With Individuals

The RMP process is a reemphasis of the basic elements of the NRCS planning process used in the past because it encourages:

• The identification of priority issues and concerns on a watershed or other geographic area basis by obtaining input and feedback from stakeholders;

• The use of partnerships to leverage resources to provide a better more consistent product for customers;

• A coordinated information and education program;

• The use of a technical team to work with stakeholders and individual decisionmakers;

• Flexibility of the process and the plan document;

• A comprehensive planning approach that considers the interactions of resource decisions, enhancement of the natural resource base, and the goals and objectives of the decisionmaker;

• Compliance with laws and regulations;

• Sensitivity for confidentially; and

• The importance of plan implementation.

RMPs provide farmers and ranchers with a voluntary opportunity to enhance their resource protection and meet the requirements of laws and regulations in a manner tailored to their operation. The purpose of RMPs is to provide technical, educational, and financial incentives to encourage the enhancement of environmental stewardship. They are designed as an integrated approach that is voluntary and site-specific in application. To be successful, these voluntary plans must be farmer and rancher owned, controlled, developed and implemented. The RMP process should provide a natural resource business or action plan that is program neutral (program neutral doesn't identify specific agencies' programs or sources of financial or technical assistance) for a farmer or rancher. The resource management plan should serve as the centerpiece for a farmer or rancher to use in whole or in part for various technical or financial assistance or compliance purposes. (See Appendix G for graphic representation.)

Aside from the desire to foster good stewardship, an important aspect of any voluntary program is the benefit gained by a participating agricultural producer in terms of reduced burden associated with regulation and liability. Where an agricultural producer participates in a voluntary resource management planning program with demonstrated benefits, the producer should receive a measure of credit. Voluntary programs should offer some form of presumption of compliance with the objectives of regulatory programs (e.g., water quality standards, habitat protection, etc.), appropriate relief from water-related permitting requirements, and/or reduced liability associated with off-farm environmental degradation (e.g., from undefined sources). The so-called "safe harbor" concept or environmental assurances that incorporates relief from regulation and enforcement for landowners where acceptable voluntary management practices are put in place.

Agricultural producers who participate in voluntary agricultural RMP programs should also be eligible to receive quality technical assistance through local, state and federal program staff who provide the needed expertise to assist in planning, designing, installing and monitoring BMPs. Whether a plan is designed around one practice, a simple structure, or a very complex operation, producers should have access to expertise and experience through voluntary programs not usually available. In addition to obvious technical and financial benefits of technical assistance, one should not overlook additional benefits of this assistance related to regulatory relief and compliance where technical assistance contributes to successful resource protection and environmental assurance.

The data used to develop a plan and the plans themselves must not be subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or similar state statutes, and must not be allowed to be used against the farmer or rancher in a federal or state enforcement action. Rather, these plans should be a means to assure that, once implemented, the farmer or rancher will meet other environmental laws and regulations, and natural resource needs. They should also allow a producer to make a profit in the world marketplace.

Because the RMP process is voluntary, producers will need to commit to it for it to work. While the final outcome of writing a plan may be rather simple, the planning process can be relatively complex. Environmental and financial planning by its nature can be involved and take a fair amount of time. The development of a plan is not the goal but only the outcome of the planning process. Producers will need to follow-up to assess the implementation of their individual plans to see if it is meeting their goals. Planning is an ongoing process and is never really done. Like any other business in a rapidly changing environment, one needs to continue to look at what opportunities are available.

Producers with assistance from the "technical team" should use a logical, step-by-step approach designed to help them develop the RMPs. It should guide them through their natural resource management decisionmaking while remaining flexible. In addition to the traditional sources of technical conservation assistance, private-sector service providers can play a vital role in the development of RMPs and should be encouraged to participate in the process at the producer's request. The process should be similar to the nine-step planning process used by NRCS. The actions are cyclical, not always sequential, and are rarely achieved in the short term. Recognizing that the producers control the scope and extent of planning, their process may differ slightly from the NRCS nine-step process while achieving similar results. The "technical team approach" has been most successful when the appropriate state and federal agencies have combined staff, whose primary function is RMP in a watershed(s) or other geographic area, into a single office separate from the typical agency office. This has facilitated the watershed RMP staff to work together cooperatively regardless of agency affiliation or individual agency program orientation. This approach has demonstrated that it provides for a comprehensive, coordinated approach with a better end product for farmers and ranchers.

Below are planning steps which could be used to develop RMPs to assist in meeting identified objectives. Service providers may describe their planning assistance through other steps. The steps below are flexible and are for example only.

• Determine Objectives -- The producer voluntarily begins the planning process by looking at his/her needs and objectives including financial needs, production capabilities, and long-term goals. Developing objectives and setting goals is one of the most important phases of the RMP concept. Planning and implementation without clearly defined goals is of little value. To provide positive guidance, goals should clearly state what is to happen and when within the selected timeframe. The setting of goals also provides a measurement tool to determine if progress is being made.

• Inventory and Assess Resources -- The producer voluntarily assesses and inventories the resources available. Resources include not only natural resources such as soil and water, but financial, technical, equipment/facilities, labor, and similar resources. The inventorying process can include a "tiered" approach where a producer determines the areas of the operation that need a more in-depth assessment.

• Assess Current Situation -- Producer evaluates how well objectives are currently being met. The producer may wish to seek outside input here if he/she lacks the necessary data to make these determinations.

• Identify Resource Priorities -- Based on the resource inventory and assessment and an analysis of the current situation, the producer identifies areas where alternative practices or combination of practices (systems) could enhance natural resource management.

• Develop Alternatives -- The producer, with technical assistance from qualified service providers, develops options, or chooses alternatives developed by a service provider(s), to resolve the resource problems identified.

• Make Decisions --The producer selects the BMPs that meet his/her objectives.

• Document Decisions in Plan -- The producer combines site-specific, scientifically-based resource-enhancing practices with his/her own innovations and ideas. The plan is a logical, step-by-step progression with a rational timeframe for implementation. The decisions in the plan may be provided to agencies administering incentive programs in order to ensure eligibility for services and benefits, and to document good environmental stewardship which can help producers comply with environmental laws and regulations.

• Implement Plan -- The producer carries out the implementation schedule in the plan. Detailed practices and designs or other resource-specific components of the plan that support implementation of the plan may be reviewed by the producer annually or more often if needed.

• Evaluate and Modify Plan -- The producer evaluates the plan and may make corrections and adjustments, using the appropriate planning steps. He/she may change or revise the plan at any time. If the plan provides compliance with other laws, contains agreements, or if financial assistance is provided, a producer may request reviews or approvals from administering agencies at any time. In those cases, approval should be provided indirectly by regulating agencies through agreements with local partners, such as soil and water conservation districts, where approval may provide additional benefits.

An individual RMP should be specifically tailored to meet the needs of the farmer and rancher. The information provided has to be useable and in a friendly format. A minimum plan should include:

• A plan map or aerial photograph with necessary information and/or decisions indicated;

• The producer's objectives and/or goals;

• Documented decisions; and

• An action plan (implementation schedule) outlining the activities, their location, the amount and estimated costs, the planned starting date, the date completed, and any other remarks.

This information should not include anything that might be considered confidential. (See Appendix H for a sample of a minimum plan.)

In addition to the above mentioned information there will be other materials that have been used in the development of the plan. (See Appendix I for a sample of a more detailed plan.) At the producer's option it may be included as a part of the plan or it may be provided to the producer separate from the plan. This information may include:

• Resource data such as soils, geological, wildlife, etc.;

• Resource assessments;

• Community issues or concerns;

• Current laws and regulations that may impact the agricultural operation;

• Technical standards, designs, and operation and maintenance suggestions;

• Existing agreements and contracts;

• Potential funding sources;

• Blank sheets for recording field information such as crops, pesticide use, weather, yield, or other required or management information; and

• A list of contact names, addresses and phone numbers.

Resource Management Planning Benefits

Producers are more likely to participate in the voluntary planning process if one or more of four general incentives are provided.

• Environmental Compliance -- Program delivery agencies, regulatory agencies, and others in some locations have agreed to accept valid resource management plans as indicators of a producer's compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

• Technical -- Assistance from NRCS or other service provider for planning, natural resource information, practice surveys, practice application, and similar services based on the standards in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) that reflect the involvement of conservation districts, state technical committees, local USDA work group, and producers. Other service providers or organizations may have similar standards or BMPs. They include the

• Farming for Clean Water in South Carolina (See Appendix J.)

• National Association of Wheat Growers Best Management Practice Guide

• National Pork Producers Council Environmental Assurance Program

• Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association

• Extension Service

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• State departments of agriculture

• Farm or ranch cooperatives

• Agribusinesses

• Private consultants

• Educational -- With new technology and continually changing regulations, producers want and need to stay up-to-date though information and education sharing. They are interested in advice that is current, accurate and consistent among service providers.

• Financial -- These benefits include loans, subsidy payments, cost share payments, incentive payments, tax credits, and others. (See Appendix K for examples of financial incentive programs.)

State and federal agencies benefit from improved communications and coordination, conflict resolution, less duplication, and the ability to accomplish more with fewer resources.

Resource Management Planning Training

Almost all of the states visited recommended training for those who will be involved with a RMP program. Training is an important aspect of keeping service providers up-to-date. Training needs to be available to all service providers, not just agency staff. In addition to the technical aspects of comprehensive integrated planning (water quality, nutrient management, steps of planning, economics, and woodland and wetland management, etc.) and the use of technical tools, a training program needs to include information on communications, consensus building, conflict resolution, interpersonal skills, marketing, and media relations.

NRCS has a training program of its conservation planning process available. (See Appendix L for a description of the training program.) NRCS is currently developing a training program for areawide conservation planning for watersheds or other geographically defined areas.

Initiating and Implementing a Local, Area, or State Level RMP Program

Natural resource planning has been utilized by many different groups and agencies for several years. The process has undergone many changes. A variety of different procedures have been tried; some met with success, others did not. One consistent finding is that it takes a cooperative partnership of local, state, and federal agencies, groups, and organizations to successfully address complex resource issues. With leadership provided by local leaders, voluntary involvement by stakeholders, improved media relations, enhanced information/education programs, and improved technical support, the process described above provides the best road to success. In order to truly have a single RMP process for an area or state, all state and federal agencies involved in natural resource management need to be included as stakeholders from the beginning. A multi-agency team should be responsible for the development of a state process. This could start with the USDA State Technical Committee. In Idaho, the first step was to develop a formalized working relationship among state and federal agencies and private and non-profit organizations. The state agencies took the lead on development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in order to provide a coordinated, customer-oriented approach to resource management planning. This MOU affirms commitments by the signatories to cooperate in the development and implementation of an RMP program. In a general MOU, the signatories can commit to discuss appropriate roles and responsibilities without committing to details and specifics. Additional MOUs can be developed if there is a need to spell out specific agreements and arraignments. However, some states don't have a reason or need to develop an MOU. (See Appendix M for the Idaho MOU and Appendix N for the Pennsylvania MOU.)

The approaches outlined here are suggestions which have proven useful to others facing natural resource problems. The natural resource planning process allows local people to make decisions concerning the natural resources around them. This approach provides an effective and efficient method of delivery of program services for all levels of government. (See Appendix O for the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) guides on Leadership Identification and Group Dynamics, Building Alliances, Conflict Management, Information Gathering Techniques, Media Relations, and Reaching Out to Minority Farmers.)

The natural resource plan, the result of a planning process, guides service providers in recognizing on-site resource problems that may be contributing to off-site concerns. The plan should identify concerns, priorities, alternatives, and practices or management systems that, when applied, solve on-site concerns. This provides an umbrella of community issues, concerns, and solutions which a farmer or rancher can take under consideration while developing their individual site-specific RMPs.

The RMP program at the local, area, or state level usually begins when individuals, groups, organizations, or agencies recognize the need to address existing or potential natural resource or environmental issues. In addition, the RMP process may be initiated in response to legislation, special financial or technical assistance programs, court decisions, safe harbor/compliance, or to provide better service to customers. The following activities and items need to be considered in your effort. These activities are similar to those found under the Natural Resource Planning section.

• Initial Meeting -- The first meeting of a small core group (recommended number is five to 10 members) is necessary to decide the Who, What, When, Where, and How to obtain the necessary input on whether and on what basis to proceed with an RMP program. This initial group can include the conservation district, the Extension Service, NRCS, the state department of agriculture, the state conservation agency, the state department of natural resources, agricultural organizations, and/or farmers and ranchers.

• Initial Stakeholder Meeting -- This meeting is held for all potential stakeholders and/or representatives. Depending on the scale of the proposed RMP program -- area, watershed, regional, or statewide -- the list of potential invitees could be as large as 200. (See Appendix P for samples of meeting guidelines, letter of invitation, list of potential invitees, agenda, a resource survey, and facilitation guidelines.) The meeting can be structured to be a one or two day meeting. At this meeting, the RMP concept as it is understood, the objectives of the meeting, the anticipated outcomes, and the operating procedures to be used should be presented. An independent trained facilitator using a Nominal Group Process with a recorder should be used throughout the meeting. The anticipated outcomes should include:

• The development of a list or matrix of the present programs and/or regulations that impact agriculture using a nominal group process;

• Consensus on whether or not to pursue an RMP program;

• The development of a list or schedule of the next steps including additional meeting dates; and

• Discussion and adoption of an organizational structure.

The Nominal Group Process (NGP) is based on research which suggests that individuals generate more creative ideas and information when they work in the presence of other people, but do not interact. According to this research, when people interact in groups they are more likely to react to each other's ideas than come up with new ideas or consider new dimensions of the problem. NGP is useful for making lists of problems, solutions, ideas, actions, priorities, goals, objectives, etc., that are to be considered by decisionmakers. The steps include:

• Introduction -- All participants introduce themselves, the facilitator discusses the objectives of the meeting, and describes what is expected from the participants. Allow 10 to 15 minutes minimum.

• Posing the Question -- The facilitator presents the question to be addressed and writes it at the top of a flip chart. Allow five minutes.

• Group Ideas -- Each participant silently generates ideas on the posed question and writes them in brief phrases or statements on their tablet of paper. Allow five minutes.

• Round Robin Listing of Ideas -- Each person, in turn, gives one idea to be recorded on the flip chart. The recorder will write down the ideas as rapidly as possible and will use the words of the group member expressing the idea. No discussion is permitted. A person may "pass" when all of his/her ideas are listed, but can "re-enter" later. Allow 15 to 20 minutes.

• Discussion of Ideas -- This step is to clarify the meaning of each listed idea, combine similar terms and explain support or nonsupport of each idea on the list. Allow 30 to 45 minutes.

• Ranking -- Each person will select the five (or some specified number) most important ideas on the list. Then the person assigns five points to the most favored idea and one point to the least favored idea of the ideas that he or she have selected. The facilitator tallies the points. The top five choices are marked as the priority responses. Allow ten minutes.

• Organizational Structure -- With the successful approaches, the organizational structure and roles of the natural resource planning process discussed starting on page 9 have been consistent although what they are called may be different. They have proven effective by improving interaction and communication among stakeholders to achieve coordinated efforts. However, this is flexible and some of them may not be necessary. Important elements of committee structure include: the size, representation, and terms of membership; the types, duties, and terms of officers; the meeting schedule, frequency, duration, and location; definition of ex-officio membership; communication procedures, and information flow; sources and availability of resources needed by the committee; operating procedures/rules of conduct; and the subcommittee structure. (See Appendix Q for a graphic representation of an organizational structure.) Some of the organizational structure may include:

• Initial Group -- This small ad hoc group meets to determine how to proceed with a RMP program and to develop an invitation list for an initial meeting.

• Local Coordinating Committee -- This is the most important organizational level of the process. Membership will likely be determined by what issues or resources come to the forefront. (See page 10 - 11 for additional information.)

• Local Technical Committee -- The technical committee is usually comprised of private sector experts and field level agency representatives. (See page 11 for additional information.)

• Technical Team -- The local technical team is usually comprised of private sector experts and field level agency representatives who assist individual farmers and ranchers develop and implement site-specific voluntary RMPs. The local technical team could use a team approach that has been the most successful when the appropriate state and federal agencies have combined staff, whose primary function is RMP in a watershed(s) area, into a single office separate from the typical agency office. This has facilitated the technical team to work together cooperatively regardless of agency affiliation or individual agency program orientation. This approach has demonstrated that it provides for a comprehensive, coordinated approach with a better end product for farmers and ranchers.

• State Advisory Committee -- The state advisory committee is comprised of appropriate agency and organization representatives within a state. This committee's primary functions are to provide coordination, policy implementation, strategy development, empowerment and the necessary resources where needed to accomplish the established goals. This group could start out as the USDA State Technical Committee.

• Working Groups -- Committees can and often do create work groups to which they delegate ongoing tasks and special assignments. These work groups (subcommittees) improve the committee efficiency, reduce the need to conduct all business in full committee meetings, and enable the committee to assign its members to subgroups which best capitalize on member interest and skills. The chair of a working group should normally be a member of the committee. The members of these working groups need not be committee members. Seeking non-committee membership enables the committee to access needed skills, broaden representation, and undertake more work without having to formally expand the committee membership.

• ·Additional Meetings -- These meetings can include stakeholder and/or other committee meetings. Anticipated activities would include the:

• Development of mission and vision statements.

• Development of a common understanding among stakeholders.

• Development of a concept paper that explains what is envisioned, who is involved, what the benefits are, and how to proceed.

• Identification of priority areas and activities.

• Development and implementation of an action plan that includes what is to be done, who will do it, when will it be done, and how will it be accomplished.

• Use of several focus groups throughout the area of concern to obtain farmer and rancher input on the perceived resource concerns, obtain reaction to proposed actions, and gain support for the proposed activities.

• Coordination of activities.

• Development of a communication and education plan(s) (See section on Outreach and Education.)

• Development of roles, responsibilities, operating procedures, and agreements such as Memorandums of Agreement (MOA).

• Gaining of support and commitment from agencies and organizations for resources such as staff, funding, in-kind services, etc.

• Determination of the products and/or services that will be provided to the customer.

• Establishment of pilot project(s) to field test the products or services.

• Evaluation and monitoring of activities and plans.

In order for the RMP concept to be utilized and useful, it is important that the planning process, and the plans, be user-friendly. Holding local meetings with producers is a good way to understand the needs of farmers and ranchers. For example, in Idaho under the "One-Plan" approach, focus groups were held by local soil conservation districts in several locations throughout the state. These focus groups included farmers and ranchers representing diverse agricultural groups. The purpose of the focus groups was to introduce the concept of the Idaho "One Plan" to farmers and ranchers throughout the state and listen to their reactions and record their impressions. The focus groups gave opinions on various features of the "One Plan" that might be important or useful to them. The input received from these focus groups was utilized to develop a useable and acceptable Idaho "One Plan" product. The focus groups were conducted by an independent trained facilitator.

Outreach and Education (Technical Team Approach)

One important aspect of resource management planning and implementation is the educational opportunity experienced by the producer. The RMP process offers unique opportunities for cooperative technical outreach and enhanced recognition of environmental stewardship. For example, in New York, a full-time Agricultural Environment Management (AEM) Outreach Coordinator employed by Cornell Cooperative Extension Service works with local and state partners as a technical team member to coordinate education and outreach activities such as training sessions/conferences, and other assistance for AEM program participants in implementing RMPs. A producer's voluntary participation in the resource management planning and implementation process should benefit him/her through access to outreach and education efforts otherwise unavailable.

As stakeholders prepare for implementing a RMP program, outreach and education must occur simultaneously if producers and the public are to properly understand and participate in the process. These participants must understand both the technical and fairness aspects of decisions. Secondly, they will need the participation of an educated producer community in developing and implementing solutions (e.g., a system of BMPs or RMPs). Agricultural producers will need reliable information, delivered as part of a coordinated technical team outreach and education program, about the effectiveness of different practices to control pollution.

States can use traditional sources for coordinated outreach and education, such as the Cooperative Extension Service, soil and water conservation districts, state and regional agencies, federal partners, agricultural associations, consultants/advisors, and local governments. Some states employ a stakeholder process for resource management planning and implementation. In many cases, states will need to expand their sources for outreach and education to include a better coordinated partnership effort using resources of agricultural, conservation and environmental organizations and agencies.

In preparing a coordinated partnership outreach and education program, careful consideration should be given to the following components:

• Develop a Vision and Mission Statement -- All stakeholders must understand that the purpose of resource management planning is to identify and accomplish common objectives. The mission statement should recognize the role of stakeholders and involve a cross-section of the community. It should also recognize the need for shared incentives and interaction between agricultural producers and others, in an effort to work cooperatively to resolve environmental problems.

• Assess Outreach and Education Capabilities and Limitations -- States must assess the level of experience and knowledge available through traditional outreach and education programs and how to make best use of these sources. In addition, they must determine where other resources are accessible, and identify and obtain the necessary sources or expertise required to satisfy the demands of the process.

• Develop Goals for the Outreach and Education Program -- Goals should include clear guidance to help focus limited resources on priority areas, and on the most important activities and audiences. Goals must be feasible and attainable within timeframes established under the process and any subsequent implementation strategy. Goals should also recognize the need to distribute information about the effectiveness of management practices, and should incorporate accurate information on opportunities for incentives and benefits (e.g., presumption of compliance, cost-share, tax relief, precluding a regulatory program) to be derived by producers through Resource Management Planning.

• Identify, Prioritize, and Evaluate Specific Audiences -- Because the issues are broad and complex, an outreach and education program should identify the different audiences to be reached (e.g., agricultural producers, small communities, potential nonpoint source polluters, the general public and point sources), and tailor the program to meet their needs. While some level of effort toward each is necessary, audiences must be prioritized to most effectively apply available resources to focus the message consistent with priorities and schedules. The outreach and education program must recognize that different audiences will possess different levels of awareness about agricultural and environmental issues, and that each will have differing abilities to act on the issues. Because of the importance of understanding fairness issues, no audience should be omitted from the outreach and education effort.

• Develop and Tailor Messages for Priority Audiences -- The outreach and education program must provide each priority audience with the type and amount of information it needs in a format it can use. For example, technical language and format would be appropriate for agricultural producers and service providers. For the non-farm community, illustrated materials presented in less technical language may be more useful. Although language and format may differ, the outreach and education program should strive for consistency in the messages conveyed to different audiences. All audiences, regardless of their place in the community, should be made aware of the benefits of voluntary or non-regulatory approaches, such as Resource Management Planning, as a tool to resolve their environmental problems.

• Conduct Outreach and Education Activities -- An outreach and education program will need to evaluate the use of different delivery systems for its messages to different audiences, including the use of written materials such as brochures, newsletters, displays, local newspapers and magazines, as well as alternative methods such as workshops, video, publishing on the Internet, public service announcements on local radio and farm shows. The program should make maximum use of demonstration projects conducted on-farm to show the effectiveness of improved practices and resource management planning, and should employ ongoing outreach activities.

• Evaluate Progress, Accountability and Refine Outreach and Education Program -- Based on established outreach and education program goals and objectives, the program should evaluate its effectiveness at reaching and impacting attitudes and behaviors of desired audiences as well as the accountability of the partners to their communication commitments. In addition, the program must incorporate new information as it becomes available or as practices are shown to be effective. As the process evolves, state and federal agencies must be able to demonstrate their commitment and be accountable for the effectiveness of non-regulatory or voluntary approaches to reach environmental goals. Part of that demonstration will include an evaluation and periodic revision to the outreach and education program in response to a review of producer planning and implementation, in conjunction with more long-term monitoring and assessments. Effective outreach and education efforts will make a significant contribution to a state's ability to resolve its environmental problems under the RMP process.

Summary

The key to successful implementation of a Resource Management Planning (RMP) program is to incorporate as many of the common threads that were identified in the very successful state initiatives as possible. The most important of those are: 1) a watershed approach; 2) the use of a partnership based technical team; 3) the staff of the technical team dedicated solely to RMP implementation; 4) open communications and input from all stakeholders; and 5) the use of trained facilitators.

RMP is a voluntary, flexible, comprehensive, producer-driven process designed to enhance natural resource protection, and meet the requirements of laws and regulations while meeting the producer's objectives. RMP is founded on common sense, sound science, economics, and site-specific stewardship principles. It emphasizes partnerships with organizations, and involvement of the private sector and agencies to maximize benefits derived by all stakeholders from a voluntary approach.

By providing greater participation and support, and through successful implementation and evaluation, programs like RMP will result in the development of a local, voluntary, incentive-based partnership to protect natural resources and meet laws and regulations. If state and local agencies are provided appropriate guidance and support, they can implement a locally-led RMP program that precludes the need for any regulatory approach.

Under this RMP approach, agriculture, the general public, and local governments all reap the benefits of a better protected resource because everyone participates in making it happen. Since it is voluntary, such an approach includes a careful and workable balance of the economic and business needs of agricultural producers along with the public's values associated with natural resource protection. This balance allows all parties to realize the benefits associated with the necessary changes in behavior, financial perspectives, and enhances participation and local commitment to success.

Once a RMP program is established, partners and stakeholders must perform routine program evaluations to document continued resource protection benefits, as well as economic and related benefits to participating agricultural producers. Additional research may be necessary to confirm the effectiveness of BMPs implemented by producers. Through coordinated program evaluation, where planning and implementation efforts are closely monitored and assessed, states and other participants can demonstrate the greater benefits of voluntary programs such as RMPs.

Where voluntary agricultural programs are successful, the public realizes the value of maintaining agriculture as a preferred land use. Through its locally-led and highly interactive nature, this approach demonstrates to local governments and the public that it is in their best interest to retain agriculture in the community, while at the same time protecting natural resources. Because this approach is built on shared responsibilities, it results in a more effective and lasting partnership between agriculture and the general public who, likewise, share the natural resources.

1. Coordinated Resource Management - Guidelines, Society for Range Management, First Edition, June 1993, Introduction, Unit 9-10