The plans can be developed with assistance from private or public sources. The information concerning the complaint and investigation is confidential. Once the investigation has been concluded, the records regarding it may legally be disclosed.

In some cases, the ASA investigation will not produce sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the agricultural activity in question is causing or will cause pollution. In those cases, the investigator will see if the farmer is receptive to suggestions on how the farmer might improve his practices by developing and implementing a plan to prevent complaints in the future. This educational role of the investigator is just as important as anything else the investigator does pursuant to the ASA.

For additional information contact the following:

Fran Geissler, Water Quality Program Manager, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil & Water Conservation at 804/786-3199

Sarah Pugh, Senior Policy Analyst, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at 804/786-3501

Coordinated Resource Management (Colorado, Indiana, Montana, Wyoming, and several other Western states)

Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) is a stakeholder consensus decisionmaking process. Stakeholders are any interests with a stake in the consequences of the decision. In this process, the stakeholders make decisions by consensus, rather than by traditional voting or majority rule. Consensus, as defined by CRM practitioners, means: The group makes decisions collaboratively. There is no voting, and everyone has to be able to live with the decision -- discussion continues until they can. Although all participants may not agree 100 percent with all aspects of the decision, all participants support the whole decision 100 percent.

The CRM process helps people manage natural resources in a productive, environmentally-friendly, and economical manner, for the long term. It is a coalition-building process, based on trust, which integrates local wisdom and technical expertise, while taking advantage of group synergy.

The CRM approach to land management originated in the early 1950s when the Nevada Association of Conservation Districts and USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as NRCS, established a model program in northeast Nevada. Simultaneously, the SCS pioneered a similar approach in Oregon. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, increasing demand for natural resources and their byproducts, and for multiple use of resources, intensified the conflicts between interest groups, landusers, and agencies. In the early 1970s, this prompted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRCS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the CES. This MOU sanctioned and encouraged the use of CRM nationwide. The MOU has been updated twice.

A significant step in the evolution of CRM occurred in 1978 with enactment of section 12 of the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA). Section 12 directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior "to develop and implement, on an experimental basis ... innovative grazing management policies and systems which might provide incentives to improve range conditions." The Secretaries developed a comprehensive program which became known as the Experimental Stewardship Program (ESP). After nine years of ESP experimentation, the national CRM MOU was updated in 1987 to create a marriage of CRM and ESP.

CRM today is the result of more than four decades of experimentation, innovation, and creativity. It is a rich blend of team-building techniques adapted to natural resources management. This process may be called something else in other parts of the country. CRM is a social and planning process which embodies many key features. The process capitalizes on planning and decisionmaking by consensus, rather than voting; it benefits from broad involvement of all stakeholders; it requires the commitment of all participants; and stakeholders learn to express themselves in terms of needs rather than positions. These four features are characterized as the Cardinal Rules of CRM. Other key features include: decisionmakers sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with all stakeholders; development of trust; teams working together from the beginning of a plan or issue rather than being presented with a pre-ordained plan on which to comment; appointments to teams being made locally; all jurisdictions being brought together so that all lands in a watershed can be planned jointly; complete agency coordination rather than some agencies operating autonomously; voluntary participation in the process; and the non-regulatory nature of the process in contrast to being driven by rigid rule-making.

The result of all these features is the most open and accessible process available for planning and decisionmaking on both public and private lands. The whole community participates in shared decisionmaking, which produces the best and most widely-endorsed plans. Communities are provided the tools for self-empowerment and the opportunity to control their own destiny, while at the same time sustaining their natural resources harmoniously.

Processes like CRM are crucial in today's natural resource management climate. It can be used during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to allow for the early involvement of the public, thus making the process proactive rather than reactive. With the numerous people issues, changes in government, and new directions in resource management, it is essential that CRM-type processes be understood and used to bring people together. In the last three years the CRM process has been used successfully for settling disputes and for educating people in agencies, organizations, communities, and industry on how to work together. These accomplishments are the result of local people working together on a voluntary basis and using the guidelines of the CRM process. The CRM guidelines include:

• Voluntary participation by all partners in the process;

• Landowner initiation, others are essential in the process, but landowner commitment is critical for success in natural resource management;

• Involvement by all players;

• Use of experienced neutral facilitators;

• Establishment of ground rules early by group consensus;

• Participants with decisionmaking authority;

• Decisions made by consensus;

• Talking about "needs" rather than "positions;"

• Establishment of a team to develop empowering trust and respect;

• Commitment to the process and the rest of the team;

• Development of management objectives and action plans;

• Development of trust among stakeholders;

• Commitment to a longer time frame for this program;

• Monitoring to measure progress and develop trend data; and

• Flexibility of the plan.

Wyoming -- In 1982 in Wyoming, the USFS, NRCS, BLM, and the Wyoming CES signed a MOU designating the CRM as the natural resource planning process for the state. In 1983-84, four Wyoming landowners became involved in the Wyoming Stewardship Program (WSP). Those participants began looking for someone to facilitate and administer the WSP, and late in 1989 the Governor asked the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) to assume leadership. The WDA set up the Wyoming CRM Executive Committee of top decisionmakers from more than 20 federal and state resource management agencies and commodity, environmental, and user advocacy groups. With help from other partners, 10 CRM presentations were made to more than 500 people which yielded six requests for CRM assistance in 1992. As of 1996, there were more than 75 teams using the CRM process in Wyoming.

Wyoming has enjoyed success with this CRM concept. No decisions made by the teams using the process have been litigated or appealed through agency channels. Monitoring has proven that Wyoming's resources are indeed being enhanced through management, increasing productivity and enjoyment for all users. Once-absent species have returned or been successfully re-introduced to native habitat. Several Wyoming CRM ranchers have won state and national resource stewardship awards from a variety of organizations because of practices designed and implemented by their CRM teams. As a result of these benefits there are more economically-viable ranches.

The minimal, informal, and flexible structure of Wyoming's CRM program has contributed significantly to its success. No one approves or disapproves applications to initiate CRM teams. The state Executive CRM Committee does not administer the CRM program -- it provides direction and guidance for the program at a statewide policy level, identifies weaknesses in the process and develops plans of action to strengthen it, and occasionally assists in locating project funding. Each CRM Team establishes its own local structure, based on who is involved, levels of trust, etc. They define the problem, develop their own goals and objectives, collect data, identify alternatives, explore the pros and cons of each alternative, decide on a plan of action, and assign implementation tasks, all by consensus. They meet periodically to review monitoring results and reassess their plan of action. The Teams generally establish Technical Review Teams (TRT) on an ad hoc basis. TRTs may be assigned to collect data or to manage some part of the project. Occasionally, they are given decisionmaking authority.

For additional information contact the following:

Jim Schwartz, Deputy Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture at 307/777-6569

Grant Stumbough, Natural Resource Manager, Wyoming Department of Agriculture at 307/777-6579

Colorado -- The CRM process in Colorado has not been a state-wide effort. There are several project-by-project CRMs across the state, but there are no CRM guidelines or by-laws, state leadership or MOUs.

In 1990, BLM hosted an information meeting in Northwest Colorado. Approximately 200 people attended. From that meeting the Northwest Colorado CRM Steering Committee was formed. The Steering Committee developed by-laws and guidelines for use within its own partnership. Other partnerships have been developed, some with by-laws and some without. In 1992, the Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts (CASCD) and the Society for Range Management submitted a successful request to EPA for funds to support CRM education in Colorado. To date, five training workshops have been held with more than 200 total attendees.

For additional information contact the following:

Tom Kourlis, Commissioner, Colorado Department of Agriculture at 303/239-4100

Montana -- In Montana, the CRM process is being used for private, federal and state lands. An example of the CRM process in Montana started in 1988 when the Snowline Grazing Association (Association) began working on the development of a CRM program with local groups and government agencies. This CRM effort now includes the Association, the Skyline Sportsman's Club, the Montana Wildlife Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Montana Riparian and Wetland Research Program, the Nature Conservancy, the Montana Public Lands Council, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and Fish, Wildlife and Parks, NRCS, BLM, USFS, and the Beaverline Conservation District. The entire group meets regularly and is expected to complete its CRM plan by the end of 1997. The Snowline Grazing Association believes that while including the public in the development of a CRM plan requires compromise, it reduces the potential for future conflict. According to Association members, it is much easier to implement the consensus positions reached in the CRM process on private land than on public land. In fact, the bureaucracy of the federal agencies involvement has created barriers to successful conclusion to the CRM project.

The basic rule for the Snowline CRM is to consider the ranch unit as a whole. The objectives are to maintain or improve the resources of the Snowline Grazing Association, have harmonious resource use based on sound ecological and economic relationships, increase cooperation among agencies, and improve communications among all parties. Members of the Association feel that communication is the most important success of the process.

Part of the Snowline CRM was funded by the Montana Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI). The GLCI program is designed to provide grassroots interagency coordination to enhance the conservation management of private grazing lands. People and groups who understand how grazing lands contribute to a healthy environment and economy are taking action to ensure that these privately owned grazing lands receive the attention necessary. In order to realize the full potential of privately owned grazing land, the GLCI program's purpose is to strengthen partnerships; promote voluntary actions; respect private property rights; encourage diversification to achieve multiple benefits; and emphasize the development of technical materials to address natural resource issues.

For additional information contact the following:

Sue Noggles, State Range Conservationist, NRCS at 406/587-6790

Indiana -- The CRM concept is also being used in the eastern part of the United States in Indiana for private lands. Indiana's CRM is an attempt to blend natural resource planning and CRM into a process which can be useful to those involved in the business of protecting and enhancing natural resources. The CRM concept as applied in Indiana follows the same cardinal rules as those followed in the West. However, significant differences exist in the Indiana program.

While the CRM process in the West normally deals with one unit, or a few units, of public land, the Indiana CRM has several units of lands with multiple private owners. The focus of the Indiana program is on a watershed basis. In the West, the federal agencies sit at the table as decisionmakers. In Indiana agencies are not part of the steering committee, though they do serve on the technical committees. And in the West, once consensus is reached, the decision is implemented. In Indiana, the private landowner still has the ability to walk away from implementing any agreements at the site-specific level, even after consensus is reached. In essence, the Indiana CRM process is a locally-led, watershed planning concept that sets the communities' goals, objectives, and priorities, and the program committees and service providers communicate those priorities to landowners who have the final decision on implementation.

Any issues addressed in the Indiana CRM process are first identified by the steering committee. The steering committee identifies a problem by consensus and sends the issue to a technical committee for recommendations. The technical committee reviews the problems and discusses potential solutions. After consensus is reached by the technical committee, the resolution is sent back to the steering committee for consensus.

Once consensus is reached by the steering committee, it is the responsibility of the steering committee members to communicate the decisions to affected parties. If proper communication does not occur, the steering committee addresses the communication problems.

For additional information contact the following:

Andy Ertel, Project Coordinator, CLEAR at 812/689-6456

Randy Jones, Natural Resource Coordinator, DeKalb County Conservation District at 219/925-3066

Gary Maners, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS at 317/290-3200, ext. 340

Chris Tippie, Assistant State Conservationist for Special Projects, NRCS at 317/290-3200

Florida

There are several state laws, regulations, and initiatives that impact agriculture and resource management planning because of water quality or water quantity concerns in Florida.

The Florida Water Quality Assurance Act was passed in 1983. Under this law, the state water quality agency is responsible for the remediation of groundwater problems including nitrates in water supplies. The state can recover remediation costs if they can determine who caused the water quality problems. However, it is very difficult to identify the source of nitrate problems to recover remediation costs.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) brought together stakeholders to develop proposed solutions to address the nitrate problem in groundwater. The stakeholders included the state water quality agency, agricultural organizations, agribusiness representatives, Farm Bureau, large landowners, and producers. The solution -- which became effective in August 1995, under rules promulgated by FDACS pursuant to the Florida Commercial Fertilizer Law -- includes a 50 cent fee on each ton of fertilizer with nitrogen sold. The rule defines BMPs for nitrate reductions. Under the Commercial Fertilizer Law -- Chapter 576 of the Florida statutes -- producers who implement the BMPs are given a "waiver of liability" to protect them from future liability of remediation done by the state and provides compliance with state groundwater standards.

The fee collected is to be used for research to help solve the nitrate problems. If the research shows that a BMP is not effective, then producers may have to change to a more effective BMP to stay in compliance and receive the remediation liability protection. A report is due to the state legislature in 1999 on how the funds were used, the results of the research, and the BMPs that were developed and implemented. The fee will expire in the year 2003 unless reauthorized, and the "waiver of liability" protection will expire in the year 2008. Producers are required to maintain records on the date, the location, and the amount of nitrogen application. The producer retains the information so there is not a concern with confidentially.

In a second initiative, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFWFC), FDACS, and the five Water Management Districts (WMDs) have signed a MOU to streamline, consolidate, and simplify the existing agricultural regulatory process. In addition, the MOU endorses the coordinated development of voluntary, incentive-based alternatives to traditional permitting for agricultural activities. The purpose of this MOU is to be consistent with the Water Management District Review Commission's (ad hoc committee established by the state legislature) December 29, 1995 report. The report includes the following recommendation:

The objective of the MOU is for the cooperating agencies to agree on a plan of work which will provide the following benefits during Phase I:

Reduction and, whenever practical, the elimination of duplication in information, plans, and other data required of individual agriculturalists by various agencies;

Integration of regulatory issues with stewardship planning and natural resource management principles;

Implementation of streamlined regulatory programs while maintaining or enhancing natural resources protection;

Utilization of ecosystem management principles in the development and implementation of agricultural regulatory programs; and

Enhancement of the agriculturalist's ability to comply with regulatory programs.

During Phase II, all eight organizations that signed the MOU, have agreed to:

Work together in implementing a Private Lands Initiative which is incentive-based, available for all types of land use ranging from preservation to intensive development, based upon voluntary participation by landowners, and designed to provide an alternative to the current regulatory process by integrating regulatory issues with stewardship planning efforts; and

Integrate, to the maximum extent possible, the Private Lands Initiative with other stewardship initiatives at the federal, regional, and local level, the ultimate goal being to have a single, unified stewardship initiative for Florida that functions as an umbrella framework for stewardship activities.

During Phase II, comprehensive resource management plans are being considered to avoid duplication, conflicting requirements and to bypass the permitting and/or regulatory processes. By using a "permitting team" approach for planning, everyone will be working together with the producer on site-specific projects to avoid duplication and conflicting requirements. The organizations are considering the use of engineering standards contained in the FOTG as the basis to exempt specific agricultural activities from environmental permitting.

In Florida, water resources (surface and groundwater) are managed by the five water management districts. Under Chapter 373 of the Florida statutes, the water management districts handle three main types of permits -- water use, well construction, and environmental resource or surface water permits. A Water Use Permit (WUP) allows a user to withdraw a specified amount of water, either from a groundwater well or from a surface water source. The water can be used to irrigate crops, nursery stock or golf courses; to provide water needed for livestock; to operate industrial and mining activities; and for public drinking supply. A Well Construction Permit (WCP) is required prior to the drilling or construction of a new well, and the repair or plugging of an existing well. An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), formerly called Management and Storage of Surface Waters permit (MSSW), are required for construction and operation of "new" surface water management systems, or alterations to an existing system. A system is a collection of project related facilities, man-made or natural, that collect, convey, contain, or control surface waters. An ERP must be obtained before beginning a construction activity that would affect wetlands, alter surface water flows, or contribute to water pollution. The ERP combines wetland resources permitting and MSSW permitting into a single surface water permit in an effort to streamline the permitting process.

During the ERP permitting review for construction and operation of a new system, the major areas of concern are:

Water Quantity (flooding, excessive drainage);

Water Quality (stormwater pollution);

Environmental (wetlands, dredge and fill, state lands); and

Operation and maintenance (system reliability).

ERPs are issued under three categories -- Individual, Standard General, or Noticed General. Individual permits involve larger projects or those with more than one acre of wetlands impacts. Standard General permits address small projects under 10 acres total land area that impact no wetlands; and projects less than 100 acres that impact one acre or less of wetlands. Noticed General permits are primarily for smaller projects and activities that must meet prescribed limiting conditions. For agricultural projects, a preconstruction Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management (AGSWM) field review is recommended. If the project is not exempt under AGSWM, the pre-application meeting will clarify the permitting requirements and help expedite the ERP application and review process.

In 1991, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) started the AGSWM initiative to provide an ERP exemption letter for agricultural activities. Producers who want an AGSWM exemption letter must utilize Resource Management System (RMS) planning, implement site-specific BMPs, and comply with the technical standards for the appropriate exemption category. Approximately 100 AGSWM exemption letters are processed in a year. Because of the on-site review by an Ag-Team staff, AGSWM benefits include:

Improved understanding by the farmer of potential ERP and WUP regulation needs;

Improved decisions and turnaround times by the SWFWMD at reduced cost to the farmer;

Improved RMS planning assistance to farmers in understanding BMPs and their uses;

Reduced enforcement action and related production delays and expenses;

Reduced construction costs by using more passive stormwater management in place of ponds;

Lowered maintenance costs;

Eliminated a processing fee; and

Eliminated expiration of permit.

AGSWM does not:

Encourage construction practices to maximize land use;

Provide designed assurance of 25-year flood protection either on-site or downstream;

Facilitate exemption on land that is too steep or very flat; and

Allow flexibility through negotiation of practices that are outside of specific technical guidelines and BMPs.

In another initiative, the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) started the Forestry and Agricultural Resources Management (FARM) program in 1994. FARM is aimed at farm-specific total resource management planning to address the regulatory requirement of the SRWMD using current BMPs. Participation in the program is strictly voluntary. Based on the participation to date, the following need to be overcome for a successful program:

Establish trust between the regulatory and agricultural communities;

Provide incentives or rewards for participation;

Retain as a voluntary program with agency participation; and

Establish agency leadership.

In an additional program, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is implementing a comprehensive program of restoration for the Florida Everglades ecosystem. The restoration program is based upon a comprehensive approach to restoration and protection by proposing strategies for improving water quantity, timing, and distribution deliveries (hydroperiod), improving water quality in tributary water, and long term removal and management of exotic species. The cornerstone of the restoration effort is to improve the water quality from the largest tributary to the Everglades, a 553,000 acre agricultural area of primarily sugarcane and vegetables, through a program of agricultural BMPs. The BMP program was developed as a regulatory permitting initiative. During 1991 and 1992, the SFWMD developed the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Regulatory Program as directed by the Everglades Protection Act. The regulatory program was developed through a series of public workshops and round-table discussions. The year-long effort resulted in Chapter 40E-63, Florida Administrative Code, which describes the intent, requirements, and compliance of the EAA Regulatory Program. The 40E-63 BMP program is unique in that its goal is to achieve a 25 percent reduction in phosphorus for the entire EAA basin -- not for each individual farm. Chapter 40E-63 requires each permit application to contain a BMP plan and a water quality monitoring plan. As a part of each permit application, the landowner is required to submit a proposed plan of on-site BMPS -- operational programs or physical enhancements designed to reduce phosphorus leaving their property. Twenty-five BMP "equivalents" or "points" were set as the minimum target BMP level. Utilizing the BMP "equivalents" approach allowed flexibility of each landowner to develop a BMP plan which was best suited for site-specific geographic and crop conditions. Monitoring has shown that the landowners have implemented BMPs and have reduced total phosphorus by an annual average of 66 percent. Achievement of the program's objectives has been an overwhelming success due to the proactive participation of the EAA landowners. One hundred percent of the area within the regulated boundaries is currently under permit.

Under a special voluntary initiative, the NRCS provides direct technical resource conservation assistance to landowners in the Everglades. The assistance is provided to enable landowners to meet and maintain BMPs mandated under the Everglades Forever Act. The objective of this initiative is to sustain a productive and profitable agriculture while restoring and protecting the natural resources. An interdisciplinary team works with the landowner following a nine-step planning process that considers soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources to develop a plan. Once a plan is developed, technical assistance is available for implementation of BMPs. In addition to implementing BMPs to reduce phosphorus discharge, landowners are using the assistance to improve the efficiency of their water management infrastructure, develop water management and cropping systems that replace the functions of native plants in the ecosystem, reduce the rate of subsidence in organic soils, reduce particulate deposition during control burns, utilize barn owls for rodent control, enhance upland wildlife habitat, and to control the spread of non-native invasive plants. In 18 months, the team has worked with 19 landowners on approximately 15,000 acres with comprehensive plans developed on approximately 10,000 acres. In addition they have worked with Native Americans to develop a range management plan on 11,000 acres.

For additional information contact the following:

• William Boyd, Project Leader, Everglades Agricultural Area Project Office, NRCS at 561/795-5451

• Richard Budell, Assistant Director, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at 904/488-7447

• Jerry Joiner, Assistant State Conservationist for Programs, NRCS at 352/338-9508

• Charles Miller, Chief Regulation Engineer, Resource Regulation, Southwest Florida Water Management District at 352/796-7211

• David Vogel, Soil and Water Conservation Administrator, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at 904/488-6249

Georgia

Since the early 1990s, community leaders and citizen groups in the Upper Oconee Basin (Basin) have requested that the NRCS help to provide them with an overall plan for addressing their agricultural-related resource concerns in the Basin. On January 27, 1994, a group met to discuss the concerns and needs in the Basin relating to natural resource use and its effect on water quality. Forty-three people attended the meeting representing the SWCD, the Cities of Madison and Athens, Morgan County, the North East Georgia Regional Development Center, the Oconee River Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D), the Lake Oconee Homeowners Association, the University of Georgia, state and federal agencies, the Georgia Farm Bureau, farmers, and other interested agricultural and environmental organizations. As a result, support was offered by all agencies to begin addressing problems in the Basin by planning activities to address nonpoint source pollution related to agricultural activities. A program neutral (program neutral doesn't identify specific agencies' programs or sources of financial or technical assistance) plan for the Basin has been developed to identify and address the concerns.

Over the past several years, declining water quality in the Basin has been identified as a major concern. Nine out of 21 NRCS designated subwatersheds in the Upper Oconee Basin are listed in the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's (EPD) list of priority streams with the greatest potential for nonpoint source pollution from agricultural sources as required under the CWA. Lake Oconee, a 19,000-acre Georgia Power Company reservoir located at the terminus of the Basin, has experienced moderate to high water quality problems because of excessive nutrients, sediment and bacteria.

The absence of a coordinated comprehensive planning process and associated technical assistance to develop systems to handle and utilize animal waste, maintain pasture quality and reduce soil erosion is a major cause of agricultural-related adverse impacts to the natural resources in the Basin. Producers in the Basin are willing to develop and implement resource management plans that are flexible enough to make decisions on a daily basis and still provide resource protection.

In response to the needs of people, the Basin was selected as a pilot area for implementation of the Georgia "One Plan" initiative. This initiative integrates technical assistance for a coordinated site-specific planning process that addresses producer's production objectives, multiple resource objectives, and meets legal and program requirements, into a single resource management plan. Two agricultural areas within the Basin were selected for the pilot project. One area has a high concentration of poultry production, the other has a high concentration of dairy production. Within each area, one pilot operation site (farm) was selected to implement the planning process. One farm consists of a 200-head dairy operation on 140 acres of pasture in Hall County. The associated land area exhibits excessive nutrient runoff that effects the area's natural resources. The second site is located in Morgan County and is also a dairy operation with 200 head on 169 acres of pasture. It also exhibits excessive nutrient runoff that directly impacts Lake Oconee and other natural resources in the area. These operations were selected based on the current agricultural impact to the Basin's natural resources and the potential to implement on-farm measures to improve these resources.

On November 17, 1995, a steering committee was established to guide this initiative, obtain public input, and develop a "One Plan" process in the Basin. The steering committee included representatives from the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Fort Valley State College, and NRCS.

On February 15, 1996, a public meeting was held to obtain input and information from producers, agricultural and environmental organizations, the public, and local, state and federal agencies on the "One Plan" initiative. Approximately 50 people attended. The results included the establishment of four issue teams to address the following:

What is needed in a "One Plan" plan;

What are the incentives and costs with this type of planning and what are the producer's benefits;

Identify public and farmer education and communication needs; and

Agency coordination and responsibilities in the process.

After several team meetings, a draft planning process and two draft plans were circulated to the stakeholders who attended the February 1996, public meeting for comments and revisions.

For additional information contact the following:

• Jim Dial, NRCS at 706/769-9707

• Mac Hayes, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS at 706/546-2272

• Greg Huber, Water Quality Specialist, NRCS at 706/291-5652

• Cran Upshaw, NRCS at 706/546-2072

Idaho

The "One Plan" concept started in Idaho in 1993. The idea began with the EPA's focus on water quality. The idea was originally discussed at a meeting among EPA, the Idaho Department of Agriculture, the Idaho Farm Bureau, the Idaho State Conservation Commission, and NRCS. At a follow-up meeting, the leadership of more than 100 organizations and agencies were invited to attend and participate in discussions on this new concept. As a result of the meeting, the following vision was developed:

Make resource planning easier for farmers;

Address shrinking state and federal agency resources as demands for services increase;

Have one document which meets multi-agency concerns and requirements; and

Develop a computer-assisted program delivery tool for current, accurate technical advice as a part of the Idaho Farm and Ranch Resource Center.

As envisioned, the "One Plan" concept would enable farmers and ranchers to be more informed and productive, and provide a "one-stop" location for current information. It would be low-cost and improve agency efficiency in developing and implementing conservation benefits throughout Idaho. The "One Plan" concept promotes resource stewardship, consolidates resource management efforts, reduces agency confusion and conflict, standardizes technical specifications, and helps the farmer or rancher understand and comply with prevailing environmental laws and regulations. The system is designed to be customer oriented with improved agency efficiency in providing conservation benefits.

Idaho has developed a MOU to facilitate the development of cooperative working relationships among state and federal agencies and other private and non-profit organizations designed to reach consensus on how best to establish a customer-oriented process for farm and ranch conservation planning. The MOU has been signed by the Governor and is being circulated to more than 40 organizations, and state and federal agencies for signature.

The members of the Idaho "One Plan" Advisory Committee represent the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, the Idaho Farm Bureau, the state legislature, the Governor's office, the Idaho Congressional offices, other state and federal agencies, and other agricultural and environmental organizations.

A whole farm planning process similar to the Idaho "One Plan" concept is being field tested in the Latah Soil Conservation District, located in the Palouse area. A local steering committee of state and federal agencies, agribusiness, and producers has been established. The local steering committee is to provide input and feedback on the adoption of a coordinated, client-oriented "One Plan" approach. Individual "One Plans" are currently being developed for dryland farming, cattle production, and woodland production for a few farmers and ranchers. According to the summary report for the field test, farmers and ranchers are:

Willing to participate as long as participation and planning are voluntary; and

Using this as a tool which provides a good inventory of their resources, identifies concerns, and provides opportunities with different alternatives.

The Idaho "One Plan" concept is the result of state and federal agencies working cooperatively with environmental and agricultural interests to jointly develop a new approach to comprehensive farm and ranch resource management planning. One of the project outputs is a computer-based system for the purpose of improving efficiency and effectiveness of farm and ranch planning. The system will incorporate opportunities which are available to the farmer and rancher and will enable the user to readily understand the many local, state, and federal agency requirements and how they affect farm or ranch decisions. The Idaho approach is unique in that it integrates multi-agency programs and responsibilities, while focusing on the specific type of operation such as dryland farming, livestock operation, irrigated cropland, etc. This information can be located on the Internet under the Idaho Farm and Ranch Resource Center at http://www.oneplan.state.id.us/.

For additional information contact the following:

• Lee Brooks, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS at 208/378-5700

• Kent Foster, Idaho Soil Conservation Districts at 208/338-5900

• Ronda Hirnyck, Pesticide Coordinator, University of Idaho at 208/364-4046

• Warren McFall, Chief, Idaho Water Programs, EPA at 208/378-5759

• Jerry Nicolescu, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission at 208/334-0215

• Beth Williams, Idaho Department of Agriculture at 208/332-8602

Illinois

The Kaskaskia River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River located in southwestern Illinois. A 58-mile, free-flowing segment of the river, from Carlyle Lake to Fayetteville, is distinguished from other major Illinois rivers by having the largest acreage of contiguous forest remaining in Illinois. Located within the Mississippi flyway, this area represents important habitat for American waterfowl as well as a great diversity of other wildlife and plants associated with wetland habitats. Because of the significance of the Kaskaskia Forest, in 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed the creation of a 10,240-acre National Wildlife Refuge to "preserve valuable bottomland habitat along a portion of the Kaskaskia River." Land acquisition, which would compensate area landowners for preserving a nationally significant natural area for the public good, was to be on a willing seller or donor basis only, and could include fee title acquisition, leasing of land, or purchase of easements.

The FWS held public meetings to exchange information about the proposed refuge. Most of the land under consideration for the proposed refuge was in private ownership, and the meetings were well attended by local landowners. The majority of the landowners rejected the idea of government acquisition. Rather, public comments indicated a strong preference to maintain private ownership while working together to protect and preserve the integrity of this unique and outstanding forest resource. In response, the FWS agreed to delay any action on the proposed refuge, and instead supported the formation of a broad-based committee to explore alternative ways to protect the ecological integrity of the area while continuing private ownership.

As a result of the meetings, the Kaskaskia Resources Private Lands Initiative (KRPLI) Committee was formed with the help of the Southwestern Illinois Resource Conservation and Development. The KRPLI Committee, composed of 24 members, represents a wide array of public and private interest, including 2,400 landowners on more than 4,000 tracts of land as well as representatives from the Okaw River Basin Coalition (ORBC), county farm bureaus and boards, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Illinois Department of Agriculture (DOA), NRCS, the Farm Services Agency (FSA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SWCD, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and Ducks Unlimited. The KRPLI Committee developed a common goal for the Kaskaskia River Corridor: To develop, enhance and protect the ecological and socioeconomic values of the natural resources while continuing private ownership.

In 1994, the KRPLI hired a consultant to produce a Kaskaskia River Corridor Stewardship Plan to serve as the guiding document in all future efforts by private landowners to develop, enhance, and protect the natural resources of the Kaskaskia River bottomland hardwood forest. The consultant held six meetings with 300 to 400 people attending each meeting to get input on problems and solutions. In addition, the consultant individually interviewed 52 volunteer landowners for information that was used to develop a survey. The specific objectives of the survey were to identify:

Landowner and landholding characteristics;

Specific land use practices and reasons for using them;

Landowner land ethics and forest stewardship practices, including present and future timber harvest activity;

Environmental problems of greatest concern to landowners;

Landowner knowledge and attitudes toward wetlands; and

Landowner attitudes about ownership and conservation strategies such as easements and government programs.

One of the major recommendations of the Stewardship Plan was that every property owner should develop and implement an individual encompassing resource management plan that is consistent with and supports the goals of the Stewardship Plan. Individual planning efforts are often directed toward single resource management issues instead of a comprehensive approach. Often a landowner requesting technical assistance in managing more than a single resource receives conflicting recommendations from the various resource agencies involved. A resource management plan should present an integrated approach to resource management using the full spectrum of principles and practices for managing wildlife, forest, soil, and water resources.

As a result, a technical team with representatives from the RC&D, SWCD, NRCS, DOA, and the Natural Heritage, Forestry, and Wildlife Divisions of DNR was formed to work with landowners and agricultural and environmental organizations to develop a whole farm plan (WFP) concept for comprehensive individual site-specific resource management in Clinton County. As a pilot project, the team first tried their individual agency "standard planning procedures" and have the SWCD put the separate plans together in one package for the landowner. The Clinton County SWCD acted as the interface between all local natural resource agencies and the individual landowners.

The initial planning effort on a single farm began with on-site visit as a team. Each team member then produced their usual independent plan. They put these Wildlife, Forestry, Natural Heritage, and Soil and Water Conservation plans together in a common folder, and called it a WFP. The amalgamated plan contained competing and incompatible recommendations; used a multiplicity of mapping conventions and organizational schemes for conveying geographic information and narrative; ignored some resource concerns because no agency felt a responsibility for them; duplicated general site and landowner information needlessly; and, perhaps most importantly, missed opportunities for resource protection and development because of a lack of collaboration. The pilot plan was not delivered to the landowner because the team members felt that even though the individual plans were technically adequate and would have been acceptable as individual plans, the amalgamated plan just didn't meet the team's concept of a WFP. The team's concept of WFP was "protecting all resources in all areas for all time."

As a result, the team developed two tools to assist in meeting its WFP concept. The first tool is the concept of ecosystem. The simple definition they used is: "An ecosystem is an arbitrary area consisting of an assemblage of organisms -- plant and animal -- along with their nonliving environment. These organisms react with each other and their environment." Based on this definition, an ecosystem includes four simple parts. It includes:

An arbitrary area;

The living organisms;

The nonliving environment; and

The interactions among all parts.

First, ecosystems exist at a variety of spatial scales, the boundaries of which are determined by any important criteria. Ecosystems are permitted to overlap with each other and they may be nested one inside of another. They may be large or small in size. Second, each system has its own unique characteristics, and hence, each system will have its own concerns and problems. Third, the parts of an ecosystem usually interact with each other. In other words, what affects one component will often affect the other components. As a result, the team decided to organize its WFP effort according to the types of ecosystems on the property. The most common being cropland, woodland, grassland, wetlands, facilities, and other.

The second tool, is the use of NRCS' soil, water, air, plants, animals plus humans (SWAPA+H) for addressing concerns by resource categories. In the team's planning approach the SWAPA+H categories are listed for each ecosystem type.

The Clinton SWCD agreed to act as the "planning coordinator" between the individual landowner and the various state and federal agencies under this revised approach to the WFP program. The SWCD will serve as a mediator, when necessary, to resolve differences between agencies, and will ensure that the landowner's interests and the resource concerns are addressed. By accepting this responsibility, the Clinton SWCD will:

Ensure that local landowners have a voice in the planning process;

Be the single contact point through which landowners will be able to reach their goals for their property; and

Help landowners gain access to the various agencies which will help them realize those goals.

Under the program, the SWCD would be contacted by a landowner who is interested in developing a WFP. The SWCD would interview the landowner to ascertain his or her goals and objectives. The SWCD will explain to the landowner the goals and resource objectives of the Stewardship Plan. After the landowner agrees to proceed, agencies are contacted, information is exchanged and the planning process begins.

The Clinton SWCD pilot project provided some insights critical to success with this technique of coordinating planning assistance. These include:

Maintain Communication -- In writing, examine the landowner's goals in relation to the condition of each ecosystem. Discuss and present issues according to the individual views of team agencies. Enhance the opportunities for feedback between the team members and the landowners.

Landowners Assume Communication Happens -- Since each parcel of land is part of a larger system, the technical assistance provided by various agencies must not ignore the significance of each planner's and landowner's responsibility to the whole system. Landowners expect agencies to discuss recommendations and are confused by conflicting recommendations. The ability of each agency to address the values present in each ecosystem and the relationship of the value to the operator's goals is a critical component. Landowners have assumed the communication has always occurred.

Flexible Format -- Planning in a multiple agency environment may be complex or simple. It is critical for the plan format to allow for complexity, but not require it. A landowner with a single land use and narrowly focused goals may not need the detailed planning that is necessary for a landowner who has multiple land uses and varied goals for different areas of the property.

Collaboration and Teamwork -- The plan, or product, becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Through peer review, idea exchange, collaboration, referrals, and shared successes and failures, the team builds a more efficient assistance structure.

Identify Stands and Sub-areas -- Foresters have made the distinction of separate management units in woodlands for years. As the promise of prescription farming and the potential of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is realized, the need to make similar distinctions in other areas of farming and land use management will become more apparent.

Management by Land Use Within Ecosystem Present -- Where something is located may sometimes be just as important as what it is. The effects of activities on other property and its features directly impacts individual land use. Pressure on land values from the expanding demand for land requires landowners to be aware of what is going on around them.

A Sense of Place at a Variety of Scales -- To help the landowner appreciate the unique location of their property in relation to the area and region, they are given a written, detailed description of the location of their property and a series of corresponding maps. This "nesting" provides the important critical link between their land, which is their specific point of influence, and its relationship to the larger ecosystems.

Human Influence -- Crucial to this concept of coordinated resource planning is recognizing the effect of interaction by individuals at unrelated sites and their ability to affect entire, valuable ecosystems. At a single moment, or over time, the actions of individuals working in concert or alone have a great influence beyond their immediate property boundaries.

Facilities Created to Support Human Activity -- When we think of natural ecosystems, we evaluate them for their influence on the soil, water, air, plants, and animals, plus humans. Human activities demand a necessary supportive infrastructure. These facilities may include, but are not limited to, farmsteads, right-of-ways or easement, roads and railroads, etc. Inventories such as Farm*A*Syst may be utilized to aid in assessment and management of these components.

To further this WFP effort in Illinois, the NRCS and the Association of Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts is providing grant money to five SWCDs in the state to pilot the development of additional approaches to WFP. The pilot is to be completed by the spring of 1998. The purpose of this pilot project is to provide landowners with a simplified, yet comprehensive set of conservation tools; integrate site specific farm plans with watershed or larger-scale planning efforts; allow farmers and landowners to have more local involvement in conservation efforts; and provide better conservation planning support.

The guidelines for the pilot project state that the whole farm plan should:

Be farmer initiated and address the producer's objectives and concerns;

Address a wide-variety of natural resource concerns;

Examine economic aspects of the operation and consider how recommended practices will impact the bottom-line;

Include other non-traditional planning elements such as family, quality of life, history of the land, and community issues relevant to the operation;

Position the farm within the context of other planning initiatives;

Be simple enough that it could be easily replicated on other farms; and

Utilize both public and private sources of information and expertise.

For additional information contact the following:

• Chet Boruff, Deputy Director, Illinois Department of Agriculture at 217/785-4233

• Terry Donohue, Supervisor, Office of Soil and Water Conservation, Illinois Department of Agriculture at 217/782-6297

• Paula Hingson, NRCS at 217/398-5379

• Steve Stalcup, Executive Director, Association of Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts at 217/744-3414

Iowa

In Iowa, whole farm planning is defined as a voluntary, multi-objective plan based on ecological principles. It emphasizes landowner's goals and uses available technology. The purpose of the plan is to help landusers apply resource management systems on entire operating units for all land uses. Plans address natural resource needs of a larger project or landscape area. Plans also address the requirements of any local, state, or federal regulations.

Whole farm planning is not just pre-1985 conservation planning with a twist, it goes beyond that to address priority resource concerns. It is a problem-solving tool using new technologies. The WFP process in Iowa addresses the contents of a plan, the methods to develop the plan, and the procedures and tools to document the plan, as well as the data and records that need to be maintained. In Iowa the WFP process is trying to:

Focus on nuts and bolts of on-farm planning;

Develop and deliver WFP training to service providers;

Build partnerships;

Build on existing broader watershed or community planning efforts; and

Anticipate the future condition of agriculture in rural communities.

To further the WFP effort in Iowa, a Whole Farm Planning Task Force (Task Force) was established by the NRCS in February 1995. The Task Force, with members from NRCS field staff, was given the charge to assist in development of the Iowa approach to watershed or community plans driven by local people with follow-up for the development of individual whole farm total natural resource plans. This Task Force primarily served to provide field input into the development of comprehensive conservation planning concepts and developmental plans.

In May 1995, an informal working group was established to begin work on the practical considerations of implementing WFP at an individual farm level. This group sought input from other USDA partners and private industry on how WFP might be approached in Iowa. Organizations that provided input included the FSA, Iowa State University Extension (ISUE), the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Association of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, Farm Credit Services, and Pioneer Hi-Bred International. The initial discussions focused primarily on the planning process, agency roles, and plan content and format.

Basic areas of agreement between the Task Force and the working group included:

Farmers should be centrally involved in the planning process;

WFP will be a voluntary activity on the part of farmers, and they will need to see its value if it is to occur;

The scope and complexity of natural resource and farm management issues, as well as the need to provide timely service, will mean that others besides NRCS and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, (IDALS) will be involved in providing WFP assistance and that the formation of local coalitions and partnerships will be essential to success;

While WFP may bear some similarities to pre-conservation compliance planning, changes in agriculture and technology, as well as events since 1985, will mean that new planning approaches, skills, and tools need to be developed for the future;

Planning assistance should be targeted to critical resource areas within and between SWCDs in order to make the most effective use of limited staff and financial resources; and

Some kind of planning framework is probably needed in order to help define acceptable sources of information and methodologies, especially in cases where non-NRCS service providers are involved in planning assistance.

In addition, farmer focus groups were held to discuss these concepts in southwestern and central Iowa in February and March 1996. The focus groups were asked for specific input on the kinds of assistance they want and how it might be delivered most effectively. The focus group stressed the importance of improving both the technical and interpersonal skills of NRCS and IDALS employees. The farmers also stressed the role that they themselves would like to have in planning and installing conservation systems.

Initially both the Task Force and working group discussed the idea of using pilot counties to develop, test, and evaluate a WFP framework and related technical tools. The concepts that emerged from the discussions were determined to be applicable to program and project initiatives throughout the state. As a result of the applicability, the WFP initiative will be implemented state-wide.

Based on the input received from the focus groups, the Task Force and working group developed a set of recommendations. The recommendations include:

Development of a training framework for NRCS and IDALS employees -- currently, Iowa NRCS and IDALS staff at all levels are very diverse in terms of experience and areas of expertise. While this is a strength, it means that "the one size fits all" approach to training will not be appropriate or effective. With this in mind, it is recommended that a training framework be developed cooperatively with partners that features a variety of courses covering a broad range of topics and levels of advancement. The framework would include a requirement for continuing education for all employees. Continuing education and training would include courses, coaching on specific skills, and well-defined on-the-job experiences. Courses would include those that are mandatory for all employees as well as electives. Courses should include testing/evaluation to gauge competence once the course is completed. Coaching for new or less-experienced field staff would be done by experienced personnel. Presently, the first eight modules of the national NRCS conservation planning program plus an economics module are being used for training NRCS and IDALS staff. The first five modules are being completed by the trainee in their office using Internet, compact disks or hard copies of the modules. Then the trainees are brought together for a four-day, in the field training program. The first day is classroom style reviewing and taking a test on the first five modules, reviewing NRCS planning policy, and discussing WFP philosophy. The second and third days are in the field in groups of four or five meeting with specialists in water quality, economics, forestry, biology, wetlands, engineering, and grassland management to complete resource assessment information and develop alternatives. The final day is spent developing a comprehensive whole farm plan and presenting it to the entire class. To date, seven training sessions with 20 trainees each have been held for a total of 140 people completing the training.

Development and acquisition of tools for use in conservation planning -- as NRCS and IDALS staff work with customers and partners doing WFP, they face a broad and complex set of issues. That scope and complexity of issues is a consideration, along with the socioeconomic and technological changes affecting agriculture and rural communities, when thinking about the technical tools needed by field and support staff. NRCS and IDALS staff must be properly equipped to deal with the scope and complexity of issues with such tools as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), digitized soils information, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and information networks.

Program planning and priority setting by SWCDs and local partners -- in order to focus limited technical and financial resources optimally, SWCDs and their local partners must be able to identify priority resource issues and build effective coalitions and partnerships. They must also be able to tailor new and existing programs to meet those identified needs. The Capacity Building and Conservation Marketing initiatives already underway by the Iowa Conservation Partnership are adequate to address this issue if carried out completely.

Development of a framework for comprehensive conservation planning that outlines potential content, acceptable sources of base data, and acceptable planning methodologies and tools -- it is anticipated that people outside of NRCS and IDALS, including landusers themselves, will contribute technically to the development of individual comprehensive conservation plans. NRCS personnel providing planning assistance follow the procedures established in the NRCS National Planning Procedures Handbook (NPPH). Other involved in planning should have access to the NPPH. In addition, the Task Force and working group have begun the development of an Iowa Conservation Planning Framework, which provides an outline of potential plan content items, acceptable sources of base data, and acceptable methodologies and tools.

For additional information contact the following:

• Marty Adkins, Planning Leader, NRCS at 515/284-4394

• Lyle Asell, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS at 515/284-4428

• Duane Miller, Economist, NRCS at 515/284-4380

Kentucky

The Kentucky Agriculture Water Quality Act (KAWQ) was enacted by the 1994 General Assembly. This historic and comprehensive law guides the state's agriculture and silviculture industry in its continuing efforts to address environmental issues associated with its activities. It is important to understand a number of events that led up to the development the Act. Along with increasing concern for Kentucky's water resources, they helped shape the KAWQ.

Between 1988 and 1990, a state agency groundwater council was established. This council included representatives from the Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (NREP) Divisions of Water (DOW), Conservation (DOC), and Waste Management (DOWM); the Kentucky Department of Agriculture (DOA); Cabinet of Human Resources; the Kentucky Geological Survey; and the U.S. Geological Service. This council drafted the state's first groundwater regulations. At the same time, there was an increase in federal regulations related to water quality issues such as the conservation compliance portions of 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills, the CWA, and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

In the fall of 1992, the DOW drafted a second set of groundwater regulations. This version took a stronger approach to correcting water pollution problems and focused on industry, including agricultural operations. This version was opposed at public hearings by those being regulated. In response to this opposition, a groundwater consensus group was established in the spring of 1993. This consensus group had 21 representatives from industry, agencies, and special interest groups ranging from production agriculture to environmentalists. A pollution prevention approach was developed and another set of regulations were drafted and filed with NREP. However, vocal opposition from those not represented on the consensus group persuaded the legislature's Administration Regulation Review Subcommittee to reject the draft in the fall of 1993. This resulted in the passage of groundwater regulations excluding agriculture.

As a result, the Kentucky Farm Bureau, NREP, and some legislators banded together and drafted legislation specifically designed for agriculture to address groundwater contamination. This was presented to the General Assembly and was passed as Senate Bill 241 in 1994. Senate Bill 241 came to be known as the KAWQ. The main goal of the KAWQ is to protect surface and groundwater resources from pollution as a result of agriculture and silviculture activities and to develop a Kentucky Agriculture Water Quality Plan (KAWQP). The Act authorized the governor to appoint a 15-member KAWQ Authority with representatives from all stakeholders in agriculture water quality issues. The KAWQ Authority developed the KAWQP and continues to oversee its implementation. The KAWQP was approved by the Kentucky DOW in October 1996, and must be implemented by October 2001. Under the law, all agriculture and silviculture operators, who farm more than 10 acres, must develop and implement individual site-specific agriculture water quality plans complying with applicable BMPs standards, regulation, and permits identified in the KAWQP.

The KAWQP was developed to serve agriculture and silviculture operators of Kentucky by informing and educating producers about the state's water quality needs and requirements. The KAWQP provides minimum requirements and guidelines to be used by producers. It gives them the maximum flexibility to address nonpoint source water pollution problems on their own by innovating solutions or, where needed, through identified technical and financial assistance. The KAWQP serves as the detailed reference book for addressing agriculture and silviculture pollution issues. It includes an extensive list of scientifically evaluated and approved BMPs, technical references, and existing regulatory requirements that will enable producers to understand current water regulations and provide guidance in developing an individual site-specific water quality plan. The BMPs were developed for six different areas -- crops, farmstead, livestock, pesticides and fertilizer, silviculture, and streams and other waters. The BMPs for each of the six areas were developed by working committees (involving 250 people) comprised of farm operators, agribusiness, agencies and other technical resource persons.

Any agriculture operation that already has in place a conservation plan, compliance plan, or forest stewardship management plan shall continue following that plan until incorporating that plan into an individual agricultural water quality plan consistent with the KAWQP. Individual plans in compliance with the KAWQP will often address site and water quality issues not included in existing plans. The landowner must assess their operation and determine if they need an agriculture water quality plan. Once the assessment is complete, the landowner must choose the appropriate best management practices for their operation. While the plan belongs to the landowner, it must be available in the event a water pollution problem is identified and traceable to that agricultural operation. There is no review or certification procedure under this planning process. However, a self-certification form is located in the Kentucky Agriculture Water Quality Authority Producer Workbook and can be filed with the local conservation district. By signing this form, a landowner certifies that they understand the requirements of the KAWQ and have developed a water quality plan for their operation. Filing the certification form with the local conservation district ensures that the landowner will receive any updates or amendments to the Act.

Under the existing regulations, a landowner who doesn't develop and implement an individual agriculture water quality plan can be fined a civil penalty of $1,000 plus an additional civil penalty not exceed $1,000 for each day the violation continues. If a water pollution problem is identified and traceable to an agricultural operation, a notice will be issued to the landuser. The landuser, in cooperation with their local conservation district and the DOW, will be given an opportunity to revise and implement their plan to correct the problem(s). However, if the landuser fails to respond or chooses not to correct the problem, he/she may be deemed a "bad actor." According to the Act, these persons could lose eligibility for financial assistance and DOW can take enforcement actions, including fines, not to exceed $25,000 for each day the violation continues.

Technical assistance is available for landowners. Professionals with the CES, NRCS, Kentucky Divisions of Water, Waste Management, Forestry and Conservation, conservation districts, and Department of Health Services can provide educational resources and technical information. Financial assistance may be available from a variety of sources, including both state and federal cost-share programs to protect water resources.

Also in Kentucky, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is working with landowners and tenants in the Land Between the Lakes (LBL) area to increase natural resource protection and enhancement. TVA's Clean Water Initiative seeks to promote an integrated approach to solving water problems by establishing multi-disciplinary River Action Teams (RATs) in each of the Tennessee Valley's 12 watersheds. These teams are responsible for assessing resource conditions and building partnerships with governments, businesses, and citizen volunteers to address protection and improvement needs. In the LBL region, the RAT is working with producers to develop and implement total resource management plans to enhance resource protection. The project is using EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) funds to help implement best management practices.

The fundamental strategy of TVA's RATs is coalition building. They are unique in several ways. First, they combine the skills of aquatic biologists, environmental engineers, and other water resource professionals with the skills of community specialists and environmental educators. The community and educational specialists on the team are able to assist technical team members in communicating with the public in non-technical language and in building coalitions with farmers, property owners, business leaders, recreational users, and local and state government officials.

Second, each team serves a specific watershed, enabling them to address the causes of pollution impacts and to coordinate efforts across political boundaries. Long term watershed assignments also allow the team to become familiar with resource conditions and help to build community trust by enhancing the development of cooperative relationships with stakeholders.

Finally, RATs are empowered to decide how to focus resources and address protection and improvement needs, allowing a rapid response to evolving or newly discovered problems and opportunities.

For additional information contact the following:

• Rayetta Boone, Kentucky Department of Agriculture at 502/564-4696

• Jennifer Cocanougher, Extension Associate, Environmental and Natural Resources Issues, University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service at 606/257-6094

• Steve Coleman, Director, Division of Conservation, Department for Natural Resources at 502/564-3080

• Regina McCoy, Wheeler/Elk River Action Team, TVA at 205/386-2031

• Wayne Poppe, Manager, TVA at 423/751-7333

• Chalky Vaugh, NRCS, Division of Conservation, Department for Natural Resources at 502/564-3080

Michigan

The Michigan Right to Farm Act (Public Act No. 93) was enacted in 1981 and amended in 1985 to provide farmers with protection from nuisance lawsuits. This state statute authorizes the Michigan Agriculture Commission (MAC) to develop and adopt Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) for farms and farm operations in Michigan. These voluntary practices are based on available technology and scientific research to promote sound environmental stewardship and help maintain a farmer's right to farm.

The GAAMPs cover five specific areas of production agriculture, including:

Manure management and utilization;

Pesticide utilization and pest control;

Nutrient utilization;

Care of farm animals; and

Cranberry production.

These agricultural and management practices are protective of the environment and have been designed to serve the needs of Michigan farmers and non-farm residents alike. The practices are reviewed annually and may be revised as necessary by the MAC. By utilizing these recommended and voluntary management practices, farmers benefit from the protection provided by the Right to Farm Act. While adherence to the Right to Farm GAAMPs does not act as a complete barrier against lawsuits, it does provide a measure of protection from nuisance litigation. If a farmer is taken to court the judicial system may make the final determination of what conditions constitute a nuisance or pollution. Whether or not a farmer chooses to follow the Right to Farm GAAMPs, their practices still need to comply with all state and federal environmental and agricultural laws.

Concerning complaints, the Act specifies:

The Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) or designee is to investigate all complaints involving a farm or farm operation;

The MAC and MDA shall enter into a MOU with the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (MNRC) and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) concerning the investigation and resolution of farm-related environmental complaints;

The MDA will notify the complainant in writing if the farm or farm operation is using GAAMPs;

The MDA will notify the person responsible for the farm or farm operation not using GAAMPs that changes are necessary to resolve or abate the problem and to conform with GAAMPs; and

That a complainant who brings more than three unverified complaints against the same farm or farm operation within three years may be ordered by MDA to reimburse MDA the full costs of investigation of any fourth or subsequent unverified complaint.

Since the beginning of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's (MDEQ) NPS program in 1988, there has been an NRCS liaison to help coordinate agricultural NPS issues common to the two agencies. The liaison provides training to MDEQ, SWCD and other NRCS staff on the various federal cost-share programs and how to coordinate those dollars with other available financial resources to maximize the cost-share money available to Michigan farmers. MDEQ staff provides a water quality perspective on the State Technical Committee, which is charged with providing recommendations on the federal farm programs. MDEQ staff also promote water quality as a member of the committees that developed and update the GAAMPs for the Right to Farm Program.

To assist NRCS and SWCD staff in developing whole farm plans, MDEQ developed the "Agricultural Best Management Practices Manual." This document combines FOTG practices into a water quality package. It is now used by all NRCS and SWCD staff when developing conservation plans for section 319 watershed projects. Using section 319 program money, MDEQ has five year contracts with individual SWCDs to hire staff, develop information and education programs, and for cost-share to develop and implement plans. The MDEQ also has a contract with NRCS to train and supervise the SWCD staff and to develop a training and certification program for public and private people who develop plans using section 319 money. NRCS is in the process of training and certifying 120 staff from MDA, MDEQ, MDNR, SWCDs and NRCS.

The Michigan Legislature passed the Groundwater and Freshwater Protection Act (Public Act No. 247) in 1993. The Act provides for the protection of groundwater from contamination by pesticides and fertilizers and prescribes the powers and duties of certain state agencies and officials. Under the Act, the MDA has overall responsibility for implementation. The Act establishes the Groundwater Stewardship Program (GSP) in Michigan. The mission of the GSP is to provide information and assessment tools for pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer users which help them identify risks to groundwater and to coordinate local, state, and federal resources to help individuals reduce those risks. The