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 GSP is designed to be voluntary, locally driven, address the concerns of individuals, and maintain a focus on the financial and technical constraints which drive real-world decisions. The GSP is relatively narrow in focus addressing only risks to groundwater associated with pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer use. However, it has a wide scope and addresses the many uses of these materials, including agricultural, turfgrass, and household uses.

Local GSPs are funded through a competitive grants program. A person who has completed an on-site evaluation with technical assistance personnel is eligible to participate in the GSP. Participants in the GSP must develop and implement a stewardship plan approved by MDA. Technical assistance personnel and state grant funding is available from SWCDs to help individuals complete an on-site evaluation of risks using the Farm*A*Syst resource assessments, develop a stewardship plan, and implement the practices identified in the stewardship plan to reduce the identified risks. Liability for groundwater contamination is not imposed on a person in the GSP under this Act unless he/she was grossly negligent, or in violation of state or federal law or failed to comply with the provisions of the applicable groundwater stewardship program or plan.

All of the program areas being supported are coordinated through representatives from Michigan State University Extension, MDA, and NRCS. Close coordination is also maintained with the Michigan Farm Bureau, the Michigan Agri-Business Association, and the Michigan Association of Conservation Districts. A 23-member private and interagency Groundwater Advisory Council serves to integrate local, state, and federal resources to help individuals implement practices which reduce their risk of having a groundwater problem. The Michigan GSP is administered by MDA with some three million dollars annually from fertilizer tonnage and pesticide license fees. This program established by law, started promoting the Farm*A*Syst program in 1994. As a result, Michigan leads in the number of participants using the Farm*A*Syst program with almost 6,500 evaluation completed and more than 2,600 abandoned wells properly plugged.

The NRCS hosted a two-day workshop on "Conservation Planning and the Conservation Partnership" in June 1997. The invitation and agenda were mailed to 34 individuals who represented MACD, MDA, MDEQ, MDNR, MAC, MFB, the Michigan State University Institute of Water research (MSU), the FWS, the FSA, and the Rural Development Agency (RDA). The purpose of the workshop was to:

Understand that conservation planning is resource driven;

Understand that conservation planning is a way to assist farmers in managing their natural resources at a sustainable level;

Become familiar with the conservation planning process including inputs and products;

Understand how the FOTG, FOCS, technical tools, and financial programs work together to support conservation planning;

Examine how conservation planning can benefit the goals of the partnership organizations; and

Understand the impacts that conservation planning has on field staff workload.

As a result of the workshop, FOCS will be used as the single database by state and federal agencies to document planning and implementation of resource management systems reflecting conservation changes on private lands. This tracking system is in addition to those already used to measure state inputs and will show the benefits from partnering.

With water quality as the driving force in Michigan, NRCS recently established teams within seven watersheds throughout the state with partners including SWCD, MDA, and section 319 staffs to focus on the identification of resource concerns of the watersheds and to manage the issues identified. This will promote "program neutral" planning to address the resource needs.

For additional information contact the following:

• Vicki Anderson, Resource Conservationist, NRCS at 616/467-8052

• Thad Cleary, Environmental Quality Analyst, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality at 517/335-4172

• Jane Hardisty, State Conservationist, NRCS at 517/337-6701, ext 1201

• Gus Jordan, State Resource Conservationist, NRCS at 517/337-6701, ext. 1208

• Kevin Kirk, Michigan Farm Bureau at 517/323-7000

• Jack Knorek, Grant Administrator, Michigan Department of Agriculture at 517/335-2874

• Kurt Thelen, Director, Environmental Stewardship Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture at 517/241-0236

• Gordon Wenk, Farmland Services Division, Michigan Department of Agriculture at 517/373-9796

Minnesota

The Minnesota Whole Farm Planning Working Group (Working Group) was convened in November 1995, by the Land Stewardship Project (LSP), the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) the Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program, and the Minnesota Extension Service. The 26- member Working Group includes farmers, staff from local, state, and federal government agencies, and non-profit organizations. The purpose, as decided by the group, was to identify the essential elements inherent in whole farm planning. The group did not set out to create a new approach, but to review seven approaches already being discussed or practiced and distill the essential elements common to all.

As defined by the Working Group, "whole farm planning" is a process for on-farm decisionmaking that includes all aspects of the farm. It can be used by the farm family to balance the quality of life they desire with the farm's resources, the need for production and profitability, and long term stewardship. It can help the farm family achieve its goals while enhancing the environment and relationships with the community. Whole farm planning is a collaborative process that brings together farmers and other professionals in an interactive exchange of information. It is a holistic approach based on developing comprehensive goals.

Whole farm planning according to the Working Group is distinct from other farm planning approaches because it is founded on the long term vision the farm family has for their future. A thorough understanding of the farm's resources is necessary to set long term goals. A farm is located in a watershed and a community. The larger community may have already established objectives to assure long term productivity and sustainability of the natural resources and human communities of the area. If those objectives are clearly understood, a farm family can take them into account in setting their goals. Whole farm planning becomes useful when it guides the farm family to choose the farming practices and systems best suited to meeting their goals. Whole farm planning provides an opportunity for alternative farming systems and solutions in addition to the typical BMPs.

According to the Working Group, the essential elements of the WFP process is where:

Participation is voluntary;

Plans are confidential and the property of the farmer who can share any portion as appropriate;

Farm family's goals for the farming operation are identified;

The process is flexible;

The process integrates information and ideas resulting from cooperation among farmers and service providers;

The information about farm planning is accessible and understandable; and

The farmer leads the planning process.

According to the Working Group, the essential contents of a WFP include:

Long and short term goals defined by the farm family;

An inventory of the farm resources that will help participants understand the current situation and what is possible in the future;

Short and long term decisionmaking guidelines help improve the environment, meet profitability goals, and move the family toward its desired quality of life; and

A process for on-farm observation and recordkeeping.

The outcomes of whole farm planning are important both to the farmer and to the public. Six outcomes were identified by the Working Group as essential for WFP to achieve wide acceptance and use. Whole farm planning needs to improve or maintain profitability; quality of life; natural resource conditions; sustainability; relationships with the community; and the ability to observe and evaluate changes in practices and management.

In another initiative, the MDA held a series of seven regional WFP forums with farmers in the winter and spring of 1996. A diversity of farming philosophy and farm enterprise were represented at the forums. As a result of the farmer forums, the MDA gained valuable knowledge about how farmers plan. The MDA initiated a pilot whole farm planning project in November, 1996 with a farmer meeting. A coalition of community members was formed. Several meetings, all facilitated by MDA, have been held in 1997 to assist the Lake Benton Watershed Holistic Management Coalition (Coalition) to identify high priority issues that can be addressed. The mission of the Coalition is to facilitate the creation of a healthy ecosystem that complements and balances the local needs of agriculture, the economy, wildlife, recreation, and development. Their vision is a strong and diverse agricultural base providing opportunities for future generations, and maintains a viable community that values business, employment opportunities, schools, and churches; and where decisions are made locally through positive communications and participation.

The Coalition will examine five major issues:

Ground and surface water quality of Lake Benton through lake weed control, soil erosion reduction, city and rural runoff;

Community and communications by networking, community involvement, educational programs, and tours;

Livestock and manure management by local zoning ordinance;

Stewardship and biodiversity by crop diversification, analyzing social and economic impact, exploring alternative uses of resources; and

Recreation by the promotion of natural resources, working with tourism groups, and encouraging continued growth of outdoor recreation and arts.

As service providers work with individual farmers in the Lake Benton watershed area, these issues will be considered as the farmers go through the WFP process to develop their plans.

In another effort, Minnesota was selected as one of six national NRCS conservation planning pilot projects in 1995. The NRCS selected the Whitewater watershed area (Olmsted, Wabasha and Winona counties) in the Southeastern part of the state for this initiative. In part, the watershed area was selected because there were good agency relationships due to PL-566 watershed activities and the area was part of a USDA Hydrologic Unit Area.

The initial meeting -- August 1995 -- was attended by 20 stakeholders representing farmers, organizations, and local, state and federal agencies. Because of the diverse background and interests of the stakeholders and no trained facilitator, the meeting lacked focus due to individual agendas. As a result, the stakeholders from the initial meeting became the local steering committee to provide direction, based on consensus, for the development of this unique process. The goal of the steering committee was to develop a WFP process that is voluntary, comprehensive, confidential and meets landusers goals and desires. In addition, a field technical team made up of agency specialist was established to work one-on-one or as a team with producers. The team went further and developed an interagency MOU that has been locally signed for the project area by NRCS, the FWS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Winona County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Wabasha County Cooperative Extension Service, and the Land Stewardship Project. The goals of the MOU were to:

Outline the administrative and technical responsibilities and procedures for WFP;

Formulate and develop a methodology for WFP;

Provide landowners with integrated multi-resource assessments that could be used during the WFP process to meet management objectives, which includes the protection of resources at risk; and

Prepare a written evaluation of the process, with recommendation on adaptation of the model to a broader geographic area.

Several farmer-to-farmer "Cottage Type" meetings were held to ask for farmer input. These meetings were broad in scope and an excellent source of information. The participants were very willing to express what they wanted and needed as well as to discuss what is not presently being provided to them. Landusers have been very receptive to this planning concept and have assisted in the development of a planning process and materials.

The planning process was developed in a written package for placement in a three-ring binder to allow participants to add support information as needed. It is also be available in automated format. The planning process contains an introduction, glossary, goal setting materials, inventory and evaluation worksheets by resource along with a rating system, specific tools to assist in resource analysis such as soil loss calculation worksheets and pasture inventories, alternative selection guide sheets, an action plan and a follow-up section. The planning process is confidential, covers all local, state, and federal regulations, and can be used by a farmer with minimum agency assistance. Only one copy of the WFP is developed and the farmer retains it. This approach is being used to ensure confidentiality from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

For additional information contact the following:

• Lowell Busman, Water Quality Extension Educator, Minnesota Extension Service at 507/835-3422

• Mark Kunz, District Conservationist, NRCS at 507/523-2174

• Wayne Monsen, Sustainable Agriculture Specialist, Minnesota Department of Agriculture at 612/282-2261

• Dennis Neffendorf, State Resource Conservationist, NRCS at 612/602-7854

• Lawrence Svien, Area Resource Conservationist, NRCS at 507/289-7454

Missouri

Twenty-five of the top 50 priority watersheds ranked by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are located in northeast Missouri. Since most of the drinking water in the region comes from lakes and reservoirs, virtually all of the population is impacted by the quality of the source water flowing from these watersheds. The Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission, the largest single public water supply system in this region of Missouri, draws raw water from Mark Twain Lake. This system currently provides 2.3 million gallons per day of drinking water to 25,000 people in seven cities and six water supply districts.

Mark Twain Lake is one of the largest water bodies and water supplies in the state with a surface area of approximately 18,000 acres. The North, Middle and South Forks of the Salt River, plus Crooked Creek and Otter Creek along with smaller tributaries, comprise the watershed for the lake. The quality of the lake water is affected by human and animal activities taking place as far as 80 miles away within a 2,300-square mile geographic area.

People in this region became especially concerned about the quality of their drinking water in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Early interest focused around nutrients from livestock manure and sediment delivery into the lake. However, the DNR identified atrazine as a potential pollutant in addition to nutrients and sediment. Requests for planning and technical assistance came to the NRCS from landowners in the Mark Twain Lake watershed through SWCD and FSA County Committees. Over time, the water quality problem was better defined by NRCS and others as NPS pollution from surface water carrying sediment, nutrients and crop protection chemicals.

Resource specialists began looking more closely at contributing factors of this NPS pollution. Agriculture is the number one industry with cropland comprising 51 percent of the land use in the Mark Twain Lake watershed. Upland and bottomlands of the basin are intensively row cropped with corn, soybeans, wheat and other feed grains and forage crops. Agri-chemicals are used extensively. The watershed is also a major hog producing region with Shelby, Monroe, and Audrain counties alone having an inventory in 1995 of 265,000 head of hogs. There are a large number of swine facilities along with numerous dairy and beef operations. It has been estimated that the nutrients from livestock manure produced in the watershed have a human equivalent to a population of 144,500 people.

A large percentage of northeast Missouri consists of Mexico and Putnam claypan soils which restrict water infiltration, create perched water tables and result in high surface and interflow runoff rates. Restrictive soils, highly erodible cropland, increased numbers of concentrated livestock operations and rural residents in close proximity to numerous public drinking water supplies contributed to declining water quality.

NRCS began to offer additional assistance to agricultural producers within the Mark Twain Lake watershed in the early 1990s through their field office delivery system, but it soon became obvious a multi-disciplinary approach was needed to more fully address the complex water quality problems. Region VII of the EPA, through the DNR provided grant funding for three years beginning in 1993 to support a proposal under section 319 of the CWA to establish the "Mark Twain Lake Water Quality Initiative" (Initiative). The initial grant has since been extended two additional years for a five year total project. The University Extension's grant for the information/education component of the project was also extended. In addition to the 319 grant, financial and technical support has also been provided by NRCS, University of Missouri, FSA, SWCDs, DNR, Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), landowners, and crop protection companies including American Cyanamid, Novartis, DowElanco, DuPont, and Monsanto.

The initial project involved approximately 630 square miles (404,800 acres) which included the watershed area of the North Fork of the Salt River, Crooked Creek, and Otter Creeks within Knox, Monroe and Shelby Counties. Assistance focused initially on the improved handling of livestock manure and reducing sediment loadings into Mark Twain Lake from cropland. Six public water supply reservoirs in the region (in addition to Mark Twain Lake) were also targeted for accelerated land treatment to address the concern of agricultural pesticide detections: Clarence East and West, LaPlata, Monroe City's Route J reservoir, Shelbina, and Sugar Creek reservoir in Moberly. Today, the project area has been expanded to include portions of Adair, Audrain, Boone, Callaway, Macon, Marion, Ralls, Randolph, and Schuyler counties draining into Mark Twain Lake, plus nearby drinking water supply watersheds needing similar assistance for a total project area of approximately 1.4 million acres. The inherent problems of any watershed, which include runoff containing sediment, nutrients and pesticides, are even more apparent in such a large drainage basin.

The Initiative promotes an informal alliance of farmers, government agencies, agri-businesses, community officials, educators, schools, financial institutions, health departments, private industries, real estate boards, trade and commodity organizations, and special-interest groups to take action to safeguard the watersheds serving the citizens of northeast Missouri. The broad base of support, coupled with the wide range of partners, has made this project a truly cooperative, and locally-led undertaking.

The emphasis of the Initiative is on agricultural nonpoint source water quality with an opportunity to address all natural resources. The Initiative was established for several purposes which guide day-to-day activities to:

Implement resource management system planning in the drainage areas of the seven public water supply reservoirs;

Expedite the adoption of innovative BMPs through accelerated planning and technical assistance with farmers to mitigate the effects of NPS pollution from runoff of sediment, nutrients and agricultural chemicals;

Evaluate the multi-disciplinary, multi-agency team approach in developing Resource Management System (RMS) plans which address total resource management;

Develop multi-disciplinary teams in the remaining NRCS administrative areas of the state to provide training to field personnel within their respective areas; and

Develop a monitoring regime and collect water samples in the seven public water supply reservoirs for six commonly used agricultural pesticides plus a nutrient component.

BMPs are methods that protect the environment and make economic sense for the farmer. Within the Initiative, these practices primarily include soil conservation efforts, pesticide management, nutrient management, and manure handling techniques. Although BMPs are tailored to individual farms, when applied throughout the watershed they collectively contribute to protecting water quality in the region by decreasing erosion and surface water runoff.

The Initiative is staffed by a project manager, agricultural engineer, soil conservation technician, nutrient management specialist, pest management specialist, forester, information/education specialist, and conservation aide. The purpose of this multi-disciplinary team is to develop, implement and evaluate RMS or whole farm plans with agricultural producers. These plans combine management and conservation practices that, when installed, will prevent degradation and permit sustained use of all natural resources. Those resources include: soil, water, air, plants, and animals on all land uses. Specific quality criteria, identified in the FOTG, must be selected by the producer before the plan is finalized. The staff assists farmers with both nutrient and pesticide strategies, provides assistance to agency field personnel in the formulation and implementation of RMS plans; assists with planning, design and installation of animal waste systems; evaluates technical software which can aide the staff in servicing clients; monitors seven public water supply (PWS) lakes and two streams in an effort to gather data representative of the larger Mark Twain Lake drainage area; and provides training for agricultural producers, agri-business professionals, and agency personnel.

The planning process begins by locating interested individuals willing to develop and implement resource management system plans. These plans are not generic. Each plan is unique to the operation considering past, present and future conditions. Plans are progressive, and as implementation takes place adjustments correspond to needs.

An initial interview is conducted to determine farm enterprise management skill levels and priorities placed on managing their resources. Typically, the farmer is soon telling the staff what he/she actually wants and intends to carry out. Next, the staff focuses attention on completing a resource inventory of the farm which looks at the past, present and potential future conditions of the resource. The staff is trained so any planning team member (specialist) can complete an initial resource inventory. Depending on the resource needs or opportunities, and the decisionmaker's desires, additional follow-up will be scheduled with the appropriate specialist. In addition to staff, other specialist could include a veterinarian, a private agri-chemical applicator, or a civil engineer.

Each specialist completes the resource inventory and evaluates all future options and provides alternative solutions for that concern to maintain or improve the situation. Team members have the freedom to develop innovative BMPs that address unusual concerns, and they are responsible for bringing forth their segment of the RMS plan for review before the full committee or team. All planning team members have input into the plan with the idea of coming up with the best solution for the producer, or providing that person with as many options to choose from without conflicting with other resource management issues.

Team members involve the farmer's chemical dealer, crop consultant, custom applicator, or any land improvement contractor they are using to avoid generating plans which may not be implemented. What the farmer will accept, what they are capable of managing, or what the contractor can deliver are crucial inputs into the planning process. Final RMS plans are tailored to the individual's operation, and they address considerations for all environmental issues both on and off the farm as well as potential economic risks or benefits.

The RMS plan is formalized into an implementation schedule and explained to the producer. Potential funding sources to assist in accelerating the application of practices are identified. An initial follow-up is carried out by team members to help develop the various stages of the plan and to offer encouragement. Future visits are done on an annual basis or more frequently as special needs arise. The producer sets the pace based on their level of confidence or the intensity of the practice application schedule.

Although not readily apparent, insect infestations can indirectly contribute to nonpoint pollution. If bugs are reduced, the pesticides required to control them are likewise reduced. Much of the one-on-one technical assistance to farmers is with IPM, which includes field scouting and pest identification. There is a lot of value to walking the fields during the growing season to inspect the crops for yield-robbing pests such as weeds, insects and diseases as well as other agronomic problems. Currently, 25 farmers now have developed IPM plans. Several other farmers scout their fields for weeds and have participated in the statewide black cutworm monitoring program. The Initiative is also trying to promote the adoption of IPM among farmers and the agri-business community.

A local advisory committee, organized by the Initiative in cooperation with University of Missouri Integrated Pest Management Unit, consists of farmers, agri-chemical dealers, agri-chemical company representatives, agencies, and crop consultants. The committee was organized to surface local issues and help direct agency assistance, demonstrations, research, and educational activities. An IPM workshop held in 1996 gave 40 farmers, agri-chemical dealers and NRCS employees hands-on experience in weeds and weed seedling identification and management. The committee also was instrumental in providing guidance on herbicide demonstration plots.

Cropland farmers know that soil nutrient levels must be replenished to maintain productivity. Livestock producers recognize the nutritive and economic value of land-applied manure. The Initiative assists farmers in developing nutrient management plans which begin with current, accurate soil tests and manure analysis.

Woodland resources are integrated into the Initiative through a cooperative agreement between NRCS, the USFS, and the MDC. A resource forester, headquartered at the Initiative office, promotes and provides woodland assistance to landowners. Forest stewardship plans are written for interested landowners and are incorporated into their RMS plans. Goals outlined in the plan may include reforestation, thinning to improve tree health and vigor, or excluding livestock from specific woodlands. Woodland management also helps protect water quality by decreasing erosion. Fourteen farmers have developed forestry plans to help improve the quality of their woodlands.

The long term sustainablity of forest resources are promoted through the Initiative. Although not perceived as abundant in the area, forests are a significant component by enhancing water quality, wildlife habitat and alternative sources of income.

Assistance is provided to landowners in a wide variety of areas. Goals are usually accomplished in accordance with a Forest Stewardship Plan developed by the forester and landowner. Plans specify numerous options for landowners. Several planned practices can be implemented utilizing cost-share from the Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP). Those practices are: alley cropping (agroforestry establishment with upland tree species and hayland management in alleys); timber stand improvement (TSI) to enhance tree health and growth; fencing for livestock exclusion from streams and woodlands; integrating wildlife habitat; and establishment and enhance of riparian buffer zones.

Source water protection is gradually becoming a more commonly accepted theme of local public drinking water supplies in the state due in part to the success of the Initiative. Rural communities are now encouraged by the DNR to prepare nonpoint source watershed management plans which address area-wide water quality issues or concerns. This new focus is in addition to continuing the one-on-one planning assistance provided to individual landowners and decisionmakers. This concept is especially important where the watersheds have a significant acreage of highly erodible cropland. Sedimentation, the result of soil erosion, means higher costs for water treatment, premature filling of water impoundments and loss of aquatic habitat. For example, soil and water conservation efforts are reducing the sediment volume going into Mark Twain Lake to the degree that the life of the reservoir has been extended for 25 to 50 years.

Pesticides are moving into water supplies resulting in levels above the federal and state drinking water standards. Several public drinking water suppliers in northeast Missouri, and specifically within the Mark Twain Lake watershed, are fearful of receiving notices of violation from the DNR's Public Drinking Water Program for exceeding maximum pesticide contaminant levels. The use of powdered activated carbon (PAC) to remove pesticides from finished water has increased dramatically within these systems. The Initiative is trying to demonstrate how pesticides in raw water can be minimized by implementing various land management practices thereby reducing the dependency on treating the problem at the community water treatment plant.

Communities developing watershed management plans with assistance from the Initiative experience the same, basic planning process as individual landowners. However, the invited audience is much larger and more diverse to include all impacted stakeholders. Also, the time period for the planning process is much longer. Stakeholders are encouraged to recognize watershed management requires assistance and input from drinking water users as potential benefactors once planning decisions are implemented. The ultimate goal of the community is to finalize and implement an acceptable strategy for managing the sources of public water supplies in cooperation with all landowners to ensure safe drinking water for consumers.

The Mark Twain Public Information Project is a CES component of the Initiative executed through the use of advisory committees of the various partners. This aspect provides information about the Initiative and other related water quality education activities to area landowners and others so they can better understand how their actions may impact the region. Products include media releases and newsletters, educational experiences and materials, and established networks with regional partners. The Initiative circulates a bi-monthly newsletter to an agricultural readership of 1,300 farmers, businesses, professionals and others. As a response to educators and volunteer leaders a workshop titled "Water Quality Education: Concepts and Curriculum Review" was carried out. Participants spent six days learning about the hydrologic cycle, the characteristics of a watershed and possible sources of pollution.

Real estate professionals are another group wanting to learn more about water quality issues. Sources of contamination can affect land values as lenders begin to examine the costs of corrective action or cleanup. With this in mind, the Initiative put together a directory of rural property concerns and presented a formal course approved by the Missouri Real Estate Commission and Real Estate Appraiser's Board.

This information and education component serves as a focus for program development and delivery throughout all 21 counties in northeast Missouri. The demonstration projects, woodland resources efforts, and public information projects are all part of the Initiative. Together, they promote an informal alliance of agencies, businesses, communities and individuals taking action to safeguard watersheds through demonstration, information and education.

The Initiative seeks input and participation from regional agencies, businesses, communities and individuals to protect targeted watersheds and the drinking water they supply. Each of these groups has a particular agenda, mandate, and/or objective. It has been important to maintain clear lines of communication resulting in a general feeling of inclusion, mutual support and commitment to programs of work focused on watershed stewardship. For example, 15 NRCS field personnel are now being trained annually by private agricultural businesses in pesticide management and pest scouting as a direct result of improved working relations with agricultural producers experienced within the Initiative. Improved networking has resulted in a core of players with a common understanding of the natural resource problems, and an acceptance by the producers of the management practices and systems of practices being recommended by the technical staff.

For additional information contact the following:

• Ray Archuleta, Project Manager, Mark Twain Water Quality Initiative at 816/385-6359

• Bob Ball, Water Quality Coordinator, NRCS at 573/876-0900

• Wanda Eubank, Missouri Extension at 816/385-6359

• Brian Schwess, Missouri Department of Conservation at 816/385-7268

Nebraska

The whole farm/ranch plan initiative started in Nebraska as a result of approval as one of the six WFRP pilot projects. To coordinate this initiative, the State Technical Committee (STC) with a membership of more than 100 state and federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations appointed a subcommittee. The subcommittee held its first meeting in October 1995. During this initial meeting, attended by 40 of approximately 100 invitees, the WFRP concept was discussed and an outline of the actions needed to proceed with the pilot project was developed with assistance of a professional facilitator. As a result, the NRCS dedicated a staff person to coordinate the WFRP initiative.

The subcommittee met again in December 1995. It was decided to identify three demonstration sites with the potential of involving 10 to 40 farmers per site. During the meeting the following working committees were established: Mission and Vision, Guiding Principles, Marketing and Education, Demonstration Sites, Plan Development, and Issues.

The mission of the Nebraska WFRP process is to enable farmers and ranchers to voluntarily develop optimum, long term production/conservation management plans for their farms and ranches in the most efficient manner possible while meeting multiple agency objectives.

The vision statement says that WFRP is a dynamic, flexible process using the most innovative approaches made possible by available resources and the best available technology and that it:

Is initiated and implemented voluntarily by the farm/ranch producer with the full technical support and collaboration of all local, state, and federal agencies and all public and private organizations through one stop shopping;

Results in a unified management plan for an entire farm or ranch that meets all technical standards established to qualify for pertinent production/conservation program incentives;

Facilitates coordination of plans and programs within a watershed; and

Culminates in the well-being of the producer, the community and the sustainable use of natural resources.

The guiding principles developed in Nebraska for implementing the WFRP program includes the involvement of all know constituencies, both public and private; is voluntary and incentive-based with participation, cooperation, and facilitation; is simple, streamlined, efficient, and unified; is based on the best available science; is educational, with full and open sharing of available information (concerning technology, not individual plans); embraces the most innovative technology (especially communications/information precessing and management); focuses on long-range, holistic resource conservation goals, not micro-management of operations; is based on a review and inventory of resources; is dynamic and recognizes differences in resources and the limitations of plans with an appropriate planning period -- possibly five years; includes compliance guidelines reflecting all pertinent regulations and requirements; includes evaluation of compliance and results; is supported with adequate funding; balances private property rights with societal responsibilities (landowner/watershed/community); is economically and environmentally sustainable; and begins with pilot project research and development.

Approximately 100 state and federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations have been involved in the planning effort, which is endorsed by the entire Nebraska Congressional delegation and the Governor. The subcommittee intends to:

Develop a hard copy and computer accessible (Internet) information sheet highlighting agency contacts and the services and/or financial assistance that is available from all the partners in conservation planning;

Use the developed customized list of rules and regulations, updated regularly, which could affect the farm or ranch operations;

Use the developed producer preplanning field inventory checklist to categorize the producer's initial interests and areas of concern; and

Use the developed producer field notes and records keeping/accomplishments section.

Three demonstration sites have been identified by local owners, operators, communities, agricultural businesses, non-government organizations and agencies. Within the planning areas, individual plans will be developed utilizing individual and area-wide goals. The local Conservation Planning Coalitions -- typically NRCS, the Natural Resource District (NRD), FSA, and CES -- held landowner meetings. In the Sicily Creek demonstration area, the following meetings were held. The first meeting in July 1996 had approximately 15 attendees from the 100 letters that were sent to the owners and operators in the watershed area. The following items were identified by the attendees as incentives to meet their needs for participating in the WFRP program. They want:

Flexibility with the content of the plan and responsiveness to economic and weather-related changes;

Reduced paperwork;

New cost-share programs;

Less agencies to deal with;

Elimination of confusing or conflicting answers;

An up-to-date list of regulations;

Economics considered in the planning process; and

An up-to-date list of financial and technical assistance available from partners.

The second meeting (October 1996) was held to review the comments and questions from the first meeting and to provide information on the conservation provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill. Fewer people attended this meeting -- probably due to the lack of interest and personal follow-up. A third meeting was held with the local Conservation Planning Coalition to review the program and select potential producers for developing a WFRP. To date, seven tracts have been planned with the incentive being cost-sharing on a special practice (SP-53) for nutrient and pesticide management.

For additional information contact the following:

• Sam Cowan, District Conservationist, NRCS at 402/223-3586

• Craig Derickson, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS at 402/437-4112

• Paul Hay, Nebraska Extension at 402/223-1384

• Kris Thorp, Center for Rural Affairs at 402/846-5428

New York

Local individuals, agencies and organizations have been heavily involved in watershed protection initiatives in the New York City Watershed since 1990, in the Skaneateles Lake Watershed since 1994, and new pilot projects in the Keuka Lake and Wappingers Creek Watersheds starting in 1996. These initiatives have been developed based on true partnering efforts, including local farmers.

More than nine million people rely on the excellent quality of New York City's unfiltered water supply. Ninety percent of this water comes from watershed located 125 miles from New York City, in rural upstate New York. To the residents of the watershed, farming is vital to their economy. Nearly 500 dairy and livestock farms are situated throughout these water supply watersheds, in addition to approximately 90 other agricultural enterprises. In 1990, New York City proposed regulations as part of a comprehensive watershed protection plan. Dairy and livestock farmers immediately expressed concern that watershed regulations would force the farming industry out of business. As a result, an Ad Hoc Task Force on Agriculture and New York City Watershed Regulations was convened in 1990 to explore non-regulatory alternatives for protecting and maintaining the quality of the water supply while helping to sustain the economic viability of farming as a preferred land use in the watershed.

After an intense year of discussions and negotiations, recommendations were accepted to form a WFP program. A Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC), comprised predominately of farmers, was established to advise and eventually administer the program. The program was set up in two phases. Phase I tested and demonstrated WFP on 10 pilot farms, requiring supporting research. At the end of Phase I, Watershed Planning Teams, with the help of Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) and the NRCS, developed a Planning and Implementation Guide.

Participation in the program is strictly voluntary. Farmers are able to address priority environmental issues on their farm without fears that implementation of the plan will threaten the farm's economic viability. The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), through the WAC, fully funds:

Development of each farmers' Whole Farm Plan under the guidance of the Watershed Planning Teams according to predetermined water quality goals achievable for that farm;

Scientific support for managing on-farm pollution sources; and

Implementation of all structural changes and management according to the plan approved by WAC.

Whole Farm Planning reduces risks by addressing potential sources of agricultural pollutants and factors that influence their transport to farm streams. Pollutants of the highest priority to the Watershed Agricultural Program are the parasitic protozoa, Cryptosporidium and Giardia, followed by nutrients, pesticides, sediment, fuel and other toxic chemicals. Locally managing these priority pollutants requires the integration of scientific research with practical farming experience. Thus, WFP includes financial and human resource management, nutrient management, animal nutrition and herd health, pest control and pest management, and soil erosion control. The success of the WAP depends on the reliability of WFP in contributing to the assurance that New York City's source water quality meets federal and state criteria. For this purpose, partner agencies are developing a systematic sampling design to account for the potential sources and fate of pollutants. Water quality monitoring will help confirm the scientific basis for recommending Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate risks to New York City's water supply.

The WAP is a unique success because it:

Effectively achieves watershed management by voluntary local participation rather than be enforced regulations;

Encourages personal commitment from local farmers;

Secures protection from those who live, work, and play in the watershed rather than exclusion of human activities from it;

Manages agricultural nonpoint pollution to further reduce risks to water already high in quality;

Emphasizes pollution prevention;

Stimulates new methods of assessment and evaluation to confirm the efficacy and reliability of the program in maintaining water quality protection;

Promotes new research to meet novel challenges posed by parasitic protozoa and the need to integrate a farm's best economic and environmental aims; and

Mobilizes the traditional infrastructure of local, city, state, and federal agencies, and agribusiness interests to continue supporting agriculture.

The City of Syracuse, which has drawn public drinking water from Skaneateles Lake since the 1890s without a filtration system, has also agreed to fund the costs of whole farm planning and implementation. The City made this decision because the estimated costs to install a filtration system was $40 million plus an annual operating cost of $2 million versus the estimated cost of $20 million for the planning and implementation of BMPs on both agricultural and nonagricultural land. The Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program (SLWAP) is overseen by the City of Syracuse and seven farmers from the watershed area. The goal of the SLWAP is to have 100 percent voluntary farmer participation by the year 2000. To accomplish this goal, an interagency team is piloting a Whole Farm Planning (WFP) process. This process uses a "tiered" approach to planning where farmers' responses to surveys and questionnaires will result in a completed basic level of planning with limited agency staff input. The information will provide the basis for more complex planning with trained planners. The objective of the tiered approach is to provide a blanket plan to comply with existing environmental regulations without placing an undue financial burden on the farm business. This is accomplished through the following processes:

Evaluating each farm business on an individual basis;

Working with the farmer through a team approach to design a plan and solve any water quality concerns;

Analyzing the economic risks of proposed plans in relation to the individual farm business; and

Implementing approved plans.

The tiered approach utilizes worksheets for the development of a whole farm plan. Specific worksheets (Tier II) are completed by the farmer -- usually with assistance of a resource professional -- based on the concerns identified in the completion of the questionnaire from Tier I. This tier provides an opportunity to educate the farmer on environmental concerns and standards and documents existing stewardship activities. Standard worksheets presently exist for pathogens, manure, stream management, milking center management, silage storage, petroleum product storage, fertilizer management, pesticide use, barnyards, water wells, waste disposal, soil management, pasture management, and forest management.

The SLWAP is a cooperative effort between the SWCD, Cornell Cooperative Extension, NRCS, the City of Syracuse, and the Skaneateles Lake Watershed farmers. As of March 17, 1997, 44 of 55 farms have signed up to participate in the program, representing more than 90 percent of the agricultural land in the 38,000 acre watershed.

The Keuka Lake and Wappingers Creek Watersheds are also piloting a "tiered" approach to resource management planning called the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) process. The AEM process will utilize a tiered planning approach that moves farming operations through graduating levels of criteria to determine what level of planning is required based on the needs of the farm and the concerns of the watershed community. Farming operations must reach the third tier before total resource management planning process is utilized to develop plans to address resource concerns. If a comprehensive plan that may impact the entire farming operation is required, business management as well as resource management factors will be considered.

The AEM tiered-approach is similar to the process used in the SLWAP. By making wise use of the tools and resources available, the tiered-approach can provide several advantages including:

Provides a quick inventory of resource management concerns present on farms in a watershed context, allowing for the setting of priorities leading to a more efficient use of limited technical and financial assistance.

Provides a mechanism for documenting a farmer's present environmental stewardship. This information indicates areas that should not require further planning and can be used to create a more favorable public image of agriculture.

Allows all farmers to participate immediately in the program, if they choose to.

Allows farmers and planners to plan to the appropriate level according to the needs of the farm and watershed communities.

Identifies BMP implementation needs using an assessment method which is based on environmental principles and standards.

Provides several opportunities to increase the farmer's understanding of agriculture's and their individual farm's potential impact on the environment.

Establishes uniform expectations among the farm community, regulatory agencies, agribusiness, and agricultural support agencies as to what constitutes environmentally sound farming practices.

In addition to these two pilot projects, another 30 conservation districts are starting to use the AEM process with selected farms. Many of these districts are funded, in part, through state assistance payments from the State Environmental Protection Fund, and the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act. The Bond Act was enacted in 1996 and approved by the voters in a referendum on the November 1996 ballot. Both the Environmental Protection Funds and the Bond Act provide funding for agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects sponsored by county soil and water conservation districts. Districts work closely with farmers, NRCS, and other partners to prioritize watershed concerns, conduct planning on individual farms, and install best management practices which protect water quality. In the 1996-97 state fiscal year, New York awarded a total of over $3.4 million in state assistance from these funding sources for implementation of 65 agricultural nonpoint source projects.

New York has also been allocated $3.45 million in EQIP funds for the 1997 federal fiscal year. NRCS anticipates that New York will receive additional EQIP funds in 1997 to implement resource management systems on farms.

For additional information contact the following:

• Ed Blouin, Project Manager, New York City Department of Environmental Protection at 914/657-6631

• Dana Chapman, Program Engineer, New York Watershed Agricultural Council at 607/865-7790

• Joe DelVecchio, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS at 315/477-6502

• Steve Machovec, Resource Planning Staff, NRCS at 315/447-6527

• Jim McCardell, New York Soil and Water Conservation Committee at 518/457-3738

• Ruth Moore, Associate Attorney, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets at 518/485-8742

• Nathan Rudgers, Deputy Commissioner, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets at 518/457-4188

• Gale Sheradin, Executive Director, New York Watershed Agricultural Council at 607/865-7790

• Jeff Ten Eyck, Program Manager, Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program at 315/677-4630

• Robin Warrender, Chief Nonpoint Source Section, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water at 518/457-0635

• Alan White, Agricultural Program Leader, Cornell Cooperative Extension at 914/292-6180

North Carolina

In 1993, there was growing interest in the Sand Hills region for providing information and a process to grant "safe harbor" for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) -- an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The "safe harbor" concept is designed to protect private landowners who carry out beneficial habitat management practices from future regulatory obligations under the ESA should their efforts result in the presence of, or increased use by, threatened or endangered species on their lands. Participating landowners are responsible for maintaining any habitat occupied by threatened or endangered species at the time in which a management agreement is signed. This is known as the landowner's baseline responsibilities. Habitat management practices carried out by participating landowners that attract threatened or endangered species to neighboring lands will not result in added regulatory obligation on either the participating landowner, neighboring landowners, the landowner's heirs, or future owners of the land.

The habitat for the RCW is the old growth pine forest ecosystem which is abundant in the Sand Hills region.

The FWS, the North Carolina Departments of Agriculture (DOA), the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the U.S. Army at Fort Bragg reviewed long standing research (started in the early 1980s and periodically updated) done by North Carolina State University on the specific location of RCW throughout the Sand Hills region in 1992. Fort Bragg owns 166,000 acres and the state owns 50,000 acres for approximately 20 percent of the RCW area in the Sand Hills region of the south central part of North Carolina. These two units of government had managed their habitat for the RCW. This review and subsequent mapping of the locations coincided with the older long leaf pine stands. In this review, it was noted that a great deal of clear cutting of the old growth pine was occurring with no replanting taking place. It takes approximately 30 years after planting for a stand to become suitable for the RCW. At the same time the Environmental Impact Resource Conservation and Development Council was promoting the marketing of pine needle straw, the reforestation of small pine projects, and the use of animal waste for forest fertilizer.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and other environmental groups also became interested in finding solutions to reduce the clear cutting and retain and improve habitat for the RCW. The effort was lead by the EDF Washington office with the most active support from the EDF office in Raleigh, North Carolina. EDF brought people representing different interest and organizations together at different times because of their diverse interests. Some people wanted to improve RCW habitat because it provided additional land restrictions, while others were opposed to additional RCW habitat because of too many land restrictions. The concern was that by bringing everyone together at the same time, the conflict would be so great as to prohibit interaction and problem-solving.

As a result, an innovative program -- officially known as the North Carolina Sandhills Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) -- was established to help the RCW find safe habitat on private lands in the region. It offered landowners an incentive to become good stewards of their property by providing habitat for threatened species through actions such as the installation of artificial nest cavities in pine trees. In exchange, landowners received an ironclad guarantee that they would not be subject to additional restrictions under the ESA after attracting threatened species to their property. This program differed from other habitat conservation plans because it was designed to encourage positive habitat improvements in advance of any specific project that could adversely affect an endangered species.

A "safe harbor" program and process was developed under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The FWS holds the permit approval authority for the program. The steps in the process are to:

Contact the FWS -- Anyone interested in the program should contact the FWS for information or to set up a meeting.

Gather pertinent information -- A landowner needs to supply the following information, a map of the property, any forest management plan, any information on RCW occurrence, and information of participation in any federal cost-share program.

Set up an on-site meeting -- The meeting is necessary to discuss land use objectives, determine RCW occurrence and habitat enhancement possibilities, determine baseline numbers and responsibilities, and identify any other information needs to complete a cooperative agreement.

Collect additional information -- Provide cavity tree surveys, foraging habitat analyses, and surveys of other federally listed and candidate species if necessary.

Submit cooperative agreement to FWS -- FWS biologist will work with potential participant to finalize the cooperative agreement (which lists Best Management Practices for habitat management) and obtain necessary signatures.

Obtain a Certificate of Inclusion -- A signed Certificate of Inclusion will officially acknowledge participation in the "safe harbor" program.

Monitor -- Participants are responsible to document the implementation of any habitat enhancement activities and any "take" of RCW above the baseline as established in the cooperative agreement.

Under this program the length of the permit is for 99 years. A Certificate of Inclusion can be issued for up to the life of the permit and can be transferred with the property if it is sold or passed on to heirs. Most landowners are legally recording the Certificate. Under the present "safe harbor" program, Certificates of Inclusion have been granted to cover approximately 22,000 acres on 24 properties. Landowners, with a 60 day written notice to the FWS, can get out of the "safe harbor" program. Under this program, a resource management plan is not required. However, existing forest or golf course management plans can be used as the basis for the cooperative agreement.

The baseline numbers of the protected species are determined by FWS or certified consultant. If the species numbers increase due to enhanced habitat, the landowner may relocate their original baseline responsibilities to another location by contacting the FWS for permission. This relocation will then allow the landowners to incidentally take the habitat of the baseline species.

The North Carolina Divisions of Forest Resources and Wildlife Resources Commission are working with the FWS to become joint permit approval authorities for establishment of a program in the Coastal Plain area of the eastern one-half of the state.

Of the approximately 45 golf courses in the Southern Pines area, half are currently participating in a program -- to protect and enhance wildlife habitat and water resources -- sponsored by the Audubon Society of New York State, Inc. and the United States Golf Association. The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) promotes ecologically sound land management and the conservation of natural resources. The program provides an advisory information service on how to conduct proactive environmental projects for golf courses. Golf courses provide valuable open spaces, greenbelts, natural sanctuaries, and wildlife habitats, especially in areas of urban expansion. The ACSP encourages habitat enhancement, establishment of IPM programs, and protection of water resources. To become certified, a golf course must develop and implement a plan that addresses seven "Achievement Categories" within the ACSP and include:

Environmental Planning;

Public Involvement;

Wildlife Cover Enhancement;

Wildlife Food Enhancement;

Integrated Pest Management;

Water Conservation; and

Water Enhancement.

The FWS does allow consultants to develop plans and establish baseline numbers if they have been certified and issued a permit by FWS. Cost-sharing is available though the USDA Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP), FWS Partners for Wildlife Program, and state forest stewardship programs.

For additional information contact the following:

• Mark Cantrell, FWS at 704/258-3939

• John Caviness, RC&D Coordinator, NRCS at 910/944-4787

Ohio

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) offers below market-rate loans for conservation. The loans are through OEPA's Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) Linked Deposit Program. The loans may be approved to individuals and private organizations for any practice, equipment, or management change that will have a positive effect on water quality. The interest rate is about three percentage points below the going market rate in five priority pilot watersheds.

The loans are based on a comprehensive farm plan developed by the NRCS, SWCD, or other qualified individual or organization approved by NRCS and the SWCD. The loan can be used for construction of livestock waste management facilities, purchase of conservation tillage equipment, installation of grass waterways or other erosion control measures to reduce sediment runoff, conversion to improved farm chemical applicators and other methods of reducing chemical runoff, use of fencing to exclude livestock from streams, the establishment of riparian buffer/filter strips along streams, and certain forestry BMPs. A comprehensive farm plan is developed using the planning processes contained in the NPPH, the FOTG, the NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Handbook, and the Ohio State University Extension Ohio Livestock Manure and Wastewater Management Guide. The landowner is required to sign a Long Term Contract with the local SWCD to comply with the comprehensive farm plan for at least the term of the longest outstanding WPCLF loan.

Elements of the WPCLF Linked Deposit Program are summarized as follow:

A landowner develops, with the local county SWCD staff, an individual soil and water conservation plan that conforms to a watershed management plan developed for the watershed in which the land is located.

The landowner obtains a Certificate of Qualification from the Board of Supervisors of the SWCD, identifying the proposed improvements in the land's soil and water conservation plan that are eligible for WPCLF Linked Deposit Program funding.

The landowner applies for a loan from one of the local area banks participating in the WPCLF Linked Deposit Program.

After the landowner presents the Certificate of Qualification, the bank evaluates the credit-worthiness of the landowner using its criteria. If these criteria are met, the bank then enters into a loan agreement with the landowner.

The bank sends an investment request form, which identifies the landowner and the terms of the loan, and a copy of the landowner's Certificate of Qualification to the OEPA.

Upon approval, OEPA and the Ohio Water Development Authority (OWDA) deposit with the bank, through a certificate of deposit, funds equal to the face value of the loan to the landowner. The term of the deposit is equal to the term of the bank's loan with the landowner, but in no case is longer than 20 years.

The interest rate on the certificate of deposit is discounted below the bank's normal rate of interest for normal certificate of deposits, as determined by a comparison to the interest rates of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds. The interest rate of the bank's loan to the landowner is reduced by the same amount as the discount the bank received from the WPCLF. The bank's repayment schedule in the certificate of deposit contains semi-annual payments of principal and interest to the WPCLF. The financing for the certificate of deposit comes from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) as a part of the state's section 319 money of the CWA. In 1997, $9 million dollars of the state's $250 million dollars of SRF is available for the WPCLF Linked Deposit Program.

For additional information contact the following:

• Mary Ann Core, Water Quality Coordinator, Darby Creek Project, NRCS at 614/852-4004

• Paul DeArman, Assistant State Conservationist, NRCS at 614/469-6932

• Bob Monsarrat, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency at 614/644-3655

• Doug Zehner, NRCS Water Quality Liaison, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency at 614/644-2862

Ontario, Canada

"Our Farm Environmental Agenda" was released by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition in January 1992. The document, written by farmers for farmers, outlined their key concerns with agriculture environmental issues facing Ontario, Canada agriculture. This was the result of agricultural organizations meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture to be proactive in addressing environmental concerns and provincial pressure. The outcome was the development and implementation of the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan program. It recommended that every Ontario farm family develop an Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) tailored to their own operation by the year 2000.

The EFP delivery process was developed throughout 1992. Using the Farm*A*Syst Program as a model, 23 risk assessment modules with more than 250 questions related to farm activities were developed in three general areas -- the farmstead, farming practices, and the environment. This process, using consensus building, involved more than 100 individuals on 23 committees comprised of farmers and representatives of both government and non-government organizations.

During 1993, approximately 500 farmers in seven counties across Ontario participated in an EFP pilot program, to evaluate the environment on their own farms. They voluntarily attended two, five-hour workshops, and spent approximately eight to 10 hours of their own time to complete the EFP risk modules. The anonymous EFPs were then reviewed by a local group of farmers, knowledgeable in farm environmental issues. An independent consultant evaluated the program, as did farmers. The pilot project resulted in several suggestions for improvement, and concluded that:

Many relatively simple and inexpensive problem solving actions were identified during the EFP workshops;

The EFP project demonstrates the willingness and the ability of farm organizations to collectively confront and respond to environmental challenge; and

Seventy percent of the participating farmers surveyed said they had already taken action since the EFP workshop to reduce environmental risks on their farms.

Farmers involved in the pilot project were asked if they would recommend the EFP process to their neighbor, and 95 percent said they would. The first EFP farmer workshops were held in the spring 1993, and by September 1996, 7,500 farm families had taken part. The goal of the EFP program is to have 16,000 participants in the program by the year 2000.

Farmers have been involved in every stage of developing the EFP document. Farmers' input has been complemented by technical expertise provided by staff from: Ontario Ministries -- Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Environment and Energy (MOEE), Natural Resources (MNR); Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Environment Canada; the University of Guelph; and many other organizations. Great care has been taken to make sure the EFP is easy to understand and complete by hiring a "plain language writer."

Ontario farmers and the environment have benefited from EFP funding provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through Canada's Green Plan. The funding ($8.2 million) enabled the development and province-wide delivery of the first four years of the EFP program. An additional $5.6 million of CanAdapt funding will carry the process beyond the year 2000.

The Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) plays a vital role in delivering the EFP program in partnership with the OMAFRA, which provides technical advice and support. Local EFP Program Representatives organize workshops, and assist farmers to work together to find simple, practical solutions to environmental concerns. Peer Review Committees, made up of locally-appointed farmers, provide a critical review of the plans, and offer advice based on their collective experience and local conditions. The EFP program is a voluntary initiative, directed by Ontario farmers.

The goal of the EFP program is to assist farmers to develop a practical plan for operating their farm in a way that is environmentally responsible. Two workshops are held to help farmers complete an assessment of their farm and to assist them to develop an Action Plan. At the Introductory Workshop, farmers assess the soils on their farm and their ability to offset, or decrease, potential risks to the environment. This workshop prepares the participant to complete their Farm Review using the worksheets provided.

After the farmer has completed the review of the farm, they attend Workshop II to consider different solutions or alternatives for any potential problems that were identified. This workshop prepares the participant to develop an Action Plan. During this phase, the farmer must decide whether potential problems result from natural risks on the farm such as soil type or depth to the water table, or from the way the farmer manages the operation. They need to decide whether and when to solve the problems. Complementing the EFP process is a series of BMPs documents that represent state of the art knowledge on solving agriculture environmental problems.

In Ontario, government agencies recognize the educational benefits of voluntary, self-initiated environmental assessments and in no way wish to threaten this process. They have agreed that inspectors and enforcement officers will not request to see any of the assessment information or the Action Plan. Under the EFP program, the Farm Review and the Action Plan belong to the farmer so that there is no concern with confidentiality. A Peer Review Committee made up of local farmers is available to review on individual's Action Plan for additional comments. The Peer Review Committee doesn't know whose information that they are reviewing. Everything is tracked by a reference number instead of a producer's name. Once a producer's Action Plan has been reviewed and deemed appropriate by the Peer Review Committee, the producer can apply for up to $1,500 reimbursement to offset the demonstrated cost of improvements made to lower environmental risk. A recent survey found that the average farmer spent $3.00 for every dollar reimbursed, as well as 20 hours of their own labor to make the changes.

For additional information contact the following:

• Harold Rudy, Manager, Program Division, Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association at 519/826-4217

• Len Senyshyn, Manager, Environmental Sustainability, Resources and Planning, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs at 519/826-3559

• Gordon Surgeoner, Director, Plant Research Program, Ontario Agricultural College at 519/824-4120, ext. 3966

• Paul Verkley, Chair, Ontario Federation of Agriculture at 416/485-3333

Oregon

Federal and state initiatives, ranging from the CWA and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), to Wellhead Protection, and other laws, are the driving forces to new approaches to water quality protection in Oregon. These efforts culminated in the passage of Senate Bill 1010 in 1993, designating the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) as the lead agency for education and enforcement efforts relating to agricultural nonpoint source pollution affecting water quality.

Senate Bill 1010, approved by the 1993 State Legislature, requires the ODA to help reduce water pollution from agricultural sources and to improve overall conditions in a watershed. Senate Bill 1010 -- which was crafted with the input and support of the agriculture industry and the state Board of Agriculture -- will help the industry address water quality in key areas. In many areas of the state, nonpoint source pollution -- pollution from the general landscape that cannot be traced to a single point -- has been identified as a problem in many watersheds.

Under Senate Bill 1010, local farmers and ranchers are asked to deal with identified problems such as soil erosion, nutrient loss from fields, or degraded stream bank areas. The bill provides flexibility so that landowners in each watershed are able to develop their own approaches to local problems. Individual farmers and ranchers can develop and implement resource management plans specific to their operation as long as the results of the plan are meeting the watershed goals and objectives for water quality. Technical assistance is available from their local SWCD or other sources. Farmers and ranchers are allowed to choose their own ways of meeting established water quality goals. However, those who are asked to deal with a problem but continually refuse to do so could be assessed a civil penalty by the ODA. If a farmer or rancher does develop and implement a site-specific plan approved by ODA, then the plan establishes compliance and ODA takes on any potential environmental liability.

Senate Bill 505, passed in 1995, gives ODA the sole state responsibility for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution in agriculture. If there is already a point source (CAFO) then federal regulations are not protected by state liability and EPA can exercise its authority. There are 700 CAFOs in Oregon.

For additional information contact the following:

• Lorna Youngs, Administrator, Natural Resources Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture at 503/986-4200

• Bob Graham, State Conservationist, NRCS at 503/414-3201

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania "One Plan" concept started in June 1990 with the establishment of a coordinating committee -- an interagency, public-private team -- to provide leadership for coordinated planning at the state level. A "One Plan" MOU between state and federal agencies and agricultural organizations was signed in 1993. The goal of the "One Plan" concept was to provide coordination of various agency requirements, help farmers meet rules and regulations, and to provide one-stop shopping for farmers. The Pennsylvania "One Plan" is an effort to develop a single, coordinated natural resources management plan that is practical, profitable, protects natural resources and complies with government rules and regulations.

The original "One Plan" concept (1990) did not necessarily cover the whole farm and may or may not have included alternatives for solving all natural resource problems. Twenty three farmers participated in a pilot project in Lehigh, Northumberland, and York County. The project co-sponsors for the Pennsylvania's original "One Plan" concept pilot project from 1991 to 1993 included all three Conservation Districts and the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts.

Both the Lehigh County Conservation District and the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts are co-sponsors for the field implementation for the new "One Plan" concept (whole farm and total natural resources) pilot project centered in Lehigh County in eastern Pennsylvania. Under the new concept, the participating farmers included all their land (owned and rented) and reviewed alternatives to protect all of their natural resources. Many federal, state, and local agencies personnel and private consultants are participating in the pilot by planning at the local level. Most of these people have been working together since the 1991 "One Plan" project, and cooperation on the project has been excellent according to the project's summary report of accomplishments.

Thirteen farmers are participating in the new pilot project and represent a mixture of livestock, vegetable, and crop operations. All land operated by the farmers, owned and rented, is included in the pilot project where a progressive planning approach is being used to address farmers' priorities.

Half of the farmers in the project are part of a grain marketing club that was organized several years ago by the local Cooperative Extension. According to the summary report of the project:

Group planning has been an effective way to discuss common interests and needs with these farmers and to develop better ways to explain cropping options;

Group planning has also been an efficient way to work with farmers where plans have been developed on almost 8,000 acres of cropland representing about 15 percent of the county's cropland; and

Plans that make extensive use of colored maps to illustrate what and where conservation practices have been planned, a feature which greatly simplifies the process by using plans to visually see what needs to be done or to record planting plans, have increased acceptability.

A one-page "crop selection matrix" describing 90 percent of the crop rotation and cultural practice options that can be used on any given field has been developed and adds flexibility to the plans.

For additional information contact the following:

• Barry Frantz, Coordinator, Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts at 717/236-1006

• Lee Bentz, IPM Coordinator, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture at 717/772-5204

• Paul Sell, Leigh Conservation District at 610/391-9583

South Carolina

In October 1996, the Lancaster Conservation District (CD) and NRCS field staff reviewed guidance on locally-led conservation programs developed by NRCS, the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), and the National Association of State Conservation Agencies (NASCA). The members of the CD Board decided to host a informational meeting on locally-led conservation to obtain input from traditional and non-traditional partners for working within the framework of a locally-led program. The information that was gathered was to be used for both the locally-led initiative and for the revision of the CD Long Range Plan.

In November 1996, an invitation list was developed that included approximately 60 potential agencies, organizations, or groups to invite. The list was reviewed to select voting (33) and non-voting (eight) members to achieve a cohesive working group with the focus on locally-led conservation and to involve all stakeholders in natural resources while limiting the group to a manageable size. In addition to the CD and NRCS, the list included organizations such as the Cattleman's Association, the Catawba Nation, the Farm Bureau, the Forestry Landowner's Association, the Grassroots Committee, the Katawba Valley Land Trust, the Lancaster Fruit & Vegetable Growers, the Nature Conservancy, and the Wildlife Action; local government such as the County Administrator, the County Council, the Joint Planning Commissions, the Towns of Heath Springs and Kershaw; state agencies such as the Bureau of Water Pollution Control, the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) including divisions for Freshwater Fisheries, Game Management, Land Resources and Conservation Districts, and Wildlife, and the Forestry Commission; federal agencies such as CES, FSA; and individual farmers, realtors, and contractors.

The first meeting for voting and non-voting members was held on January 16, 1997, with 35 members attending. The purpose of the meeting was to assess resource concerns, identify areas of the county where concerns exist, rank the concerns and areas by priority. Resource information including water quality data from DHEC, soil erosion data from NRCS, hydrologic and landuse information from the county, and previous lists of concerns from the CD, NRCS, and FSA was presented. Of the 350,000 plus acres in the county 71 percent is woodland, 13 percent is pastureland, 11 percent is urban or other lands, four percent is cropland, and one percent is water. The cropland is used mainly for corn, soybeans, and small grains. The number of hogs in the county are decreasing while the number of poultry are increasing. There are approximately 30 poultry farms, with all but one, raising turkeys in the county. Most drinking water, including the town of Lancaster, comes from surface water sources (rivers) or shallow wells. Endangered and threatened species are mostly found on existing public lands.

Using a trained facilitator, the following list of primary concerns was developed to include:

Water quality planning on urbanizing private rural lands emphasizing sediment and erosion control;

Waste management (waste as fertilizer) on rural lands;

Urban planning for rural areas (conflicts urban vs rural);

"Right to farm" (zoning ordinances prohibiting farming);

Loss of farmland due to urbanization;

Proper use (from design through maintenance) of forestry roads;

Grazing lands management and forage species;

Loss of wildlife habitat, especially significant natural areas and endangered species habitat;

Integration of wildlife habitat management with other land use management;

Streamside protection for water quality;

Soil condition;

Incentives for land owners to manage timber and associated environmental concerns;

Loss of farmland (food supply may be affected);

Loss of soil as sediment; and

Waste management (air quality and forages that better utilize waste).

From the above concerns, the top two priorities identified were the management of grazing lands and forage species, and waste management as fertilizer on grazing lands including air quality and forages that better utilize waste.

On February 20, 1997, a meeting was held with only voting members invited. A revision of priority areas was made at this meeting. Information was presented on the conservation programs of the 1996 Farm Bill including EQIP, the Wetlands Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). In addition potential funding under, section 319 of the CWA, the RC&D program, NRCS's Land Treatment Watershed (LTW) program, the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP), the Forestry Stewardship and Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP), state forestry cost-share program, and FSA loans and guarantees was discussed. The focus of the meeting was to develop the roles and responsibilities of the members of the work group.

The third meeting was held on March 6, 1997, to focus on an application for EQIP funding. The purpose was to decide which of BMPs from the FOTG should be included for funding, set the cost-share percentage maximums, and explain resource management planning using the NRCS soil, water, air, plants, animals, plus humans (SWAPA+H) approach.

The fourth meeting was held on March 18, 1997, to determine who can apply for EQIP funds, what ranking criteria will be used for priority setting, develop an information/education program, and set up a technical committee to draft recommendations. The technical committee met on April 14, 1997, to select the BMPs for addressing the priority resource concerns and establish the individual application ranking criteria for EQIP funding.

Comments from both the CD District Supervisors and the NRCS staff indicated that this process has worked in Lancaster County and that the meetings have been cohesive, friendly, and that there has been an attitude of cooperation to identify and address natural resource concerns.

For additional information contact the following:

• Mark Berkland, State Conservationist, NRCS at 803/765-5681

• Ann Christie, District Conservationist, NRCS at 803/286-4455

• Dennis DeFrancesco, Soil Scientist, NRCS at 864/467-2775

Texas

Endangered Species Act, Safe Harbor -- To encourage the establishment or improvement of wildlife habitat for threatened or endangered species, three different approaches are being used in different areas of Texas to provide a "safe harbor" concept for farmers and ranchers for 99 years under the ESA.

The Gulf Coast Prairies Safe Harbor Program -- designed to increase the number of Attwater's Prairie Chicken -- was developed to complement the Native Gulf Coast Prairie Restoration Project in 19 counties along the Gulf area. The "safe harbor" concept is designed to protect private landowners who carry out beneficial range management practices from future regulatory obligations under the ESA should their efforts result in the presence of, or increased use by, threatened or endangered species on their lands. Participating landowners are responsible for maintaining any habitat occupied by threatened or endangered species at the time in which a management agreement is signed. This is known as the landowner's baseline responsibilities. Range management practices carried out by participating landowners that attract threatened or endangered species to neighboring lands will not result in added regulatory obligation on either the participating landowner, neighboring landowners, the landowner's heirs, or future owners of the land.

Participating landowners develop a resource management plan and establish a management agreement with local SWCDs to carry out range management practices with up to 50 percent cost-share. The participating landowners, as well as their heirs and/or future owners of the property, will receive a "Certificate of Inclusion" under a section 10(a) permit, issued by the FWS, that authorizes the removal, alteration or elimination of any range improvements that are carried out under the program. Thus, as long as a landowner carries out the agreed upon range management practices and maintains the baseline responsibilities, they may make any lawful use of the property, even if such use incidentally results in the loss of threatened or endangered species or their habitat. This program is carried out through the Sam Houston RC&D Area under a permit issued by the FWS.

The second area is in east Texas and is directed at the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) and other listed or rare species that are found in the Southern Yellow Pine ecosystem. This approach is different in that the resource management plans, cost-sharing, and the "Certification of Inclusion" are carried out by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TP&W) and Texas Forest Service under an agreement with the FWS. The "safe harbor" program provides an incentive for landowners to manage for the RCW by reducing future liability under the ESA. It encourages landowners to manage their timber to enhance habitat for RCW. It also allows a mechanism for removing RCW in demographically isolated groups.

The third project area -- still being discussed -- is in the Hill Country and involves the Golden-cheecked Warbler, Black-capped Vireo, Tobusch fishhook cactus, Texas snowbells, and other rare species that are found in the Edwards Plateau. In this proposal, baseline population figures will be based on current acres of habitat for each species on those properties covered under the "safe harbor" habitat conservation plan. The baseline data would be confidential since the Texas State Legislature has passed legislation ensuring confidentially of all data obtained by the TP&W on private lands. Conservation of rare species will be accomplished through implementation of wildlife management plans addressing game, nongame, and endangered species developed by the landowner with assistance from TP&W and/or NRCS biologists. TP&W would be the permittee under an agreement with the FWS.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program -- In the area of water quality protection, the State of Texas Agricultural/Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Management Plan (State Management Program) was prepared by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board in compliance with the CWA, section 319 (b), and state of Texas mandates. The Attorney General of Texas has certified that the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) has authority within the state to carry out the agricultural and silvicultural NPS management program, based on section 201.026 of the Texas Agriculture Code.

During the development of the Texas NPS management program, input was solicited from all agencies which will be involved with the management program including the identification of the BMPs. BMPs are those practices or combinations of practices which are reasonable and practical on a site-specific basis and represent available technology which is economically feasible to prevent or reduce to a level compatible with state water quality goals the amount of nonpoint source pollution generated by agricultural or silvicultural activities. The identification of applicable BMPs and site specific programs for water quality protection will be accomplished in cooperation with local soil and water conservation districts to ensure that BMPs reflect the latest applicable research information.

In 1993, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 503 which created a program that will provide agricultural and silvicultural producers an opportunity to comply with state water quality laws through traditional voluntary incentive-based programs. Agricultural and silvicultural producers now have the opportunity to develop and implement site-specific water quality management plans in cooperation with local soil and water conservation districts. Certified water quality management plans ensure farming or ranching operations are carried out in a manner consistent with state water quality goals. Approximately $2.5 million of $3.7 million is available each year for cost-sharing for implementation. The remaining funds are used for technical assistance for plan development and administration.

Local SWCDs provide the technical assistance to develop the plan through agreements with the NRCS or the SWCD Board. After being approved by the district, the developed plan requires TSSWCB certification. The steps to obtain a certified WQMP include the following:

Producer request planning assistance from the SWCDs;

Producer agrees to become a district cooperator if not already one;

Producer agrees to become involved in the planning process to select BMPs to suit economic and operational objectives;

Producer and the local SWCD approve the developed plan, which meets the FOTG; and

TSSWCB reviews and certifies the plan that it is consist with state water quality standards.

To remain in compliance with state water quality rules and regulations as well as to receive program benefits, a producer must implement the certified plan as specified and agreed to in its implementation schedule.

Source Water Protection Program -- The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has administered a wellhead protection program for over 12 years. In Texas more than 6,000 public water supplies rely on groundwater. The Texas Wellhead Protection Program (WPP) is designed to allow every community to take an active role in maintaining groundwater quality. The WPP concept is to minimize landuse restrictions while maximizing groundwater protection. To do this, the TNRCC delineates WPP areas to prevent groundwater contamination, making site-specific determinations.

To involve and teach communities in the protection of their drinking water supplies from potential contamination, Texas has started a Guarding Our Local Drinking water (GOLD) program. The GOLD program uses the TEX*A*Syst wellhead inventory bulletins provided by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service (TAEX) to complete a inventory of potential risks to groundwater contamination associated with private water wells. Texas GOLD also uses source water protection materials from the TNRCC to do inventories on municipal water wells. By bringing the private and municipal wellhead inventories together, a clearer picture of risks to groundwater contamination can be made, and a more comprehensive plan to reduce such ricks can be developed and implemented. Cities select volunteers, trained by TAEX and TNRCC, to do the surveys in cooperation with private well owners and city personnel to complete the inventories. The benefits of participating in the Texas GOLD program are:

Receiving a comprehensive site-specific source water protection report;

Ensuring a continued safe supply of drinking water;

Reducing the risk of costly cleanups associated with contamination;

Maintaining water quality to reduce municipal and industrial treatment costs;

Attracting potential families and businesses seeking to relocate;

Responding to emergencies;

Reducing the risk of accidental groundwater contamination; and

Building unity between cities and their rural neighbors.

County Level Easily Accessible Resource (CLEAR) Information Initiative -- Texas A&M University and the TP&W have been involved in developing new ways to deliver natural resource information to private citizens and other local decisionmakers. The CLEAR Information Initiative is being developed to meet the needs of resource managers at all levels including individuals and local, state, and federal agencies.

The last five years has seen an explosion of data available over the Internet. The availability of this data has been very useful to agencies and governments who have the ability to use the data in its raw format. However, the utility of these data sets is limited for private citizens and county level governments who cannot afford the equipment or to hire the expertise to use this data for natural resource planning. As a result, natural resource management decisions at the local level have to be made without the benefit of the most recent available data sets. In addition, lack of information available at the local level has led to the feeling that there is an unequal distribution of information for resource planning.

In response to this need, the CLEAR Information Initiative was developed to explore and implement alternative methods of information distribution through a public access medium. Currently, an interactive Java based interface is being developed to implement a computer based, public access interface that utilizes spatial and tabular data sets and provides basic GIS functions for real-time analysis on-line. The CLEAR interface acts directly with Internet browsers such as Netscape to provide an open-ended platform for user access. The interaction between the interface and the Internet precludes the need for installation of software (other than a commercial Internet browser) on-site. Access to the site will be public. Private users can access the site through their local service providers.

For additional information contact the following:

• Steve Arey, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, FWS at 713/286-8282

• John Campbell, RC&D Coordinator, NRCS at 281/388-1734

• Brad Cross, Source Water Protection Program, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission at 512/239-6020

• Amy Hays, Conservation Scientist, Texas Parks and Wildlife at 512/912-7011

• James Moore, Assistant Executive Director, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board at 817/773-2250

• Terry Rossignol, Refuge Manager, Attwater Prairie Chicken Refuge, FWS at 409/234-3021

Wisconsin

During the Midwest Region Whole Farm Planning workshop in November 1995, the Wisconsin attendees started thinking what they could do in Wisconsin to further promote the WFP concept. A six member core group representing the NRCS, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the University of Wisconsin Extension (UWEX), and the World Wildlife Fund met to discuss "where to next" in early 1996. During the meeting a list of planners and technical specialists was developed for potential membership on a Working Group. A letter was sent to individuals, agencies, and organizations requesting the appointment of the respective specialist to the Working Group. In addition to agency staff, the Working Group included individual farmers and agricultural commodity organizations staff.

The first meeting of the Working Group was led by an outside facilitator using the Total Quality Management (TQM) process on August 14, 1996. The Working Group met four times (all meetings were facilitated) in 1996 to lay the groundwork for an action plan to carry the WFP concept forward. The Working Group's vision for whole farm planning is to develop a planning process that best serves the farmers of Wisconsin so they may wisely manage on-farm resources to meet personal and community goals while maintaining or improving farm profitability.

The draft action plan was distributed to a large audience in preparation for a three-day, statewide meeting on the WFP concept . The Working Group recommended the following steps be considered by private and public sector representatives at the statewide meeting:

Initiate an interagency/private sector cross-training program in WFP;

Develop a pilot program to explore more fully some of the concepts discussed in the action plan;

Foster grassroots ownership of the WFP process through a grant program, similar to the Ontario's Environmental Farm Plan program funded by Environment Canada;

Improve public/private sector communication;

Improve communications with farmers by developing a quality information/education program; and

Develop baseline information on planning and resource use and a way to measure success of improved farm planning services.

The Working Group identified three major components to a successful farm planning effort -- process, content, and measures of success. Since planning is itself a process, the group identified important ways to conduct farm planning. The content of a plan covers the full-range of resources and types of information that need to be included in farm planning. Finally, measures of success at the farm level must be developed before service providers begin a new approach to farm planning.

The planning process needs to be flexible, dynamic, farmer-controlled and a tool for continual improvement that is responsive to change. The process needs to include one-on-one technical assistance which is personalized and includes the necessary follow-up. The planning process should recognize farmers for their efforts with WFP.

The plan content needs to be program-neutral, use a systems approach based on self-assessment of goals and resources, and clearly identify the benefits and incentives to motivate farmers to participate. The plan should also include a description of WFP, how to set short and long range goals, and list of technical resource organizations and people.

The measures of success for a WFP effort should include the number of farmers in thriving business meeting societal environmental goals; a high level of cooperation from service providers; the number of farmers and acres engaged in WFP; the improvement of local farm economics; the improvement of ground and surface water quality, forest, fish and wildlife resources; the ease of implementing new or revised programs to better meet farmer needs; baseline survey information on what constitutes optimum planning from the farm family perspective; on-going survey of farming practices used before and during farm planning; and baseline survey information on social and biological factors in WFP.

Farmers and service providers need state leadership from both the public and private sectors to improve farm planning programs. Leaders need to harmonize existing policies and regulations, as well as to create new policies that support WFP, to support service providers in their efforts to improve planning services, to facilitate communication between all stakeholders and define their roles, and to analyze and monitor the overall effort. Specifically the Working Group recommended that:

Public/private sector working groups further develop the concept and address program requirements;

More liaisons between agencies to foster communication and technical information exchange;

Cross compliance issues be addressed;

A commitment to funding efforts by made;

Open, frequent and improved communication between public/private sector organizations be conducted to discuss what is happening, what is expected, and what is available;

A series of pilot projects be established and monitored for statewide adoption;

Jointly developed materials are shared between organizations; and

New measures of employee and program success in addition to "tangibles" such as the number of plans written or the number of acres planned be developed.

A result of the statewide meeting was the establishment of a whole farm planning "listserve," sponsored by the Johnson Foundation. The listserve provides up-to-date information about whole farm planning to subscribers. In addition to receiving new information about whole farm planning, subscribers can respond to new developments, ask questions and receive messages from other subscribers. Topics being addressed on the listserve include:

The appointment of a statewide committee to oversee WFP activities;

Opportunities to pilot WFP in watersheds and counties;

Professional development opportunities on WFP;

Updates on WFP activities in other states; and

New planning tools.

The Standards Oversight Council (SOC) was established to ensure cooperation is developing and maintaining soil and water technical standards. Six organizations and agencies -- DATCP, DNR, NRCS, UWEX, the Wisconsin Association of Land Conservation Employees (WALCE), and the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association (WLWCA) -- are represented on the SOC. All of the members have accepted the FOTG as the standard. Any new or revised standards will go through the SOC for approval.

As a WFP pilot project, the Dane County Land Conservation Department (formerly soil and water conservation district) established a policy through the erosion control planning process of the T-By-2000 program that all technical assistance be delivered through a conservation plan. In assisting individual landowners, all the field office staff us the following categories of data: landowner goals, soils, land cover, wetland, and floodplain to develop the conservation plan to meet the producer/landowner's needs.

The Dane County Systems and Data Processing Department developed a data management system, Cooperator Tracking System (CTS) which is similar to FOCS. The CTS includes a fully automated soil survey on orthophoto maps, a GIS, and video slides of land use since 1979. The CTS is used to analyze data, develop WFP, provide progress reports, analyze workload, and aid in various program spot checks or follow-up.

Using this technology in the Lake Mendota Watershed, the Dane County Land Conservation Department and partners are working with private certified crop consultants to develop nutrient management plans for individual producers. In order for a producer to participate, they have to sign a consent form to have a nutrient management plan done for their farm. If a conservation plan was not available, the producer had to have one developed before participating in the project. The conservation plan is the key item in the nutrient management plan becomes a part of the original conservation plan. By previously doing whole farm planning, 28,600 acres of the potential 33,000 acres became automatically eligible for the project. Based on report provided by the crop consultants, participants realized a $30 per acre savings in the first year.

For additional information contact the following:

• Kevin Connors, County Conservationist, Dane County Land Conservation at 608/224-3731

• James Enlow, State Resource Conservationist, NRCS at 608/264-5341

• Pat Leavenworth, State Conservationist, NRCS at 608/264-5341

• Michelle Miller, Sustainable Agriculture Specialist, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin Extension at 608/262-7135

• Mary Rose Teves, Planning and Analysis Administrator, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection at 608/224-4604