APB agenda 051904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

April 2004 farmland preservation report Federal program rules criticized Continued from page I classes of easement' =those that include federal provisions and those that do not," stated a discus- sion paper prepared by AFT. Some of the conflicting requirements are a rule restricting the amount of impervious surface con- structed on the farm, subdivision and new residential construction policy, commercial recreation, mining, amendment and boundary line adjustment policies, and the use of points -based appraisal systems. According to FRPP administrator Denise Coleman, her office has "negotiated those things. It depends on what it is. Usually we do try to handle situations on a one -on -one basis ... sometimes we step aside and sometimes we don't." NRCS mission vs. state program realities According to Coleman, the impervious surface restrictions arise from her agency's mission to protect soils. She said the rule was further necessi- tated by at least one grantee that sought to construct "a farm complex with residential dwellings." She said in a pre - meeting interview that her office had put out final waiver guidelines that would use a formula to allow a higher percentage of impervious surface the closer a parcel is to an urbanized area, up to six percent. While flexibility is often seen as good, Coleman said the proposal has "created some heartburn because [programs] don't want federal guidelines for some farms and state guidelines for others." According to Mike McGrath of Delaware, the problems of how the FRPP is administered may be rooted in language that indicates FRPP's mission is to protect soils. "No one who has been running these programs for the last 20 years thinks that's true." McGrath, who attended the Hartford meeting, said his department feels the FRPP would better serve state and local programs if it was administered as a cost -share program by the Farm Service Page 3 Agency through conservation districts. Administrators have been stating concerns about the impervious rule since it was initiated. Ohio program manager Howard Wise, who said he was not invited to the Hartford meeting, spoke about the rule at a USDA - sponsored conference in Baltimore in November 2003. "Our program is billed as one in which farmers can engage in any agricultural activity allowed by Ohio law, but that would change to any activity that doesn't take up more than two percent of the land," Wise said in an interview following the conference. Paperwork, extra tasks called burdensome Among chief concerns expressed by program administrators in Baltimore, according to Wise, "was that we need to know what the rules are before the game starts, not during the game and after." Some administrators say policy changes come about without a formal input process from state and local programs that have "extensive histories and accomplishments" and on. which the FRPP: "depend[s] heavily," the AFT paper stated. If changes are announced, the method is inconsistent. How easement language is reviewed and amendments approved were criticized as overly burdensome, and much of the paperwork required at closing was called costly and duplicative of state and local procedures. "As NRCS does not fund technical assistance provided by FRPP partners, the additional paperwork and documentation require- ments add to state and local expenses," the AFT discussion paper stated. Some said requiring annual monitoring was financially impractical and unnecessary and appraisal requirements were called burdensome. One recent rule change restricts land trusts from getting cash matching funds from landowners, and requires entities to certify their source of funds. But land trusts may get some relief for emergency acquisitions, with the program paying a portion of grants up front rather than all as a reimbursement. Coleman said after the meeting that many of the concerns discussed will be addressed. "Some things we will be able to tweak in the manual. Other things have to come from higher up." E