Agriculture 



**Rhode Island and Massachusetts should develop consistent monitoring programs to 

 measure practice effectiveness in terms of farm costs and benefits and site-specific water 

 quality improvement 



***Effective conservation plans should be developed for all farms within 

 critical areas. 



SPECIHC PROGRAM FINDINGS AND CONCERNS 



COST SHARE PROGRAMS FOR AGRICULTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT 

 PRACTICES 



Findings and Concerns 



ASCS/SCS cost share programs provide incentives for conservation practice 

 installation. The percentages differ among various practices, and depend on the type of 

 agreement reached between an operator and SCS. In the Aquidneck Island Watershed 

 Protection Project, for example, average federal shares per unit range from $25 for contour 

 farming to $2500 for installation of an animal waste management system. 



Even given the careful targeting of SCS efforts toward Aquidneck Island, via the 

 Aquidneck Island Watershed Protection Project, funding for agricultural non-point source 

 control is severely stretched. On the national level, program direction has been changed to 

 provide a state allocation which may be focused according to state priorities. 



ASCS and SCS have made a number of attempts to augment funding available for 

 agricultural conservation practices. In 1981, ASCS applial for allocation of $1.2 million m 

 Rural Clean Water Program funds for the East Bay Project, a major water protection effon, 

 and applied for $100,000 in Special Project Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) 

 funding for two project areas. The multi-faceted East Bay Project was ttimed down, but 

 $42,0(X) was awarded for Special Projects in Newport and Washington Counties, which 

 was spent primarily on soil erosion control. Three ACP Special Project requests were 

 made in 1982, for a total of $93,000, to undertake farmland projects in Kent and 

 Washington Counties and in the Scituate Reservoir watershed. $38,000 was awarded for 

 application to all three projects. 



When the Special Project Funds program ended in 1983, Rhode Island and 

 Massachusetts made an effort to obtain USDA Target Area designation and funding for the 

 entire basin. The Target Area proposal, again unsuccessful, would have made the area 

 eligible for supplemental conservation funds, totalling $225,000, to address the critical 

 needs of the basin. 



The lack of continuity in program direction at the national level has had negative impacts 

 in the Bay basin. Much staff time has been diverted from program responsibilities to 

 proposal preparation, and the credibility of the program as a whole has suffered, in spite of 

 the dedication of the technical staff within ASCS, SCS and the Conservation Districts. 



The cost share provisions themselves are complicated and have been subject to 

 fluctuation. The PL-566 share of the cost for enduring practices, such as terraces, are 

 equal to or less than those set for ongoing programs such as the ACP, or not more than 65 

 percent Cost share is limited to the amount which would apply with installation of the 



104 



