| Mitigation of Farmland Loss |
 |
Mitigation of Farmland Loss
American Farmland Trust; Northampton, MA: American Farmland Trust; AFT Publication; page(s) 29; 2002; National/CA/IL/MA/PA/VT/WA; Reports and Studies
|
View Text
|
Abstract:
American Farmland Trust (AFT) conducted research to provide the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) with information about programs that practice mitigation of farmland loss across the country. This report contains a brief summary and evaluation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and case studies that describe the approaches and results
of mitigation efforts in some state and local programs.
Beginning with a short list of programs that were known to practice mitigation, AFT researchers reviewed existing file documents and searched for information in the Farmland Information Center (FIC) library. Additional state programs that had executive orders related to agricultural preservation, and agricultural preservation districts (or security areas) were also identified to determine if mitigation was required. Calls were made to the identified programs and to AFT regional offices to obtain up-to-date information, documents and specific examples where mitigation was practiced.
While the practice of mitigating farmland loss is not widely used, we found that it can be valuable as a tool for protecting specific farmland properties and as a source of funds for local or state farmland protection programs. A few states, such as Vermont and Massachusetts, have used mitigation very successfully. In California, the review process for development under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has the potential for increased use of mitigation. In other states, legislative authority is in place for mitigation through the use of executive orders and farmland preservation acts, but the practice of mitigation is very limited. A few county and local programs have successfully established mitigation efforts, while other local programs have only recently been established and are too new to have produced any results.
Programs that obtain full mitigation for the loss of farmland appear to be successful under certain conditions. Where a farmland protection program is in place, staff know the value of local conservation easements and can identify parcels of farmland with equal resource value for mitigation. State and local staff with a history of farmland protection have worked to convince
other state agencies of the need to require mitigation and to build on earlier efforts, improving the process of mitigation. There also must be a strong public perception that farmland is a valuable and diminishing land use. In small states like Vermont and Massachusetts, or in Washington’s rapidly growing King County, farmland loss has bolstered public and government
support for mitigation. Where existing Federal and state environmental review processes (CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and Vermont's Act 250) have been used, they appear to provide greater opportunities for mitigation.
Finally, when a climate of political support by state executive and legislative branches exists, as demonstrated by executive orders and other farmland protection regulations, mitigation efforts are more successful.
| |
