Evaluation of USDA’s

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)

Through Surveying a Random Sample of Owners of

Agricultural Land Whose Development Rights

Were Sold in Part through the FRPP

Dr. J. Dixon Esseks

Center for Great Plains Studies

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Executive Summary

The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) is protecting active farmland and helping farmers to reinvest in their agricultural enterprises consistent with the program’s design and purpose. These are just some of the significant findings from a 2005 survey study of the recipients of farm bill program funds conducted by Dick Esseks at the Center for Great Plains Studies of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) under the direction of American Farmland Trust. Between June and December 2005, UNL’s survey research arm, the Bureau of Sociological Research, interviewed a total of

422 owners of land whose development rights had been sold in part through the FRPP.

First established in the 1996 Farm Bill and then re-authorized in the Farm Security

and Rural Investment Act of 2002, FRPP is a voluntary federal conservation program

that provides matching funds to eligible state and local agencies to help buy permanent conservation easements on farm and ranch land. Through 2005, Congress and the President have allocated almost $292 million for FRPP contributions to these purchases, protecting over 300,000 acres of agricultural land in 42 states through 2003.

The US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) asked American Farmland Trust (AFT) to evaluate the FRPP through a survey of the owners of land under these easements. Working with NRCS and AFT, Dr. Esseks designed and implemented the first ever survey of FRPP easement holders designed to measure initial indicators of the effectiveness of FRPP.

With a reliable 73% response rate, the study found:

  • FRPP, working with its state and local partner agencies, has tended to attract landowners with characteristics appropriate to the program’s purposes as articulated in its Final Rule. In most cases, the owners indicated their land was vulnerable to development, located next to other parcels under easement, were owner-operators, and had at least $100,000 in gross sales. Although only eight percent of the owners surveyed were “second generation” (i.e. had either purchased or inherited the land with easements already in place) they were equally enthused about FRPP and mirrored the profile of the first generation owners.
  • FRPP-protected land tends to be in active production, to comprise substantial shares of significant-sized farming operations, and to be somewhat varied in the types of products grown on it.
  • The payments received for sale of development rights tended to be plowed back into the farm or ranch businesses.
  • Surveyed owners tended to report that agri-business services and marketing opportunities were adequate in the areas where their easement land was located. The most common constraint was access to labor.
  • Fifteen percent of the surveyed owners reported marketing products directly to local consumers. In this respect, our sample of owner-operators of easement land differs significantly from the generality of U.S. farm operators. The 2002 federal Census of Agriculture estimated that only five percent of farm operations directly market food to individual consumers for human consumption.
  • Almost all easement land (96 percent) was accessible to public view and, therefore, may have yielded scenic benefits.
  • Almost half (48 percent) of the surveyed owners reported non-family members enjoying recreation on their easement land. Hunting was most frequently mentioned (40 percent). The estimated average number of non-family persons enjoying recreation on the protected land in question was 29 in the previous year.
  • Surveyed owners reported considerable conservation activity on their easement land (83 percent). Conservation activities includedminimizing soil erosion (64 percent), improving wildlife habitat (37 percent), and minimizing water pollution (33 percent). Recipients of cost share assistance tended to apply practices to achieve more separate conservation objectives—an average of 2.8 compared to 2.1 among non-recipients. This difference was statistically significant.
  • We need to improve the scope and frequency of monitoring the easement land for compliance with the conditions of easement agreements. Only 38 percent of the total sample reported annual inspections, and 27 percent said that none had ever occurred to their knowledge. Lack of at least one inspection was associated with lower rates of owners reporting the application of practices to minimize soil erosion and to reduce overgrazing.
  • Surveyed owners were satisfied with their decisions to sell development rights. Sixty-nine percent answered “definitely yes” to whether they made the right decision. Among the other 31 percent, the most common regret was that they had accepted too little money for their development rights.
  • Based on their experiences, most farmers were willing to recommend that other owners sell their development rights.