Do It Yourself

by Craig Rawlings
  Smallwood Enterprise Agent
  Montana Community Development Corporation
  craig@smallwoodnews.com

Do It Yourself: How one Conservation District self-funded a cost-share program — and then attracted outside funding.

Everybody loves cost-share programs. Landowners get paid to improve their land, and Conservation Districts can rest assured that improvements will be made by the people who know the land best.

But nobody likes the fact that federal cost-share programs are shrinking — or disappearing altogether. So how can you find funding these days?

Do it yourself.

That worked out well for the Missoula Conservation District (MCD), according to District Administrator Tara Comfort. The district’s innovative self-funding plan has not only made life easier for Tara and her clients, but also helped attract additional funds.

The story of the MCD’s move begins in the late 1990s, when its clients could still take advantage of the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), run by what is now the Farm Service Association. Participants liked being able to sign up for one-year “annual practice” contracts.

But when the ACP was discontinued in 1998, the MCD Board of Supervisors began to think about how to fill the need for short-term, on-the-ground help for individual landowners. Fortunately, the District’s 2000 budget had a surplus. So the board set aside $25,000 for the following year and assigned the money to a “District Cost-Share Program.” The supervisors committed to a five-year plan, stipulating that each year’s performance would be reviewed.

Every year since has been a success. And as it turns out, a substantial percentage of projects is forest-related: In 2006, nine out of 27 projects have been for fuels reduction or defensible space.

In addition to helping landowners, Missoula ’s District Cost-Share Program has a number of administrative and budgetary benefits. For starters, as Tara puts it, “It allows the District’s program to stay flexible, so we can change the scope of the projects from year to year, as needed.”

What’s more, the District has developed a reputation for deploying funds reliably. That in turn, has attracted funds from other agencies. For instance, in 2001, Montana ’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) received National Fire Plan grant money from the Forest Service; the DNRC then entrusted a chunk of the money to the MCD for forest thinning. Tara recalls that the extra funds “helped stretch our budget that year, so we could fund more of our applicants.” Conversely, the Missoula Conservation District sometimes refers its clients to other agencies, which also frees up MCD funds for clients.

Another advantage of self-funding is that the district isn’t tied to the “use it or lose it” mandate of Federal programs. That gives it the leeway to choose only quality projects; any unspent funds can be rolled over into the next year.

Not that unspent funds have been a problem. In fact, the Missoula Conservation District almost always receives more requests than it can fund. “As a result,” says Tara , “not everybody can get funded, or fully funded. But it helps to get projects started.” And the high demand is one more factor that allows the District to pick and choose good projects.

One of those projects was carried out by Robert Rennie. Mr. Rennie both owns and co-owns a total of 180 acres that sit next to Interstate 90 in Alberton , Montana . In 2002, the Missoula Conservation District awarded him $1500 in National Fire Plan grant money, which he spent mostly for supplies as he thinned the trees next to his house. Mr. Rennie, a retiree, cut about 6000 small trees from what he describes as a six-acre “dog-haired thicket.” However he considers all that work well worth it, since three years later a wildfire started alongside the interstate and burned to within 50 feet of his property . “I wasn’t worried about fire getting into the crowns,” he says, “because I’d taken the understory out — everything that would allow fire to ladder up.”

David Haviland is another satisfied MCD client. His family has a cabin near Seeley Lake in Montana , on 180 prime acres of ponds, meadows, Aspen groves, and hills. In 2001, the family’s main concern was the encroachment of parasites, namely Mistletoe and Pine Bark beetles. The following year, David removed lodgepole saplings from a 15-acre stand of larch and doug fir, using MCD cost-sharing money. Tara notes that “he did such a good job that we approved his project for the next year — and even the year after that!” The public land to the north and south of the Haviland property is overgrown with trees and lawsuits, but when it comes to his family’s trees, David is happier: “I feel they’re in really good shape now.”

Tara believes that the happiness of clients so far has a lot to do with fairness — in both rating and reimbursing applicants.

At the beginning of the process, she does on-site evaluations of all properties that qualify for consideration. (One more reason she likes the program: It gets her into the field more often.)

Tara then hands her evaluations to her Board, which has a subcommittee that scores each application on a 100-point rating system. “That way it’s objective,” explains Tara . “And we can avoid even the appearance of favoritism.” (However, some projects such as fuels reduction are worth more points than others.)

Landowners are reimbursed after the work is done, and after Tara verifies it. Payment is made for labor (either by the landowner or a contractor) and supplies, but not for equipment — or, as Tara puts it, “anything that can walk off the property or be sold.” The district pays for 75% of allowable expenses, up to a maximum of $5000. Tara acknowledges that the average one or two thousand dollar expenditure isn’t that much. “But,” she says, “it’s more like it primes the pump; it gets the landowners motivated, and they often wind up putting a lot more than their 25% minimum into the project.”

The program funds only on-the-ground projects within Missoula County . But it spans a number of categories, from improvements to streams and habitat, to erosion control, to uplands improvement (which includes fire protection and prevention).

Tara has received a number of calls from other Districts asking for information about the program. She says she’s happy to share the ratings criteria for the MCD’s 100-point system.

So what advice does she have for other administrators? “One thing is, when it comes to forestry, avoid burning projects; there’s just too many liability issues, and in Montana at least the window for burning is really short.” Also, reassure your clients that their woods will look fine within a few years, even if they might feel a little “naked” right after the cutting.

And if you want to get your board thinking about a self-funded cost-sharing program, Tara suggests making the case in economic terms. As she points out, “Most clients do their own work, so they do it well, and most don’t stop once they’ve spent their 25%, so the district’s money really goes farther.” Plus, once your district develops a reputation for deploying cost-sharing funds, you’re likely to attract even more from other agencies looking to spend their excess.

The MCD program is finishing its sixth successful year, and is now taking applications for 2007. Which brings to mind Tara ’s final piece of advice: Urge your applicants not to procrastinate. “Last year,” she explains with a smile, “I had three ranchers in my office in the last hour of the last day, filling out forms. One yelled at another to hand him the whiteout, and I just shouted, ‘Use a pencil!’”