Completed By: Eric Ness, Wildlife Ecologist
Organization and its farmland
~650 (32%) acres to be retired within 10 years.
Have some fencing at our grazing lease, otherwise we don’t have much infrastructure.
Not currently as the goal is still to restore the property.
No
Directly spent on management of restored acres.
Farmland management decision-making, staffing, and policies
Single person, currently assigned to the wildlife ecologist.
One
Farm Policy Attached.
I would describe it as being viewed as a side benefit of the program.
Relationship with Farmers and Conservation
The acres are set up on a 4 year lease cycle, sometimes that is shorter if a field is expected to retire. At the end of the lease cycle, the farm is sent out for bid, with the lease being awarded to the highest bid from a reputable farmer. The farmer signs a license agreement when they are awarded the lease.
18
No
Yes: Buffer strips, no fall tillage, required additional conservation plans by farm.
No
No.
Yes, if it does not go strongly against currently policy and the farm manager feels they can monitor the affects properly.
Currently 30 foot buffers around wetlands.
No
Nothing established, currently just meet when I can.
Monitoring and Information systems
GIS map and excel are the majority of data.
Soil testing and conservation plan review every 4 years.
Yes: 2.5-acre grid sampling, 4 years (when lease is up for renewal), farmer reimburses for payment, typically use the same lab (Conserv FS).
No.
Is somewhat reported via soil testing, nutrient management plan
No
No
No
Nothing outside of contracted testing (soil test and conservation plan).
Bigger Picture Questions
Can’t say I have been around enough to be proud of any programs. Overall I am getting to meet the farmers and let them show me what kind of strategies they prefer to operate under.
Staffing time to stay up on the conservation strategies and management. Fear of reduced lease dollars reducing the management budget. View the program may be unsupported by senior leadership and committee board as it may not fall into District’s goals. Lake County seems to have a small amount of local farmers which also causes a fear of upsetting the ones currently leasing our properties.
Push “no-brainer” conservation strategies, but not require – see how the farmers react to conversation. Would like to update policy (last updated in 2014) to disallow use of certain chemicals/seed coating.
Interviewed: January 25, 2023
Eric Ness, Wildlife Ecologist
Management Policy: The last update to the Lake County Forest Preserve District’s (LCFPD) was in 2014. That policy largely focuses on practices that should or should not (like fall tillage) be implemented on the LCFPD’s farmland. The LCFPD has a new Director of Natural Resources who may be looking more closely at the policy and may even seek to have it permissible for land where restoration has been attempted unsuccessfully to be put temporarily back into agriculture. There is recognition that the District can’t currently manage all of its natural areas as closely as it would like due to resource limits.
Revenue from the LCFPD’s ag land licenses and leases are allocated to natural area management activities. Maximizing revenue from the agriculture program boosts the ability of the LCFPD to restore and manage its natural areas. This minimizes the incentive for the LCFPD to restrict farming practice, to reduce license/lease rates in exchange for adopting conservation practices, or to allocate more staff time to farmland management.
Lake County Challenges: Less than 10 percent of Lake County remains in agriculture. This means there is a relatively small pool of farmers. In the most recent bid cycle, less than half of the seven leases bid out had two or more competitive bids. This is another factor behind the LCFPD’s caution about requiring high levels of conservation. There could be the possibility that no farmer would bid.
The LCFPD has only one grazing license, and while other farmers inquire about grazing, the farmer who currently has the license is the only farmer for whom the LCFPD would not have to create special access arrangements to make grazing work at the site.
On-Farm Conservation Practices: LCFPD collects some soil testing data each time the license for a farmland property is turned over to a new license. The soil testing is for macro- and micro-nutrients as well as contours, erosion, organic matter, and similar factors. Soil testing is carried out by the LCFPD’s soil testing contractor, which has been doing the testing following its standard procedures for many years. Soil testing data is not entered into any digital form by the LCFPD nor is longitudinal analyses done of trends in soil testing results. There is a lack of clarity on what constitutes “good soil health” and because of this there are no clear goals for establishing good soil health.
When farmland is transitioned to native habitat restoration, there is usually at least one year of fallow. To the LCFPD’s best knowledge, farm chemical residuals have not caused any troubles with restoration efforts.
District leases require following of NRCS conservation plans for each property, but getting updates of the conservation plans from the local NRCS office has been unsuccessful.
The LCFPD is currently teaming up with volunteers to try to use surveys to determine whether rusty patch bumblebees are present in some of the LCFPD’s highest quality areas. Doing the same thing similar for other types of insects through surveying of farm fields as well as natural areas.
The LCFPD has also been exploring an agroforestry project with the Savanna Institute.