Conservation Planner: Community Feedback Session (at next FarmOS Community Call!)

Using farmOS
,
1

Run through the the beta FarmOS Conservation Planner software, see a competitor analysis, business model analysis, and survey / market analysis. Please share, especially to farm planners, conservation planners, TAPs, etc.

Your feedback really helps!!

Conservation Planner: Community Feedback Session

Join on March 11, 2026 2 - 3pm EST (at the FarmOS Monthly call)

Call link: https://farmos.org/community/monthly-call/join

Walk through the FarmOS: Conservation Planner prototype developed by Mike Stenta with Erin Pearse and several CA RCDs, as well as a Market Feasibility Study, including competitor analysis, survey of TAPs and planners, and revenue models, conducted by Our Sci and Point Blue.

Our goal is to share the opportunity, get feedback/improvements on work done so far and brainstorm if and how the project could move forward.

Background

Point Blue, FarmOS, CalPoly Initiative for Climate Leadership and Resilience, Our Sci and the Upper Salinas-Las Tablas Resource Conservation District are designing a new, low cost, open-source software for Conservation Planning for both producers and planners. The software includes onboarding, conservation practice and resource planning, auto-generation of reports, report templating and will expand from there to monitoring, verification, additional planning activities, and beyond. We are in the prototype and discovery phase, collecting information about current software use and asking for your feedback. These tools are made to be used independently or alongside Conservation Desktop and similar existing software to create more efficient workflows. Most importantly, they are open source and designed by and for those who use them.

1 Like
farmOS Monthly Call, 11 March 2026
2

Another question that came to mind is what are the mapping/GIS expectations that those potential users have and how closely do they map (sorry for the pun) to what is already easy to provide with farmOS and this module? Did it highlight feature gaps in the mapping tooling (OpenLayers library) itself or in how it is integrated with farmOS?

2 Likes
3

Ok, for all who missed it here’s where you can access the notes from the call.

Native Transcript Link (otter): https://otter.ai/u/ie0R9f_bDUK-t50w-sTDreJz3mg?utm_source=copy_url

Exported Transcript (PDF, MP3, and Screenshots): Community Call 1: FarmOS Monthly - Nextcloud

Feedback (with specific suggestions and recommendations): I added this below, but it’s also here ( Community Call 1: FarmOS Monthly - Nextcloud ). This was AI generated but reviewed by me. If you see something wrong, let me know!

I’m really sorry I didn’t record my screen, that was a technical mistake :\

Thanks everyone who attended and provided feedback, that was really helpful and valuable. Just FYI our next steps are:

  1. Another feedback session with the Point Blue community
  2. Direct follow up interviews with a subset of stakeholders and users.
  3. Blog post summarizing results from the survey to FarmOS’s website.
  4. An interview with social investors / philanthropy to get feedback on what we’ve learned and potential revenue, cost, governance models.
  5. A final report-out.

Post any other questions here and we can continue the conversation.

Jennifer Byrne

1. Land use categories align with NRCS

Who: Jennifer Byrne
Type: Feature request / standards alignment
Feedback:

  • Noted that the land use categories in the current planner do not fully match NRCS land uses.

  • Mentioned the standard NRCS land use set: cropland, forest, range, pasture, farmstead, associated ag land.

  • Asked if the mismatch was intentional.

Next step (implied):

  • Review and, where appropriate, align land-use vocabularies with NRCS conventions, or:

    • Provide clear mapping between planner land-use terms and NRCS terms.

    • Document rationale if differences are intentional.

  • Likely action owner: Mike / module maintainers, with Jennifer as a key reviewer.

2. Mapping + practice geometry + data export

Who: Jennifer Byrne
Type: Feature request / clarification
Feedback:

  • Very interested in how mapping works:

    • Can you draw practices on the map, associate them with dates/years, and

    • Export shapefiles that can be used downstream?

  • Framed this in the context of compatibility with NRCS systems (CART / CRCD) and the need to “get money in farmers’ pockets.”

Next step (implied):

  • Clarify/document current capabilities:

    • What’s supported now for drawing practice polygons, associating them with time, and export formats (SHP/KML/GeoJSON)?

  • Identify and scope:

    • GIS export features needed to make downstream use in CART/Conservation Desktop as smooth as possible.

  • Consider this as a high‑priority GIS roadmap item; Jennifer is a good partner for defining NRCS-facing requirements.

3. Goal of integration with federal systems

Who: Jennifer Byrne
Type: Strategic / product‑direction question
Feedback:

  • Asked explicitly whether the ultimate goal is to have the system feed into NRCS systems (e.g., CD/CART), given that’s necessary to get federal dollars to farmers.

  • Pointed out that TSPs may not care about this integration as much because they don’t directly wrestle with CD/CART.

Next step (implied):

  • Clarify and document product strategy on:

    • How far the tool aims to go toward formal federal integration vs. being a generalized pre‑planning / shovel‑ready tool.

  • Use this to prioritize:

    • Export formats, data schemas, and reports that minimize re‑entry into NRCS tools even without formal system integrations.

4. Intake questions that support CSP / comprehensive plans

Who: Jennifer Byrne
Type: Feature request / workflow enhancement
Feedback:

  • Suggested that the intake questions should be improved/expanded so they better lead to successful CSP assessments and comprehensive conservation plans.

  • Essentially: intake should be more NRCS‑aligned and plan‑oriented, not just generic.

Next step (implied):

  • Collaborate with Jennifer (and other planners) to:

    • Review current intake form, identify gaps relative to CSP / comprehensive plan requirements.

    • Propose a “NRCS‑enhanced” intake configuration (possibly as a template/profile).

  • Potentially maintain multiple intake templates (generic vs. NRCS‑oriented).

5. State associations as primary partners

Who: Jennifer Byrne
Type: Strategic suggestion
Feedback:

  • Agreed that state conservation district associations are a good pathway for adoption and funding.

  • Noted NACD / federal level is “a beast,” implying state‑level is more tractable.

Next step (explicit/implied):

  • Continue exploring a state‑association–based model:

    • Work with CA, VT, others via their associations.

    • Use associations to coordinate needs, funding, and rollout.

  • Jennifer offered to loop association staff in, especially for Vermont.

6. TSP access under a state license

Who: Jennifer Byrne
Type: Concern / constraints on a proposed model
Feedback:

  • On the idea of statewide licensing and then giving TSPs access under that license:

    • Thought it might be a hard sell for state associations to pay for software for external TSPs.

  • Mentioned that districts can now be TSPs (by law; just now realized/confirmed), which may blur the lines between district staff and TSP roles.

Next step (implied):

  • If pursuing a statewide license model:

    • Design a clear access model and cost‑sharing story for TSPs.

    • Consider district-as-TSP as a key use case; maybe the main path is district staff acting as TSPs rather than separate external TSP access.

Michael Fernandez

1. Critical need: GIS export to CART/Conservation Desktop

Who: Michael Fernandez
Type: Strong requirement / workflow optimization
Feedback:

  • Has been doing planning on a third-party platform (Overyield) and exporting to NRCS systems.

  • Current pain:

    • Overyield exports only to KML.

    • He has to:

      1. Export KML from Overyield

      2. Import to QGIS

      3. Convert to SHP

      4. Zip SHP

      5. Send to NRCS planner to import into Conservation Desktop / CART

    • Doing this for ~26 projects took about a week.

  • Key requirement:

    • From FarmOS/Conservation Planner, he wants to export delineated areas/practices as SHP or KML, so:

      • Either he can easily send them, or

      • Better, an NRCS planner with access can download directly and import into CD/CART.

Next step (implied):

  • Prioritize:

    • Direct GIS export of:

      • Property boundaries

      • Practice polygons/lines/points

    • In SHP and/or KML, with appropriate attributes.

  • Consider user roles / sharing:

    • Ability to grant NRCS planners login-based access to download data themselves.

  • Measure this as a time‑savings KPI (“week down to hours”).

2. Central “aggregation hub” for designs

Who: Michael Fernandez
Type: Workflow pattern / product fit
Feedback:

  • Comfortable continuing to use specialized tools (like Overyield) for agroforestry design and niche tasks.

  • But wants FarmOS/Conservation Planner to serve as a central aggregation hub:

    • Where all planning data can be pulled together and exported.

  • Would likely still use other tools as long as:

    • FarmOS can import or at least accept delineations,

    • And then export them cleanly for NRCS workflows.

Next step (implied):

  • Explicitly design and document the “hub” role:

    • Clear data import/export stories.

    • Emphasize interoperability over trying to be the only tool in use.

Matthew (Speaker 1, technical assistance provider with PASA, Mid‑Atlantic)

1. Environmental concerns & external databases integration

Who: Matthew (PASA TAP)
Type: Feature request / integration need
Feedback:

  • Their workflow involves extensive work on special environmental concerns due to USDA funding (AMP).

  • They must fill CPA‑52 (environmental evaluation) and rely on multiple external tools:

    • IPaC, NEPA Assist, and others.

  • Pain point:

    • Time‑consuming to bounce between multiple systems and not have everything linked to:

      • The mapped practices and

      • The plan record.

Next step (implied):

  • Explore and prioritize environmental data integration such as:

    • API‑level or link‑based connections to IPaC, NEPA Assist, flood zones, migratory bird data, etc.

  • At minimum:

    • Provide fields and structured storage for these evaluations tied to land assets/practices.

  • Longer term:

    • Investigate automatic or semi‑automatic pull‑in of these layers when mapping a property.

Morgan

1. Caution about “doing everything” vs. doing it well

Who: Morgan
Type: Product strategy / risk observation
Feedback:

  • Noted the feature‑comparison table: no existing tool does all the things; implication is that Conservation Planner aims to.

  • Concern:

    • Acting as the “do-everything synthesis tool” is hard:

      • You must be as good or better than established tools across many dimensions (tracking, GIS, reporting, etc.).

  • Asked if this is really the plan and how it fits into the business model.

Response noted in meeting:

  • Dan pointed out that:

    • The feature list in the table was derived directly from the current demo; those features already exist in some form.

  • Greg highlighted:

    • The key differentiator is integration of:

      • Info tracking

      • Farm structure

      • GIS

    • Not necessarily outperforming every single specialized tool in isolation.

Next step (implied):

  • Be explicit in messaging and roadmap that:

    • The core value is integration + workflow, not perfection in each niche.

  • Use this to:

    • Avoid overscoping,

    • Prioritize depth in a few critical areas (e.g., GIS + tracking + reporting).

Pennsylvania Conservation Districts comment (same “Speaker 1” later)

Who: Speaker 1 (same TAP, referencing PA)
Type: Context / opportunity signal
Feedback:

  • Pennsylvania has a more stable state funding source via the Agriculture Conservation Assistance Program (ACAP).

  • This program appears stable and potentially expanding, creating:

    • A more predictable funding environment for conservation districts.

Next step (implied):

  • Consider Pennsylvania as a strategic early target:

    • Engage with PA’s state conservation district association around ACAP.

    • Position Conservation Planner as an infrastructure tool supporting ACAP‑funded work.

Group / General Strategic Feedback

1. Integration vs. independence from NRCS tools

Who: Multiple (Jennifer, Dan, Greg, Michael)
Type: Strategic design tension
Feedback themes:

  • Some respondents and practitioners say:

    • “I can’t use this unless NRCS says I can or it integrates with CART/CD.”

  • Others say:

    • “Don’t make it the same as CART” because they serve many funding sources and don’t want their whole workflow constrained by federal tools.

  • Dan added:

    • Many districts (e.g., Michigan example) move substantial non‑Equip funding, so NRCS channels are only part of the picture.

    • There’s strong demand for a “shovel‑ready projects” database that is upstream of NRCS submissions.

Next step (implied):

  • Define a clear positioning:

    • Upstream, generalized planning and tracking tool that:

      • Can feed NRCS processes (via export, reports),

      • But remains flexible for state/philanthropic/private funding streams.

  • Prioritize:

    • Export/report features and data schemas that make NRCS work easier without locking the system to it.

2. State conservation district associations as key partners

Who: Greg (proposal), supported by Jennifer and others
Type: Go‑to‑market / funding strategy
Feedback:

  • Proposed model:

    • Work state by state through conservation district associations:

      • They already aggregate dues and funding.

      • They can coordinate feature priorities and pilot implementations.

  • Jennifer agreed that state associations are more practical than trying to work at the NACD/national level.

Next step (explicit/implied):

  • Continue developing this model:

    • Identify 2–3 priority states (e.g., CA, VT, PA).

    • Propose pilot agreements with their associations.

  • Tie this into revenue model exploration (licensing, support contracts, or pooled development funds).

3. Follow‑up interviews and Miro board review

Who: Dan, Greg
Type: Process / next‑step requests
Feedback/asks:

  • Dan is:

    • Compiling funding model options and wants more in‑depth interviews with stakeholders.

  • Greg will:

    • Share a comment‑enabled Miro board with:

      • Survey results

      • Market analysis

      • Revenue model sketches

    • Invited stakeholders to review and comment.

Next step (explicit):

  • Dan: Continue scheduling 1:1 interviews with interested participants.

  • Greg: Share Miro link (done in meeting) and collect written feedback there.

1 Like