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

Using farmOS
,
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