Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 081501COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: August 8, 2001 Re: August 15th Agenda Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled ford V':/1 X a' iii . c z .i , it i it r: r ,/ sir.► ipiriiiiiniuiepioiriiirrrrrcri® ioi® ioiri�rrPir wniriwr .►Ye►i�Yrrrirrriiirriuiri i af: ;r,�i�rii0irirr� i�ir i� . z<,r.�i ®iesisisri ice. PLEASE" NOTE THE ENCLOSED INVI Tai TION TO A SPECIAL RECEPTION A T 7:00 PM � THIS S�I1�lE" E'VE'NING j �r /,.►i.�i.�iririiir/ titre% p/®r rr r/. rrriiiririeiiswiri�uiriririririiiriiiruiiiiiiiiiriiiruiriririririririririririri® iririiiriri® i ®iriruiririri�rri.®irr�- rri.�i s, 1% Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2597) by Tuesday, August 14 if you will be unable to attend. Copies: Tina Moon, Preservation Planner Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager p EGFUVEF) U AUG q- I AGENDA Wednesday, August 15, 2001 PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC rrmimrmrmrsrmrmierimrmiarimimiarrmisimimrmimimimimimimimimrmrmrmrmrmrmrsimrmrmiiiiimimi. �imrm/ simimi® imrmimimimimimiiimim/ m/ mrmimis�imrmrmia-rm /oimimimimi� 7:00 SPECIAL RECEPTION - PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER LOBBY (please see enclosed invitation) l %!.,%✓/ f/ E>/ kY/.@ i✓/ iY /m /m /m /m /m / ® /m /m /m /m /m /m /m /k� %•%"%!.% r'+ �/!.%l,%L.-% E�/ m/®/m/m/ m/m/m/ mfm/ m/ m/ m/m/ m/ m/ m/ m/ m/m/ m/ m/m/ m/ m/ m/m/ L4'/ �/ �'/ �/ �"/ 6v /m /m /m /m /m /m /m /m /.II /m /m /m /m /A Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. Time Page AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:31 02 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 16 7:35 07 4. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Resolution of Appreciation — Nancy Goodwin b. Voluntary Agricultural District application (Schofield) 8:15 09 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Farmland GIS Mapping Project/Ag Priority Areas b. New Agricultural Economic Development Specialist Position c. Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan — 2002 -2003 8:55 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9:00 7. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD May 16, 2001 PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Elizabeth Walters, Nancy Goodwin, Bob Strayhorn, Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Noah Ranells, Louise Tate, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, ERCD Preservation Planner Tina Moon, Administrative Assistant Carol Melton. Guests present: Commissioner Barry Jacobs, Carl Walters. ABSENT: Rodney Recor and Charles Thompson ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Morrow called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, April 18, 2001 MOTION: Kleese motioned for approval of March 21 and April 18 minutes with noted corrections. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Farm Voluntary Agricultural District Application — Hunter M. Schofield Stancil introduced the Voluntary Agricultural District application for Hunter Schofield and asked Moon to go through the materials (see attachment) for the APB's consideration. There are three basic requirements for inclusion in a Voluntary Agricultural District: a completed application, qualifying farmland (based on State Statutes), and National Resources Conservation Services certification of suitable soils. Based on the tax supervisor's office, the Schofield property meets criteria for qualifying farmland but Mr. Schofield has not submitted an application to participate in the present use -value taxation program. Likewise, the property contains the appropriate amount of productive soils, but the applicant has not applied for a new farm number since purchasing the farm. The APB agreed that the new landowner should contact the Soil & Water office as well as Farm Service Agency office to ensure that all pertinent records are updated. Specifically the conservation farm plan should be updated to reflect the Schofield ownership, and current acreage and boundaries. The new owner will need to contact NRCS and FSA to revise the ownership documentation in both offices. The current plan shows a tobacco /small grain rotation, if any changes in land use or cropping system is to be made the conservation plan will need to be revised. Draft May 16, 2001 MOTION: Kleese motioned to table the recommendation pending the updated conservation plan and actual participation in the use value taxation program. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Seven yeas, one abstained. Other discussion included districts descriptions, new legislation interpretations, overlay maps, and a possible Lands legacy farm idea. b. Revised Voluntary Agricultural District application The APB reviewed the revised application and voiced concerns regarding the wording in the following passages of the Conservation Agreement section: "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of Commissioners, I agree to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district, support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." "I agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property by prohibiting non -farm residential use of the Property for a period of 10 years from the date of signing of this Agreement, except for the creation of not more than three (3) lots that meet applicable zoning and or subdivision regulations." Kleese suggested "I agree to support protection against nuisance suits ". Walters noted that the legislation says that being in an Ag District gives the owner some support or protection against nuisance suits. Stancil clarified that it meant the VAD owner would be supportive of the concept of protection from nuisance suits. Kleese suggested "I agree to sustain, promote, and encourage agriculture in the district and to abide by the requirements of the agricultural district." Members agreed that the specificity is too difficult and signature would be unadvisable with current language interpretations. The APB discussed the potential for different interpretations of the existing language as well as the lengthy verbiage of certain sections. The Broad felt that non -farm uses that are beneficial to farmers should not be excluded, and should perhaps be encouraged. Kleese suggested something like, "I agree to voluntary preserve and protect the beneficial value of the property being residential and other non -farm development or development that would have negative impact on participating farms." Morrow suggested the following "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, I agree to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district. The purpose of creation of a district is to support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." Ranells suggested "I agree by participating in the VAD, I understand that there will be public hearings on condemnation of farmland, record notice of proximity of farmland." Ranells also suggested itemizing in a couple bullets what the benefits of the rule are to get away from defining non -farm and making it cumbersome. Draft May 16, 2001 2 �t Morrow suggested "I agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the property by prohibiting substantial non -farm use that alters the agricultural character of the property for a period of ten years from the date of signing this agreement." Stancil suggested that the APB come up with a working list of what "substantial non -farm use is, without creating a new zoning ordinance. A selection of different wordings were discussed at length concluding with the following: MOTION: Kleese motioned to modify the application language: "If certified by the Agricultural Preservation Board and approved by the Board of Commissioners, I agree.to sustain, promote and encourage agriculture in the district. The purpose of creation of a district is to support protection against nuisance suits, undesired non -farm development and other negative impacts on participating farms." "I agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the property by prohibiting substantial non -farm use that alters the agricultural character of the property for a period of ten years from the date of signing this agreement, except for the creation of not more than three (3) residential lots that meet applicable zoning and or subdivision regulations." Seconded by Mandell. VOTE: Unanimous The APB agreed to forward to the County Attorney for review. ITEM #5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Follow -up from May 2nd Joint Meeting The APB discussed the May Joint Meeting with the Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission. Kleese suggested that having one -page handouts explaining what the different groups are doing and more inclusive discussion topics would benefit future joint meeting agendas. b. 2001 -2002 Adopted Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan Stancil noted that the BOCC has adopted the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02 and referenced the "Farmland Conservation Easement" on the Priority List (working with OWASA or the Soil and Water District to acquire a second farmland conservation easement in Cane Creek, Back Creek or Upper Eno watershed) as primary interest for the APB. The intention is to use funds from the Lands legacy Fund and apply for N.C. Farmland Preservation Trust Fund grant (if available) for remainder. In the fall we will be looking at identifying willing sellers and preparing grant submittal for the December 1St grant cycle. C. Upcoming Joint Meeting on Forestry (with Soil and Water Board and Commission for the Environment) Stancil noted that the joint meeting of the Soil and Water Board of Supervisors, Commission for the Environment and Agricultural Preservation Board to discuss the proposed cooperative forestry program is scheduled for August 13, 2001. Mandell asked for a copy of the proposed forestry program. Stancil promised to distribute prior to the joint meeting and explained that the proposed Draft May 16, 2001 3 legislation that came out of the forestry program did not make it out of committee at the legislature. What is envisioned for the joint meeting is that interested commissions including the Soil and Water Board, CFE, APB and possibly the forest service program folks will look at the proposed cooperative program and talk through some of the issues. Hopefully we can strike some balance between folks who are interested in making sure there is more notification in forest management plans and those who want to make sure that there is some understanding that forestry is a product as well as a commodity and resource. d. APB items for Fall 2001 Suggestions for looking at the VAD district requirements as well as the Lands Legacy Action Plan priorities. ITEM #6: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. "At Ease with An Easement" American Farmland article ITEM #6: ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Draft May 16, 2001 4 Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board RESOLUTION of APPRECIATION - Nancy Goodwin WHEREAS, Nancy Goodwin has served as a member of the Agricultural Preservation Board since May 1994, and WHEREAS, Nancy Goodwin gave many hours on a regular basis over these seven years to agricultural preservation issues, and provided invaluable expertise to the Board and the County, and WHEREAS, Nancy .Goodwin has been an exemplary member of the Board during her terms, which expired on June 30, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Agricultural Preservation Board adopts this resolution of appreciation for Nancy Goodwin and thanks her for her years of voluntary service. This, the 15th day of August, 2001. Whit Morrow, Chair Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board Carol Melton, assistant to the Board �ountp of rQ 4 y� IZ 52 x� Y� e ��fh eat N J W ORANGE COUNTY -ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM T0: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Date: October 7, 2001 Re: Lands Legacy Action Plan for 2002 -2003 Once again, it is time to begin the process of developing next year's Annual Action Plan for the Lands Legacy program. The plan will identify natural and cultural areas (including prime farmland) that the County will work on protecting by acquisition, conservation easements or other means during FY 2002 -03. Please review the process outlined below in anticipation of the September meeting when the CFE will begin to discuss ideas for what sites it might recommend including in next year's plan. Recommendations from the CFE should be finalized by its October meeting. August Staff begins work to identify possible projects, BOCC asked to provide initial guiding thoughts prior to advisory boards September Initial discussions by the Commission for the Environment (natural areas /wildlife habitat, riparian buffers, parklands), Agricultural Preservation Board (farmland), Historic Preservation Commission (cultural and archaeological), and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (parklands) October Staff works with each advisory board to finalize proposed projects for coming fiscal year. November Advisory boards approve recommended projects; staff develops into draft Annual Action Plan. December Draft Annual Action Plan submitted to BOCC as part of retreat materials. March -April BOCC reviews draft and revises as desired May Annual Action Plan adopted concurrent with CIP discussions 11 Fall 2001 Agricultural Preservation Board Priorities and Planned Items (in no order) • Identify and recommend Agricultural Priority Areas using new farmland maps, to be incorporated into Lands Legacy program • Develop recommendations on farm easements for Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2002 -2003 / recommendations on a second farmland conservation easement for 2001 -2002 • Conduct New Consensus for Farmland initiative (stakeholder meetings, discussion of farmers market, ag center and farmland preservation plan - using Lands Legacy) • Planning for 2002 Agricultural Summit • Recommendations on changes to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance (including potential changes to Voluntary Agricultural District guidelines) • Other 13 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS APB AGENDA August 15, 2001 14 15 fcLiLmland .0019ffift� -ervatioil_ F res H1 ff rev%ort Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space .r Since 1990 • Deborah Bowers, Editor ANNUAL NATIONAL SURVEY OF LOCAL PROGRAMS Sonoma, Berks, Lancaster gain most acres; top 12 named SANTA ROSA, CA — One of the nation's leading local land preservation efforts approved for purchase July 10 a conservation easement on one of the largest contiguous privately owned ranches in Northern California, valued at $12 million. The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District approved $6 million to pur- chase at bargain sale the 19,064 -acre ranch owned by the Cooley family for almost a century. Of the acres protected, 4,700 will be reserved for agricul- tural use, with the remainder protected under forever wild and natural area provisions. With the purchase, Sonoma logged an addi- tional 7,313 acres, the largest preserved acreage gain in the nation over last year's national survey conducted by Farmland Preservation Report Sonoma County encompasses over one million acres of hills, mountains and valleys and impor- tant agricultural lands including prosperous vineyards and wineries. Voters decided in 1990 to protect the county's striking landscapes and thriving agriculture by approving a one - quarter percent sales tax over 20 years. The result is a land preservation effort that is secured by an acquisi- tion plan and a current $49 million to implement it. It is the only such source of funding in the top 12 ranking. Sonoma's gain has shifted the ranking since last July, resulting in Carroll County moving downward from fourth to fifth place. Montgom- ery, Lancaster and Chester Counties retain their first, second and third spots respectively. Marin, Baltimore and Harford. Counties also retain the places they held last year as sixth, seventh and eighth in the I2 -slot ranking. Howard County, Md. But the program in Howard County, Md., first in the nation to use installment purchases, slipped from ninth place to •12th: while it spent part of the last year without an administrator to lead a pro- gram out of a four -year hiatus with $15 million in new bond money, Berks, York and Burlington Counties were busy with applicants who were ready, willing, and able to do preservation. Howard County hired Jeff Everett in early March and he has been busy reviewing and revamping the program to gear up for major promotion of conservation easements in a county with intense development pressure from both the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore regions. please turn to page 2 Volume 11, Number 9 July -Aug. 2001 inside this issue ... NATIONAL SURVEY CENTERFOLD ..................... p. 45 MALPF cancels Round 2 offers, seeks funds .............. p. 6 Michigan Rural Development Council gets boot .........p. 7 JobPostings ........................................ ............................... p. 8 Bowers Farmland Preservation Report is published 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $185 includes index and hotline service. Editorial and Publishing, Inc, circulation offices: 900 La Grange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 - (410) 692 -2708 - ISSN: 1050 -6373. © 2001 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or forwarding ol this material electronically without permission from the publisher is prohibited. � J 16 Page 2 farmland preservation report July - August 2001 Most counties retain rankings; some log impressive gains continued from page 1 To help boost participation the county raised its per -acre cost cap from $6600 to $7200, the result of an updated point system that awards credit for participating in the state's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). "We have revamped our point system valu- ation for our IPA program that includes points for implementing CREP and points for having equine and /or horticultural operations — recognizing the changing nature of ag operations in the county," Everett said. Montgomery County, Md. Montgomery County has placed first for acres preserved since Farmland Preservation Report conducted its first annual survey in 1995. Montgomery County's lead has always been due to its transfer of development rights program, which has protected to date 41,270 ac -res. in- recent years, the TDR program has "not been moving as well as we would like," said John Zawitoski, program administrator. "A task force is looking for ways to get it back on track." The county has protected 1,571 acres through Rural Legacy, 2,308 acres through the MALPF program and 6,268 acres through the county's local easement program. Another 2,086 acres are protected through donations to the Maryland Environmental Trust for a grand total of 53,530. Lancaster County, Pa. Ag output powerhouse Lancaster County retains second place with a level of activity and funding that earns high marks for commitment and ability, with the county program gaining 4,843 acres since July 2000, the third highest gain in the ranking following Sonoma and Berks Counties. Last year the program switched into high gear with a points -based easement valuation formula adopted in August and also began offering install- ment purchases, the first locality in Pennsylvania to do so. The $24 million represents commitment by local officials to wipe out a long- standing backlog of applicants. Other agricultural acres are protected by the Lancaster Farmland Trust. Chester County, Pa. Mushroom capital Chester County broke into FPR's national ranking in 1999 when the survey began allowing acres preserved by other entities in the count, as long as those acres were part of an agricultural parcel. The work of the Brandywine Conservancy made it happen for Chester, which entered the top 10 with some fanfare in local media. This year it handily retains its Number 3 position, with the Brandywine Conservancy adding 2,713 acres and Chester's ag program logging 3,600. Carroll County, Md. Carroll County is having its best state program year, despite the glitch in MALPF accounting. Trying to take care of a backlog of applications' from last year, Carroll County Commissioners put up $6 million to bring forward a record number of projects — 23 farms, seven to use MALPF funds and 16 to use county funds exclusively, according to program administrator Bill Powel. "The commissioners put up substantial money this year for MALPF easements with all county funding— the biggest year ever," Powel said. Six of the farms were picked up earlier through the county's Critical Farms Program, which fronts 75 percent of the cost of an easement until MALPF funds become available. With these purchases, Carroll County has 274 farms pre- served through the state program. In addition to 34,428 acres in the MALPF program, Carroll has settled or has under contract 20 Rural Legacy easements covering 1,963 acres. Marin County, Ca. The Marin program is one of the oldest in the nation, and operated by a land trust using state and private funds. The Marin Agricultural Land please continue to page 3 July - August 2001 1 farmland preservation report National survey, continued from page 2 Trust (MALT) has had its ups and downs in regards to funding, but is definitely on the up- swing lately, raising $9 million in a capital cam- paign over the last two years. The organization has preserved 30,338 acres with other agricultural acres protected by the Marin Open Space District. Baltimore County, Md. Baltimore County has experienced some ups and downs participating in the state farmland preservation program, with last year being its best and this year its worst, according to program administrator Wally Lippincott. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation usually approves a second round of offers in June, using funds remaining from unused first round offers. But due to accounting errors that caused a deficit this year, no second round was voted when the board -met last month. That left some counties, including Baltimore County, with unmet e pecLativii$ for -a LAbna..offers. Baltimore County prepared paperwork for eight farms, with three of those, comprising 389 acres, getting approval in this year's first round. Added to this is 1,697 farmland acres preserved through the state Rural Legacy Program, for a one -year progress report of 2,086 acres. According to program administrator Wally Lippincott, five farms comprising 568 acres, were in good form for Round Two, with discount ratios of above 50 percent and as high as 72 percent - an important factor for ranking in Round Two. But in the Rural Legacy Program, Baltimore County has fared well, receiving to date $19.6 million. That number includes this year's grant totals of $7.5 million for three designated Rural Legacy Areas. The county has five designated areas, four of which are sponsored by land trusts. The county has $7.3 million for the upcoming year, including new Rural Legacy grants. Harf ord County, Md. Installment purchase has been the modus operandi of the Harford program since 1993 when a local real estate transfer tax was enacted to pay Page 3 for.a substantial boost in protected acreage that led the nation for rate of activity for several years. The program is currently approving easement purchases at half the rate it approved them two years ago, and problems with the state program has also caused a crunch on activity, with several farms now threatened with pending development while waiting for state preservation dollars that never came, according to Bill Amoss, program administrator. This past year has been likely the least produc- tive of any year in the history of the program, with just 1,063 acres approved through the county and state ag programs, and 690 acres protected under Rural Legacy. Other acres are protected by land trusts. Burlington County, NJ Burlington County, like several others in the ranking, gets help in preservation efforts from The Pinelands Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) Program, which has gained'significant acreage in Burlington since last year, going from 6,243 acres to 9,622, and more coming quickly, according to John Ross, executive director. Susan Craft, director of the Burlington County Land Use Office, reports 16,926 acres preserved, up from 14,316 acres last July. Those acres com- bine 13,236 protected outside the Pinelands, 3,127 protected through county - purchased TDCs, and 563 acres protected through a transfer of develop- ment rights program begun in Lumberton Town- ship. Burlington County is using installment purchases with option for lump sum for proper- ties purchased after 1990. The county will also be helped by a new state effort to protect lands inside the Pinelands, using the state's first easement valuation formula. Be- cause of the Pinelands TDC program, land values there were too low to make the state farmland program attractive. With the formula, "they had a flood of applicants," from the Pinelands, Craft said. "That will greatly expand our acreage." please continue to page 6 is Page 4 July - August 2001 farmland preservation report Nation's Top 12 Local Farmland Preservation Programs Rank County Total Ag Ag program Other $ available for preserved program gain preserved ag ag program acres acres (since 8-00) acres` (In millions) 1 Montgomery (MD) 53,503 51,444 2,434 2,086 $6,5 2 Lancaster (PA)# 439701 35,481 4,843 8,220 $28 3 Chester (PA) 402701 14,300 3,600 26,401 $15 4 Sonoma (CA) 39,932 37,873 7,313 21059 $49 5 Carroll (MD)# 37,394 34,676 20156 2,718 $7 6 Marin (CA) 33,338 30,338 631 3,000 $9 7 Baltimore (MD) 312438 18,528 389 12,910 $7,3 8 Harford (MD)# 302976 27,843 1,157 3,133 $2 9 Burlington (NJ)# 262548 16,926 2,613 9,622 $4 10 York (PA) 242560 20,924 2,647 3,636 $3.47 11 Berks (PA) 23,913 21,221 5,676 2,692 $30 12 Howard (MD)# 23,065 19,665 1,577 3,400 $15 Table A # Counties using installment purchases " Includes land under easement through other entities or programs; lands are predominantly agricultural. In Maryland counties, figures may be actual acquisition cost per acre through the state program only. ®" USDA figure shows how many acres are In agricultural use countywide. sources: Interviews with county program administrators and land trusts, July 2001, and, USDA 1997 Census of Agriculture. FARMLAND PRESERVATION REPORT 7th ANNUAL SURVEY: PROGRESSIVE LOCAL PROGRAMS How localities qualify for the survey This survey looks at a locality's progress in farm- land preservation in terms of 1) Number of acres permanently preserved; 2) political leadership and administrative skill; and, 3) significant commitment of funds. While the ranking itself considers only number of acres preserved, to be included in the survey all localities must meet the other criteria. How counties are ranked The survey considers a locality's total farmland preservation effort, including the activities of other entities and programs, such as land trusts, and, Maryland's Rural Legacy Program, if preserved acres are agricultural land. For example, Baltimore County has five Rural Legacy Areas, but one of the areas is completely forested and preserved acres there are not counted. New in this year's survey This year Table B confines rankings to northeast- ern states and traditional purchase and transfer of development rights programs funded by state and local government. Also, Table A now shows ag program gains. July - August 2001 Market value, ag products (millions) Avg cost per acre" $28.5 $3,565 $ 766.7 $1,809 $342.8 $3,900 $463.6 $1,603 $71.2 $2,009 $53.8 n/a $51.1 $3,000 $38.8 $2,000 $87.5 $4,000 $128.6 $1,346 $247.7 n/a $19.6 n/a farmland preservation report Land in farms"" 77,266 391,836 175,363 570,804 160,180 149,663 75,795 94,112 103,667 261,164 221,511 39,846 Table B: Northeastern states local PDR/TDR ranking 1 Montgomery (MD) 51,444 2 Lancaster (PA) 35,481 3 Carroll (MD) 34,676 .4 Harford (MD) 27,843 5 Burlington (NJ) 26,548 6 Berks (PA) 21,221 7 York (PA) 20,924 8 Howard (MD) 19,665 9 Baltimore (MD) 18,528 10 Calvert (MD) 17,527 19 Page 5 Source of funds Ag real estate transfer tax; bonds; TDR State program; local appropriations State program; local bond issue Dedicated 1/4 percent local sales tax State program; local general fund Foundation challenge grant; private matches State program; bond funds; general fund State program; local real estate transfer tax Dedicated property tax State program; local match Bonds Zero coupon bonds; density exchange option Copyright Notice Bowers Publishing Inc. Reproduction of this table for use out- side of a subscriber's agency is prohib- ited. It should not be reproduced or transferred to another location or agency. If you have a request or questions: Call (410) 692 -2708 Or email us at bowerspub@hotmail.com r• Page 6 farmland preservation report New state- push in Pinelands will help Burlington effort continued from page 3 York County, Pa. York increased its preserved acreage by a notable 3,060 acres. The county put up $3.47 million to match state funds and the Farm and Natural Lands Trust has been at work protecting an addi- tional 413 acres over last year. York retains its Number 10 spot of last year. Berks County, Pa. Berks gets development pressure radiating out from Philadelphia and neighboring Montgomery County where farmland preservation is struggling for a foothold. Berks entered the ranking last year when the number of slots was expanded from 10 to 12, with full expectation it would climb up in the ranking - the county had just passed a $30 million bond issue for farmland preservation and the Berks County Agricultural Preserve Board was looking for a program technician. Expectations can be considered met: the ag program has logged 5,676 acres, the second largest gain in this year's ranking, after Sonoma. Maryland suspends Round Two, seeks funds for accounting -error deficit ANNAPOLIS, MD - In an attempt to correct a funding shortfall brought about by an accounting error, the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation ( MALPF) voted in June to suspend the program's normal Round Two offers. "We decided to reallocate our monies and not have a second round," said Doug Wilson, director of administrative services for the Maryland Depart- ment of Agriculture. "That will make up what we are short. Those with matching funds got hurt more July- August 2001 than others," he said. Wilson said the department will try to make offers to those who expected second round offers by using recently awarded federal grant money and money from the state's new Greenprint program. "That might mean we free up some of the county and state money," he said. Wilson said he was working with the Depart- ment of Natural Resources to use funds from the newly created Greenprint program, which, by amendment to the legislation that created it in April, will send 25 percent of its funds - $36.2 million over five years - to MALPF. The legislature approved $35 million for this year for the program, meaning $8.75 million is available to, MALPF immediately. The program will target forested lands. The Department of Natural Resources is cur- rently mapping areas that will qualify for Greenprint. Implemented by the Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service, the project will provide a list of MALPF applicants who could receive easement offers using Greenprint funding. The first funds "will go to those who have already applied, up to June 30, then to new applicants," Wilson said. There are 861 MALPF districts that contain some green infrastructure, comprising 117,458 acres, according to David'Burke, director of the Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service, an agency with a sizable GIS capability. Of those acres, Burke said 48,779 acres, or about 41 percent of agricultural lands enrolled as districts contain enough forest to qualify for easement purchase with Greenprint funding. While each county has at least some acreage that qualifies, Burke said qualifying acreage "is more heavily concentrated in parts of Southern Mary- land, Western Maryland, the Eastern Shore and the northern coastal plain. Where you have extreme agricultural concentrations, like in Carroll County, there is little forest." Burke said his office is working feverishly to get Greenprint operating to help MALPF with "its backlog from last year" and believes offers could be enabled within a few weeks. please continue to page 7 21 July- August 2001 Page 7 farmland preservation report Maryland program, from page 6 "We are negotiating with DNR and with the Greenprint program to make offers to those left out of Round Two," Wilson said. "If applicants accept Greenprint [criteria], then we can go ahead and do appraisals," for an "alternate Round Two," he said. Contact: Doug Wilson, 410 841 -5881; David Burke, 410 260-8775. Michigan Rural Development Council booted from state offices, funding terminated LANSING, MI - The Michigan legislature has cut funding for The Rural Development Council of Michigan (RDCM), the state's leading advocate for farmland preservation. Effective Oct. 1, the organi- zation must vacate its offices at the state Depart- ment of Agriculture, according to executive director David Skjaerlund. The Council will become a 501c -3 organization .and continue with private funding sources, Skjaer- lund said. Michigan Commissioner of Agriculture Dan Wyant said the state-is in a "budget crunch" and that the department "made a priority decision" that sent the Rural Development Council packing. "It's a huge loss to us, but Dave's leadership will be established somewhere else. His leadership and his passion will continue to benefit the state of Michigan." Wyant said the RDCM wasn't the only loss to his department, which, due to a projected $700 million shortfall in state revenue, lost over $3 million in funding, five percent of its budget. Food banks, conservation districts, food safety and other budgets were affected and some positions will be removed, he said. Skjaerlund said the move into nonprofit status will be an opportunity to become a political force in advocating adoption of legislation it pursued last year. "The board has a lot of passion and is very determined to be a voice for rural issues including farmland preservation." Skjaerlund said the RDCM, created in 1993, is not in financial straits as a result of the state fund- ing loss, which amounted to just $90,000. It recently received $119,000 from the Kellogg Foundation to "help local communities establish farmland preser- vation programs," and has a number of other grants in hand. The Council will continue sponsoring its Ulti- mate Farmland Preservation Tours to the Mid - Atlantic, with the next tour scheduled for Sept. 6 - 10: The Rural Development Council of Michigan is a collaborative effort of both public and private entities, and one of 35 state councils that comprise the National Rural Development Partnership, which receives federal funds. The Councils were created specifically to find innovative ways to improve rural life and industry. The Michigan council received $130,000 in federal funds this year. Land use is just one of the many diverse issues the Council's three - person staff tackles, but innova- tion in promoting farmland preservation has been a hallmark of the organization. Since 1999, the RDCM has conducted, twice yearly, the Ultimate Farmland Preservation Tour, with more than 650 people participating to date in the in- depth, five -clay tours. It sponsors a land use leadership training program, as well as a land use tour of the state, taking two days to visit communities that have progressed in their approaches to urban redevelopment, subur- ban development designs and farmland preserva- tion. The RDCM has been instrumental in develop- ing legislation to bring Michigan into line with the rest of the nation in its taxation of farmland with a solid proposal for agricultural use assessment. The organization sponsored the "Ultimate Land Use Conference" in Michigan last year, with more than 500 people attending. This year, the Council is sponsoring regional workshops to help localities set up local farmland programs, a vital activity due to underfunding of the state's farmland program, according to Skjaerlund. Contact. David Skjaerlund, 517 373 -4550. 22 Page 8 farmland preservation report professional resources ... Job Postings Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Agricultural Programs Director - The VHCB is seeking an experienced and motivated individual committed to Vermont agriculture to direct its Farmland Protection Programs. Review and evaluate applications to conserve farmland, help to develop farmland conservation policy, provide technical assistance, work with applicant organizations and state agencies. Strong communication and analytical skills and a background in agricul- ture or land use policies. Experience working with the farm community,�.non- profit organizations, municipalities and state agencies is important. Familiarity with acquisition of development rights programs and land trusts desired. Call (802) 828- 3250 for job description. Reply with cover letter and resume by Aug. 3 to Paul Hannan, VHCB, 149 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602. See www.vhcb.org. (posted 7- 12 -01). Tecumseh Land Trust (OH), Executive Director -We are an 11- year -old land trust working in Clark and Greene counties in west central Ohio. Resume deadline is July 31. For a job description and further information, please call Julia Cady (937) 767- 1586, Scott Fletcher (937) 767 -1274, or visit our Web site at www.greenlink.org / tecumseh. You may write us at PO Box 417, Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387. Our e- mail address is TL T OH a voyager.net. (posted 6115101) Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, Executive Director - Ten - year -old land trust with nine counties, 2,500 protected acres, 1,000 members, six staff, and enthu- siastic volunteers and board is seeking a committed executive director to lead us in our mission of protecting the diversity, stability, and beauty of southwest Michigan by preserving our natural and scenic lands. Position description at www.swmic.org. Compensation dependent of qualifications and experience. Send cover letter, resume, three references, and salary and benefits requirements to the Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, 6851 South Sprinkle Rd., Portage, MI 49002. Dead- line July 23. For other positions with land trusts, see the Land Trust Alliance Web Site at www.fta.org. Conferences & Workshops Sept. 5 - 7, Baltimore, MD: Protecting Farmland at the Fringe: Do Regulations Work? National conference sponsored by the Farm Foundation, the Northeast and Western Centers for Rural Development and the C. William Swank Program in Rural -Urban Policy of The Ohio State University. Topics include: Ag zoning - trends and future directions; controlling growth at the fringe; is rural open land zoning politically acceptable; right to farm- has it made a difference? Registration fee $125.Call 614 688 -4890 or visit http: / /aede.ag.osu.edU /programs /swank. Sept. 29 - Oct. 2, Baltimore, MD: Land Trust Rally 2001. More than 1600 land trust professionals, volunteers, attorneys and others expected for the annual conference, the largest for the land conservation field. Registration underway. Cost $300 for LTA sponsors by Aug. 6. See rally @lta.org or call 202 638 -4725. July - August 2001 Report Available Farmland Conversion: Perceptions and Realities, published by the Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, 8 pp, May 2001. For hard copy, email agissues @ucdavis.edu. Also online at aic.ucdavis.edu. It is unlawful to reproduce this publication and distribute it to other locations or agencies. If you have a special need, contact the publisher. Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! Can't find it on the web? Need a quick answer for an update or to lead a discussion? Call or email us. We're faster, friendlier and smarter than the web! T T kl,ow to Contact US,_ y4. Phone (410) 692 -2708 Fox -- (410) 692 -9741 -NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS - bowerspub@hotmail.com - Address Bowers Publishing Inc. 900 La Grange Rd. Street MD 21154 7` — f'(^ltc ,,,C• t � �hF _4' iY •'� � � 1_ r�l 7•!;� r, l .r �•j ,tt ��. p�. tz s rr k J: -�� it � y. �1. z -t '. .r v ! •>. .} t, B designating 81-acre tract as an easement, the Nutter family can be sure . it will not be developed 'By ROB SHAPARD chh @herald - sun.com; 732 -6397 HILLSBOROUGH — The owners of Maple View Farm have agreed to donate a conservation easement on about 81 wooded acres south of InsidC Dairyland Road.. All of Chatham The Nutter fami- ly's agreement with County farm is the Triangle Land putunder Conservancy conservation means that nearly easement half the farm's 400 agreement/ or so acres are now page 6 under easements, including the initial 107 acres for which the family donat- ed an easement to the conservancy in 1995. The agreement on the 81 acres was finalized June 27, said Kevin Brice, the conservancy's associate director. The easements mean the Nutters Maple View Farm owners Bob and Chris Nutter, pictured here on Saturday, have agreed to a conservation easement on about 81 acres of wooded land (background). or their heirs can never turn those 188 acres into a subdivision or other type of development. The family gets tax benefits, and it retains ownership and the right to continue uses like agriculture and harvesting timber. "I don't know what will happen to it in the future, but they'll never build houses on it," Bob Nutter said Friday about the 81 -acre tract. In the past-, the Nutters have sold some of their land for five -acre and 10 -acre home sites. But with. devel- opment pressure reaching from the towns toward the farm's rolling fields, the family also has resisted offers for larger -scale development. Chris Nutter remembers - one developer who approached her and her husband a few years ago. "He made the mistake of saying to us, `Wouldn't it be wonderful to sit here on your front porch and see all the beautiful houses?"' Nutter said. 'We looked at him rather blankly, I'm sure, and we said, `No, we, like what we see now' "It's really nice to sit here now and not see it change, except for the sea- sons. We want other people to see that, too." . please see LAND /PAGE 6 THE HFRAI RGI INURApa DAVIS Sunday July Y5, 2007 FROM PAGE ONE FROM PAGE 1 The desires to preserve open space and keep their land for farm uses, and to lower the estate taxes that will kick in when they die, have all been part of the Nutters' decision. Bob Nutter said that without the easements, he believes his heirs would have had no choice but to sell the land to cover the estate taxes. Easements lower the estate taxes because the land has been devalued, Brice said. Also, the value of such donated easements counts as a deduction from federal income taxes. That value can be calculated as the difference between the assessed value of the property in its current state and another assessment of the property as if it were fully developed. At the state -tax level, North Caroli- na has a program that gives landown- ers a tax credit of 25 percent of the donation's value. The credit is capped at $250,000 for an individual, and $500,000 for a corporation, Brice said. Brice described North Carolina's conservation tax- credit program as the most generous in the United States. But he also said the current state budget proposal calls for ending that program by 2003. He said Triangle Land Conservancy and other organizations are lobbying against that move. The Nutters have taken a phased approach to putting their land in con- servation easements, and they may do more easements in the future. But Bob Nutter also said that will depend on things like the future of North Car- olina's tax- credit program. "We just have to play it by ear as we go along, because [the government] keeps changing the rules all the time," he said. The Nutter property under ease- ments is partly connected to land near the Dairyland- Road- Dodsons Cross- roads intersection that owner Tim Tbben put under a conservation ease- ment last year. That land — about 143 acres — includes part of Pickards Mountain and is part of a 350 -acre tract that Tbben purchased in 1999. The 143 -acre portion is home to the THE CHAPEL HILL HERALD largest stand of chestnut oaks in Orange County, as well as the head- waters of Morgan Creek and a stretch of Cane Creek. Tbben made the easement agree- ment with the Raleigh -based Conser- vation Trust for North Carolina And nearby, Charles and Barbara Keith have donated a conservation easement to Triangle Land Conser- vancy on about 40 acres that are part of Pickard8 Mountain. The Keith fam- ily donated that easement in 1999 and may do more easements as well, Brice said. Toward Mebane, the Orange Coun- ty government reached its first agree- ment this spring for an easement, on about 70 acres on High Rock Road owned by the Walters family. As part of its Lands Legacy pro- gram, the county agreed to pay Victor Walters about $215,000 for the ease- ment, with a state grant covering half the cost. .flie i. u-1 leold PAGE 6 Sunday, July 15, 2001 Agreement will conserve estate of X20 acres near Siler City By ROB SHAPARD chh4herald- sun.com; 732 -6397 SILER CITY — All 320 acres of Ann Von Gruenigen's Chatham County'farm are under a conservation ease- ment, including her homestead, cattle pastures and forested land. Von Gruenigen donated the easement to the Triangle Land Conservancy in December, and the Chatham County Commissioners officially thanked her for that move Monday. The easement means Von Gruenigen essentially has agreed never to develop the property, which is about five miles south of Siler City. The Triangle Land Con- servancy holds the easement in perpetuity, but Von Gruenigen retains ownership of the property and she can continue uses like agriculture and cutting timber. 'T have always been bothered by development," Von Gruenigen said Friday. "I've been a conservationist since I was a child. I can't remember when I wasn't. "When I saw things developing around here, I became aware of the danger that this land is in," she said. Von Gruenigen, 67, grew.up in northern Ohio, but she was living in Raleigh when she bought the Chatham farm in 1974. She retired after teaching English, writing and public speaking at N.C. State University. "I'm not a city person," Von Gruenigen said. She raises beef cattle on part of the farm, known locally as the Johnson homestead, named after the fam- ily that moved there in the late 1800s, Von Gruenigen said. By donating the easement, she gets both state and fed- eral tax benefits. For starters, the overall value of the property is decreased, which is beneficial when estate taxes are fig- ured, said Kevin Brice, the TLC's associate director. In terms of income taxes, the value of the donated easement counts as a deduction at the federal level. That value is calculated as the difference between the assessed value of her farm as it is now and another assessment of the farm as if it were fully -developed, Von Gruenigen said. And for state taxes, North Carolina has a program that gives landowners a tax credit of 25 percent of the value of the donation. The credit is capped at $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a corporation, Brice said. Von Gruenigen said that, with Chatham County con- tinuing to grow, she hopes other landowners will set up easements. "If we could have pockets of conserved land, I think that in itself would be one of the biggest deter- rents to a developer," she said. "If you have 100 acres [of conserved land] here and a couple hundred acres there, it's just not going to look as inviting." 25 American Farmland Trust: Press release July 11, 2001 http: / /www. farmland. org /news_2001 /071101_survey.htm t3 k PRESS RELEASE 27 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Robyn Miller: (202) 331 -7300 ext. 3055 Betsy Garside: (202)331 -7300 ext. 3029 Voters Support Farm and Ranch Conservation Efforts National poll shows Americans value U.S. food and will pay to protect farmland Washington, DC, July 11, 2001— America's farms and ranches are important to the nation's voters, and not just for their locally grown food. A new poll released today shows that voters value farms and ranches for the conservation benefits they provide, such as cleaner air and water and wildlife habitat. And not only do voters want the federal government to support programs that secure those values, by linking conservation practices with farm payments, but voters are willing to pay to ensure conservation benefits from farms and ranches. The poll, a telephone survey of 1,024 registered voters nationwide, uncovered strong support for American agriculture, with 81 percent of voters saying they want their food to come from within the United States. Americans professed a close connection to farmers and ranchers, with 70 percent reporting that they have bought something directly from a farmer during the last year, such as at a farm stand or a farmers' market. Voter concern about farm environmental issues registers almost as high as for current "hot" political issues. For example, 71 percent are concerned about pesticide residues on food and 69 percent of American voters say they are concerned about loss of farmland to development, compared with more than 80 percent of voters concerned about public education and gas prices. Seventy -eight percent of the American electorate report they are aware of government income support programs for farmers. Voters strongly approve of these programs when they are used to correct low market prices or in cases of drought or flood damage. The addition of conservation conditions to farm supports, however, received overwhelming approval, as 75 percent of American voters feel income support to the American farmer should come with the stipulation that farmers are required to apply "one or more conservation practices," such as protecting wetlands or preventing water pollution. "We were struck by how many voters make the link between agriculture and conservation benefits," said Ralph Grossi, president of American Farmland Trust. "The public feels strongly about all the values they see in American agriculture; not only do they appreciate America's bounty on their tables, they also realize farms and ranches provide environmental benefits and they are willing to share the cost." Several programs exist to support conservation on farms and ranches, among them the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). For each of these programs, demand has far outstripped federal funding in 2001. For WRP alone, unmet requests from farmers totaled $568 million. This year FPP was only allocated $17.5 million in funding - leaving a gap of $90 million and hundreds of farmers waiting in line to protect their land. "As expected, when we asked voters about how they wanted to increase federal spending, they placed a high priority on addressing pressing needs like finding cures for cancer, educating our children and ensuring adequate energy supplies," said Grossi. "What we did not expect was the finding that a majority of voters -53 percent -feel increasing funds to keep productive farmland from being developed should be a national priority." And voters are willing to spend their own money to help farmers protect the environment. When asked whether they would like to get all or some of a possible $100 tax refund, 63 percent said they'd forego some of that money to protect waterways, wetlands or wildlife habitat. 1 _f') 07/19 /'7001 R•16 AM nerican Farmland Trust: Press release July 11, 2001 http://www.fannland.org/news_2001/071 10 1_survey.htm 28 "With such strong support for agricultural conservation, policymakers should triple conservation spending in the next farm bill," Grossi pointed out. "The programs are there, and they work. With $21 billion allocated annually to farm support payments by the budget agreement, half should be reserved for conservation programs. It's just a question of putting some financial muscle into making conservation happen." "Over the past 19 years I have repeatedly surveyed farmers and found them very willing to conserve natural resources. These new results strongly indicate that conservation- oriented farm programs will please not just farmers, but most voters," said Dr. J. Dixon Esseks, a political scientist from Northern Illinois University (NIU) who directed the poll. The telephone survey of N =1,024 registered voters nationwide was conducted June 2 through 21, 2001, with a margin of sampling error of +3.1% in 95 out of 100 cases. The poll, directed by Dr. Esseks, was conducted by the Public Opinion Research Laboratory of NIU. The Tarrance Group, Inc., a strategic research and polling firm in Alexandria, Virginia, provided consulting and analytical services. Funding for the poll was provided by The Joyce Foundation and the members of American Farmland Trust. American Farmland Trust is a private, nonprofit farmland conservation organization founded in 1980 to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. Its action- oriented programs include public education, technical assistance in policy development and demonstration farmland protection projects. For more information, visit AFT's home page at www.farmiand.org. 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202- 331 -7300 infoOfarmland.org 202 -659 -8339 (f) [ << AFT Home ) of') 07/12/2001 8:36 AM 201 N Union Street, Suite 410 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 684 -6688 (703) 836 -8256 FAX TO: AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FROM: BRIAN C. TRINGALI, THE TARRANCE GROUP TAMMI J. SMITH, THE TARRANCE GROUP J. DIXON ESSEKS, PHD. RE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM A NATIONWIDE SURVEY DATE: JULY 11, 2001 2� The Tarrance Group, Inc., and Professor Dixon Esseks of Northern Illinois University are pleased to present the following findings from this latest survey of registered voters across the country. American Farmland Trust commissioned Dr. Esseks to conduct a telephone survey of N =1,024 registered adults nationwide. A random sample of this type is likely to yield a margin of error of ±3.1 % in 95 out of 100 cases. Responses to the survey were gathered June 2 through June 21, 2001. The Tarrance Group provided consulting and analytical services. Seventy -eight percent (78 %) of American voters report they are aware of government income support programs for farmers. But what is even more striking is that 78% of voters approve of these payments to correct low market prices and 88% of voters approve of these payments in cases of drought or flood damage. Unlike some other government programs, American voters strongly approve of the current farm subsidy program. But there is a hitch, however, in that 75% of American voters think support to the American farmer should come with the requirement that farmers apply one or more conservation practices. American voters feel that these subsidy payments come with some responsibility on the part of farmers. That said, Americans want to keep food production and farms in the U.S. Eighty -one percent (81 %) of American voters want their food to come from within the United States. This high percentage shows the importance that voters place on this issue. Our conclusions are based primarily on the following findings from this latest survey of American voters nationwide: After measuring concern levels across a wide range of issues, Americans are nearly as concerned about their food and water sources as they are about education and gas prices. As the table below illustrates, more than 80% of voters are concerned about education and gas prices, but 71% of voters are concerned about pesticide residues on their vegetables and other foods. Nearly as many American voters say they are concerned about loss of farmland to development (69 %), unsafe meat (67 %), genetically modified food (64 %) and drinking water being contaminated by pesticides or livestock manure (63 %). Page 1 30 Voters in the Midwest and Mountain states regions are the most concerned about the loss of farmland due to development. And, overall, women are more concerned about this issue than men with forty -six percent (46 %) of women saying they are "very concerned" about this issue compared to thirty -five percent (3 5 %) of men. THE TARRAl` CE GROUP dine 2 21, 2001 N= 1,024 / t 3.1 % M.O.E A1r o -icall f ln7nland 7 isl Please tell me how concerned you are about each particular issue. Public schools educating children Gasoline prices Pesticide residue on agriculture Development of farmland Unsafe meat sold In stores Genetically modified foods Contaminated drinking water Famlly /friends laid off from work Nuclear missile attack U/O IV /O LV /O OU /O 4U /O JV /O OW/0 /U /O OU /O 7V /O IUU /O Concerned ❑ Not concerned • Eighth) -one percent (81%) of American voters want their food to come from within the United States. Furthermore, a majority (52 %) want their food to come from their own state. These statistics help explain pressures on the food industry to label products for their country of origin. • Sixty percent (60 %) of American voters "sometimes" or "frequently" read labels before buying products. Another 44% of voters say that they have bought products that are grown organically within the last year. Seventy percent (70 %) of voters report that they have bought something directly from a farmer during the last year. Fifty -four percent (54 %) report that they have bought from a farmers' market and 40% report that they have bought from a stand. These are high figures, reflecting a strong undercurrent in the American marketplace. Voters in the Northeast, South, and West regions are the most likely to purchase food directly from a farmer, such as at a farm stand or farmers' market. Rural area voters and voters between the ages of 35 and 64 are also more likely to purchase food directly. • Seventy -eight percent (78%) of the American electorate is aware of the income support program to our nation's farmers. Awareness is strongest among voters in the Mountain States and Central Plains regions. Page 2 F/irh 29% 29% 32% <:7 34% 37% 42% 54% U/O IV /O LV /O OU /O 4U /O JV /O OW/0 /U /O OU /O 7V /O IUU /O Concerned ❑ Not concerned • Eighth) -one percent (81%) of American voters want their food to come from within the United States. Furthermore, a majority (52 %) want their food to come from their own state. These statistics help explain pressures on the food industry to label products for their country of origin. • Sixty percent (60 %) of American voters "sometimes" or "frequently" read labels before buying products. Another 44% of voters say that they have bought products that are grown organically within the last year. Seventy percent (70 %) of voters report that they have bought something directly from a farmer during the last year. Fifty -four percent (54 %) report that they have bought from a farmers' market and 40% report that they have bought from a stand. These are high figures, reflecting a strong undercurrent in the American marketplace. Voters in the Northeast, South, and West regions are the most likely to purchase food directly from a farmer, such as at a farm stand or farmers' market. Rural area voters and voters between the ages of 35 and 64 are also more likely to purchase food directly. • Seventy -eight percent (78%) of the American electorate is aware of the income support program to our nation's farmers. Awareness is strongest among voters in the Mountain States and Central Plains regions. Page 2 What is truly striking is the level of support for this program. Seventy -eight percent (78 %) of voters approve of payments to farmers that are made as an adjustment to low market prices. Another 88% of voters approve of payments to farmers that are made as a result of drought or flood. • Two - thirds (66 %) of the American electorate believes that farm subsidies should be extended to new farmers as well, even if it would result in lower payments to those already in the system. Only 23% of voters believe the subsidy should go only to farmers already in the system. Voters in the Central Plains and South Central regions are more likely to say the program should be extended to new farmers, while voters in the South are less likely to feel as strongly on the issue. • But American voters feel that these subsidy payments also come with some responsibility on the part of farmers. Seventy -five percent (75 %) of American voters think that these payments should require farmers to practice conservation. Also, voters strongly support requiring farmers who participate to be involved in water pollution prevention (66% approve), wetlands protection (62% approve) and wildlife habitat protection (55% approve). THE TARRA l . ' O Lrl P_ - .Lne 2 —21, 2001 N= 1,0241 t 3.1% M.O.E ;`�lll!'I'1f1 /IIf�tl»r� <crr�I Iitrst Thinking about federal payments to help farmers stay in business, some people believe that, in exchange for payments, farmers should apply some conservation practices. Other people prefer that the payments be given without conservation conditions. Which do you prefer? Page 3 31 32 • After educating children and finding an effective treatment for cancer, voters were particularly interested in spending additional federal dollars on using corn or other crops as a source of fuel. Sixty -nine percent (69 %) of voters would like more federal spending to go toward finding an economic way of producing fuel from corn or other crops. Also, a majority of voters (53 %) would like to spend more federal dollars to keep farmland from being developed. These voters are more likely to be women and people who are unmarried. Voters in the Midwest region, persons ages 35 to 49 and voters who have children living in the home are also more likely to say more money should be spent on protecting farmland from development. TH' E T.A R .- �:, E C: R! � U � � L-ro .Lne 2 —21, 2001 N= 1,024 / t 3.1 °/a M O.E �`i71IPl /6't111 I *rrpy /�lrra�rl li first Please tell me whether you favor spending more, less, or about the same amount of money on each federal spending purpose. Effectively educate children In public schools Effective treatment for cancer Find economical ways to use corn or other crops as fuel Stop development of productive farmland Farmers minimize use of chemicals Help farmers store /dispose of manure Protect wetlands on farms Effective military defense Good wildlife habitats on farms 0% 10% 207. 30% 407. 50% 6076 70% 80% 90 76100% CMore ❑ Less ■About the same • Research has indicated for some time that voters view clean drinking water as a personal safety issue. Fifty -nine percent (59 %) of American voters surveyed for this study were willing to pay additional taxes to keep our drinking water safe from agricultural pollutants. Those most likely to feel this way include voters in the Midwest region, voters ages 50 to 64, urban area residents and unmarried voters. Page 4 33 Sh�w'i� Julv- August 2001 A monthly newsletter promoting awareness, understanding and practice of sustainable agriculture North Carolina Cooperative Extension College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Chatham County Center North Carolina Cooperative Extension College of Agriculture and Life Sciences 45 South Street Post Office Box 279 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Telephone: 919.542.8202 Fax: 919.542.8246 ME . D^.:Y:t � ;pieh.� ]�'S'i Yom. . . ,•�11VV+� 0 :''�._�• =ti ''i • r Inside This Issue Cut Flower Workshop........ 1 Fall- Planted Cut Flowers.... 2 Need Gleaners ? ............... 3 Fall Classes at CCCC.......:. 4 Breed Savers ................... 7 Ox Training Workshop...... 13 Reform the Farm Bill ?...... 14 Calendar ...................... 16 We hope you find this news- letter helpful and informative. If you have ideas or sugges- tions for future issues, call or stop by the office. I always welcome your feedback! Debbie Roos Agricultural Extension Agent 919 -542 -8202 debbie—roos@ncsu.edu Cut Flower Production Workshops The Chatham County Center of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service will kick off its monthly Enhancing Sustainability Series with two workshops on cut flower production in August and September. Many of you have requested help with cut flower production, and these workshops are in response to this need. On Monday, August 13, Dr. John Dole from North Carolina State Univer- sity will talk about Cultivar Selection and Species and Techniques for Season -long Harvesting of Field Cuts. Dr. Dole teaches and conducts re- search on specialty cut flower production, water and mineral nutrition man- agement, Dutch bulbs, and poinsettia production. He coordinates the Asso- ciation of Specialty Cut Flower Growers National Seed Trial and Perennial Trial and is the Executive Advisor for the Association of Specialty Cut Flower Growers. He is co- author of the floriculture textbook Floriculture Principles and Species. Pre - register for this workshop by August 9. A second workshop on Monday, September 10, will focus on Insect Pests and Troubleshooting Problems in Cut Flower Production. I will present the talk on insects, and Dr. Brian Whipker, NCSU Extension Floriculture Specialist, will show slides and discuss some common problems and how to manage them. A panel of local, successful cut flower growers will present an overview of their operation and answer questions. Pre - register for this workshop by September 6. Both workshops will be from 7:00 -9:00 p.m. in the auditorium of the Agri- cultural Building in Pittsboro. Advance registration is requested. A $15 reg- istration fee is required to cover printing and material costs, and includes attendance at both workshops. Please register early by calling 919 -542- 8202. Mail your check for $15 payable to Chatham County Cooperative Ex- tension and mail to Debbie Roos, PO Box 279, Pittsboro, NC, 27312. Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Af,, rt , rn,,nlinn .State A & T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating. 3 1t PIaw S;1zWCf u0, Fall- Planted Cut Flowers Many flower species require a period of cold weather before they can bloom, so fall planting is recommended for best results next year. The plants need enough time (usually 5 -6 weeks before the first frost date) to develop a good root system and be- come well - established before the weather turns cold, which means the time is fast - approaching to start planting these cool - season flowers. You may want to stagger fall planting dates Page 2 for some species in order to extend the har- vest season next spring. And just because you plant in the fall doesn't mean you can't follow -up with another spring planting -- but don't expect the same quality as the fall - planted flowers. It's always good to experi- ment with planting dates to try and extend your harvest. Betsy Hitt, Peregrine Farm's flower grower extraordinaire, graciously shared her list of fall - planted annuals and biennials. Consult Table 1 below for species and suggested planting dates for our area. Table 1: Fall Planting of Cool- Season Annuals and Biennials* Flower Planting Date Method of Establishment (seed or transplant) Bachelor's Buttons (Centaurea cyanus) Sept. 15 S Sweet William (Dianthus barbatus) Sept. 15 T Sweet Rocket (Hesperis matronalis) Sept. 15 S or T Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) Sept. 15 T Lupine (Lupinus) Sept. 15 T Beardtongue (Penstemon) Sept. 15 T Gloriosa Daisy (Rudbeckia hirta) Sept. 15 T Larkspur (Consolida ambigua) Oct. 1 - Nov. 1 S Snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus) Oct. 1 T Delphinium Oct. 1 T Love -in -a -Mist (Nigella damascena) Oct. 1 - Nov. 1 S Corn Cockle (Agrostemma githago) Oct. 1 S Coreopsis Oct. 1 S Bupleurum griffithii Oct. 1 S Pincushion Flower (Scabiosa spp.) Oct. 1 S or T * a few species are perennials grown as annuals here in the south Plow ShZWCY .g, Other cool- season flowers are less hardy and do well when planted in late winter, around February 1. These include baby's breath (Gypsophilia paniculata), false queen anne's lace (Ammi majus), pot- marigold (Calendula), stock (Matthiola incana), bell- flower (Campanula spp.), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), and sweet pea (Lathyrus) . The following perennials benefit from being planted in the fall: yarrow (Achillea spp.), monkshood (Aconitum spp.), ornamental on- ion (Allium spp.), poppy anemone (Anemone coronaria), butterfly weed (Asclepias tube - rosa), aster (Aster spp.), false goat's beard (Astilbe x arendsii), globe thistle (Echinops bannaticus), sea holly (Eryngium spp.), blazing star (Liatris spp.), lily (Lilium hy- brids), cardinal flower (Lobelia spp.), gooseneck loosestrife (Lysimachia clethroides), garden phlox (Phlox panicu- lata), obedient plant (Phystostegia virgin - iana), balloonflower (Platycodon grandiflo- rus) , and meadow -rue (Thali ctrum spp .) . Spring- flowering bulbs such as iris and daf- fodils should be planted around November 1 in this area. A shot of P (e.g., bone meal, rock phos- phate) and K (e.g., greensand, Sul- Po -Mag) at the time of planting will help plants get rooted quickly. Don't provide extra nitrogen in the fall because you don't want to stimu- late top growth which is susceptible to win- ter injury. Don't overwater in the fall for the same reason: you want enough to en- courage root growth but not so much that the plant grows lush. Be vigilant about monitoring for insect pests, because these new plants need all the leaf area they can get to help promote root growth! Page 3 Need Gleaners? What is Gleaning? Gleaning is a traditional Biblical concept that puts people into fields and orchards to pick fruits and vegetables that remain after harvest. Approximately 25 % of all food produced for human con- sumption is lost annually in the US, enough to feed 49 million people. Because it might be unmarketable or not worth picking, pro- duce is usually plowed under or left to rot, although it is perfectly edible and nutritious. Who are Gleaners? The Society of St. An- drew (SoSA), a hunger relief organization based in Virgina, began the Gleaning Net- work program in 1988. SoSA operates a North Carolina program out of their Dur- ham office. SoSA organizes volunteers from churches, clubs, schools, and other groups (as well as individuals) to glean at farms across the state. Where Does the Food Go? SoSA donates the gleaned produce to assistance agencies that distribute it through their network of so- cial service programs. Within 24 -48 hours of picking, the produce is usually being eaten by hungry people. Important Information About Gleaning: • Growers are not held liable if anything happens to a gleaner while in -the field. House Bill 1335 passed by the General As- sembly of North Carolina in 1991 says growers permitting gleaning are exempt from civil liability. All gleaners are also re- 35 36 Plow SbZW[ 1e quired to sign a liability waiver before working. - Growers can receive a 10% tax credit for the crops they permit to be gleaned. The General Assembly of North Carolina passed this tax credit in 1984. At the beginning of the year, the SoSA will send notification concerning the type, amount, and value of a grower's donations over the previous year. - A trained field supervisor is on hand for every gleaning event. This person is in charge of the gleaners and makes certain that the grower's instructions on where to park and what to glean are followed, as well as making sure that the land on which the event is taking place is respected. If you are interested in having gleaners come to your farm, contact the Society of St. Andrew at their toll -free produce recov- ery line: 1- 877 - 783 -3011. Other contact information: Email: sosanc@endhunger. org Address: SoSA, PO Box 25081 Durham, NC 27702 Fall Classes in the Sustainable Farming Program at CCCC Comparative Study of Sustainable Farm- ing Systems: Visits to local farms will form the basis for this course. Students will have the opportunity to participate in planned group activities on different farms. Individ- ual farmers will share the particulars of their farming operation with the visiting students. The students will work with the lead instruc- tor to synthesize a comparison of local farm- Page 4 ing systems. Recommended for interns, those ready to begin their own farm busi- ness and anyone interested in the details of local farming operations. Emphasis will be on vegetable production, but tours will also include fruits, cut flowers, herbs and livestock. Offered Mondays, 1:00 -5:00 PM, 9/10/01 to 11/12/01; Doug .Jones, in- structor. Greenhouse Construction: This hands -on class will cover the construction of green- houses and cold frames. Students will as- sist in the design and installation of a solar greenhouse at the Sustainable Farming program's Land Lab. The goal is to de- velop the skills for making intelligent deci- sions for your farm operation's needs. Of- fered Mondays, 2:00 -6:00 PM, 9/10/01 to 11/26/01; Bill Dow, instructor. Organic Vegetable Production: This course will cover the planning, installation and maintenance of an organic fall vegeta- ble garden. Consisting of class and field time, students will gain hands on experi- ence in producing vegetables for local markets. Instruction on season extension and winter cover crops will also be in- cluded. Offered Mondays, 6:00 -9:00 PM, 9/10/01 to 12/10/01; Tony Kleese and Doug Jones, instructors. Plant Identification for Southern Land- scapes: This class will focus on the funda- mentals of plant identification using the Carolina Certified Plantsman list as a basis for selection. Classroom instruction and field trips to local nurseries, gardens, and arboretums will provide students with a variety of learning opportunities. The goal is to provide the students with the informa- PLOW Sharing' tion, skills, and resources to make good de- cisions when selecting plants for southern landscapes. Care and maintenance of plants as well as natural controls for disease and pests will be covered. Recommended for those interested in working in the landscape or nursery business. Offered Mondays, 6:00 -9:00 PM, 9 /10/01 to 11/26/01; Doris Huneycutt, instructor. Formulating a Business Plan: Rural En- trepreneurship through Action Learning (R.E.A.L.): This established entrepreneu- rial and small business skills course will give students the management, accounting and business planning skills necessary to im- plement a sound agricultural business plan. It is designed to assist farmers who want to start a new farm operation, or to develop products or services to expand an existing enterprise. Offered Mondays, 6:00 -9:00 PM, 9/10/01 to 12/17/01; Karen Watts, in- structor. Wild Edible and Medicinal Plants - Field Study: The focus of this field study will be locating, identifying, approaching, collect- ing and using your own edible and medici- nal plants. Frequent field trips to local areas for identification and sustainable harvest of native plants are planned as part of the learning experience. Learn how to explore herb habitats and communities, and discover ways to open up to this healing, nurturing, and renewing force. Most of the class will take place outdoors, so come dressed ac- cordingly. Students should bring a notebook suitable for use outdoors. Offered Tuesdays, 3:00 -6:00 PM, 10/9/01 to 12/11/01; Will Endres, instructor. Page 5 Wild Edible and Medicinal Plants: Herb- alist and Wild Crafter Will Endres shares his more than twenty -five years of experi- ence in the gathering and preparation of wild herbs for personal use and sale. Learn how to wisely integrate plants into your daily life. This is an interactive course where you will be given the opportunity to ask all of your herbal questions. The preparation of herbs for use by drying, and by making fluid extracts will be covered. This course complements the Field Study class, but neither is a pre- requisite. Of- fered Tuesdays, 7:00 -9:00 PM, 10/9/01 to 12/11/01; Will Endres, instructor. Plant Propagation for Market Garden and Nursery: Topics in this class will in- clude tools and techniques for propagation by seed, division and cuttings as well as grafting and budding. Seasonally appropri- ate propagation will be demonstrated; other topics will include producing a marketable product, an overview of the nursery industry and seed saving tech- niques. Instruction will combine the talents of local experts to give students a basic un- derstanding and hands -on experience in propagating plants for market. Offered Tuesdays, 3:00 -6:00 PM, 9 /11 /01 to 11/27/01; Robin Kohanowich and Andy Upshaw, instructors. Biological Soil and Pest Management: The foundation of sustainable agriculture is the building and maintaining of healthy soil, plant and insect biological cycles. This class covers the properties of differ- ent soil types, soil testing and amendments necessary to maintaining a biologically ac- tive and healthy soil. It also discusses inte- grated pest management, including biologi- 37 • MW Plow SI'XW&nq' cal, cultural and least toxic chemical control for weeds, disease and insect management. The class will include hands -on insect iden- tification in the field. Offered Tuesdays, 7:00 -9:30 PM, 9/11/01 to 12/11/01; Joel Gruver, instructor. Ecopsychology: A new course that will ex- plore the psychological issues and research dealing with humans and their relationship to their environment, and provides a forum for exploring pathways to change. This course is appropriate for anyone who hopes to make a difference in human quality of life issues. Offered Tuesdays, 7:00 -9:30 PM, 9/11/01 to 11/27/01; Toni Goodyear, in- structor. Agricultural Mechanics: From simple hand tools to internal combustion engines, stu- dents will learn bow to use and maintain . farm tools and machinery. Class will in- clude hands on training in small engine di- agnostics and repair. Farm tractors and im- plements will be discussed and demon- strated. Offered Wednesdays, 3:00 -6:00 PM, 9/5/01 to 12/05/01; Hulbert Mundy, instructor. Marketing Farm Products: This course will instruct students in market theory and practice and introduce various marketing strategies such as agrotourism, selling to lo- cal farmers markets and direct to consumer. Students will learn how to evaluate markets and contact buyers at the wholesale level as well as determine the market venues that fit their personality and farm profile. Offered Wednesdays, 7:00 -9:00 PM, 9/12/01 to 11/28/01; Robin Kohanowich, instructor. Page 6 Permaculture Design: Students learn and apply a landscape design process to Per- maculture on a project site of their choos- ing. Successful completion of Permaculture Fundamentals is required before taking this class. A certificate in Permaculture Design is awarded to students who successfully complete both courses. Offered Wednes- days, 6:00 -9:00 PM, 9/12/01 to 11/21/01 (2 afternoon field trips are planned). Water for Farm, Home and Village: The class will cover on -site methods for obtain- ing drinking water, irrigation water, and fil- tering wastewater. Topics covered include rainwater harvesting, water purifying, pond building, irrigation, aquaculture, well drill- ing, greywater treatment, water pumping and spring protection. Class will take place at Sustenance Farm in Bear Creek. Offered Thursdays, .2:00 -6:00 PM, 9/6/01 to 10/25/01; Harvey Harman, instructor. Basic Farm Construction: Students will re- ceive hands -on instruction in farm construc- tion skills from tool safety and use to plan- ning and implementing a farm building pro- ject. Topics covered will include basic de- sign, masonry, wiring, framing, and plumb- ing. Elements of greenhouse and small farm buildings will be included. Offered Thurs- days, 3:00 -6:00 PM, 9/20/01 to 12/13/01; Kevin Meehan, instructor. Cut Flower Production: A look at the busi- ness of growing and marketing quality cut flowers. This course will cover such topics as site and seed selection, growing flowers that maintain their quality, marketing strate- gies and bouquet design. Offered Plow sha cng Thursdays, 7:00 -9:00 PM, 9/13/01 to 12/5/01; Leah Cook, instructor. Basic House Construction: This class will review the North Carolina building codes, the permit process, and the building inspec- tion schedules. Students will study tech- niques of foundation work, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and heating and air - conditioning. The final segment will look at building design with an emphasis on low impact, passive solar and ecological construction methods. Offered Thursdays, 7:00 -9:00 PM, 9/20/01 to 12/13/01; Kevin Meehan, instructor. To register call 919 -542 -6495 ext. 223; for more information call Robin at 919 -542 -6495 ext. 229 Who Will Be The Breed Savers? Preserving Farm Diversity to Secure Our Future by Donald E. Bixby, DVM Executive Director, American Livestock Breeds Conservancy The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy is the leading force for breed conservation in the United States. The organization was established in 1977 by a group of agricultural historians who recog- nized that farm animals that were part of the traditional regional cultures were disappear- ing. These historians banded together with farmers and animal scientists to form what was originally called the American Minor Breeds Conservancy. In 1986, Rare Breeds Canada was formed to focus on Canadian breeds, but since the border is relatively Page 7 open to livestock, the organizations col- laborate on the breeds held in common be- tween the two countries. While the organization was initiated as an effort to save rare breeds, breed conserva- tion is no longer an issue of historical nos- talgia, but an issue of food security. Con- servation of a full spectrum of breeds is how biodiversity is preserved in farm ani- mals. A breed expresses the characteristics of an identifiable genetic package. It is therefore important to conserve the genetic integrity of a wide range of breeds to safe- guard the full spectrum of biodiversity in the livestock species. Breeds are the ge- netic resource most easily studied, used and conserved. Domestic Plant and Animal Conserva- tion Similarities Conserves world biodiversity for present and future uses: • changes in agriculture • consumer preferences * new uses • genetically based diseases Genetically complex traits conserved: * local climatic adaptation * self - sufficiency * hardiness * disease resistance * reproductive efficiency * serve human cultural needs • Breeding and selection requires skill. • Domestic plants and animals must remain useful to survive. • Diversity is threatened by agricultural industrialization, the quest for uniformity, and the loss of control of genetic resources by farmers. 39 I0 Plow sha.+ cr-T Page 8 Table 2: Differences in Conservation of Domestic Animals and Plants Animal Conservation Domestic animals have become dependant on humans for survival. Plant Conservation Many plants don't require human activity to survive. Conservation best done with live animals and active use. but can belenually effective with dormant Ga active use q e.g. seeds. Genetic material remains viable only under controlled Fertile seeds can be stored for a year or more and retain conditions and can be easily lost. excellent viability (that's how they were created!) Transport of genetic material is expensive whether fro- Transport of genetic material is easy and inexpensive. zen semen or embryos or as live animals. The risk of loss is significant. Collection of genetic material for long -term storage re- quires highly trained technical experts. Storage of genetic material is expensive and requires specialized facilities. Collection of genetic material can easily be learned and done with little technical expertise. Storage of genetic material is easy and inexpensive. Requires land, some facilities and zoning appropriate for Only a limited amount of land is required - can be done livestock and poultry. in containers. No additional facilities or special zoning is required. Livestock have long reproductive cycles with few off- spring. Poultry have short reproductive cycles with many offspring. Loss of individual animals can have a huge impact on the genetic breadth in the breed. Feral animals are often exterminated. Short reproductive cycle with many fertile seeds. Loss of individual plants or seeds has a limited impact on the genetic breadth in the breed. Feral plants are not often exterminated. Most species have no wild relatives for genetic diversity I Feral plants are not often exterminated. What is a Breed? - Defining breed is important to the conserva- tion issue. A breed is a population of ani- mals that share common characteristics that distinguish them from other populations within the same species. When mated to- gether, members of a breed consistently re- produce this same set of characteristics. Breeds are created over a long period of time, and will have a history that docu- ments this creation. Crossing breeds inter- rupts this history of consistency in the off spring and alters the genetic integrity of CHATHAM COUNTY CENTER NORTH CAROLINA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Enhancing Sustainabilin, Seyries, Specialty 'uY Flower qft Froductl'on Vorkshop"s M Advance registration is requested R.,vr.4 r.y_�xe.,_ r �xA tom' yq�a Ott r�3q,L.•.u, s�;•. �,fa �� � 3� have enough ;..T6"tr'`Iv4i5�a<'te�3l`�� Ai3 L��'.'7flKtri e1��. Ez?,iY.i•Q - - • Cost is $15 to attend both workshops to cover notebooks ' . is for handouts �� ��� -...� .. _ . - �' :�� • , .. ,.��.��,���• and printing cos , } -�P ..mow• e 7fTr}�- ,{f�'L �G more information or - ^y r � lei• contact: A panel Of local successful cut flower Debbie Roos growers will discuss experiences t • • • edu c '_aq•9:r�,.ta��pi'�`; ���+ _ins �'�'r ?:r"'ti1i�`i'rz�F�t+s ''!'- -- - - i�� .s.. der _ �.� }�.t!_. y __ -n a - -�;_ �.p -�. -- - -- -_-,y - - - - - Yt 3 Tomj.� ., f• :a'%.. M!,,� µi, , �: =f � *' "ro�pj a i� vim+ �eLL_s . ?; ii'�+'r �r h,•$:t. },1,rt4:ii 'af.%' . ; g 7 �? +�., , l;L 6r ,r7[�• .a_ •frt JR i.• t �t . .0"•it- .ffi'`�i `:, • �! 7 ....}•L ,a ,�< .tyt.iJ�!! t nCC TP� -f, 4'. .3 •ii". .e i �. (�. r' �'�' � �a, n+< r.� 7 cL�'i .lr�•a�s�' �!i_. s +7 l 'Y p '�.+; K� .t ��: Sf�M�'4.B °x��•���.l�t�"S3(�C R��.�.!N d'�jK c�.�t;.'�-••`... •k Chatham County Center NC Cooperative Extension 45 South Street P. O. Box 279 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Phone: 919 - 542 -8202 Fax: 919 -542 -8246 Web: http : / /,A- ,vw.ces.ncsu.eduJchatha-n/ A NSTATE UNIVERSITY A & T STATE UMTRSITY OCOOPERATWE �VMNSION Y llelpiq People Put Kuofrledge to 11 "orl 42 ploy, Sh WLAO, a breed. For that reason conservation must be accomplished with "purebred" breeding animals. Types of breeds Four breed types are found in North Amer- ica: industrial stocks, standardized breeds, landraces, and feral populations stocks. Each of these types differs according to its development, its selection history, the level of uniformity and the role of human breed- ers. Industrial stocks originated from either a portion of a standardized breed or a cross between two or more standardized breeds, with further selection for maximum per- formance in a closely controlled environ- ment. Examples are Holstein dairy cattle and Cornish Rock broilers. A standardized breed is a product of close human selection for specific production characteristics and phenotypic uniformity. Standardized breeds usually develop within a structure that may include herd books, in- dividual pedigrees, breeders association. Most breeds in the US are of the standard- ized type and of British, European or more recent American origin. Examples are Cleveland Bay horses, Brown Swiss cattle and Katandin Hair sheep. A landrace breed is a product of strong natural selection with minimal human selec- tion. They are well adapted to specific envi- ronments and have excellent reproductive and survival characteristics, rather than ag- ricultural production characteristics. Land - race individuals are often variable in appear- ance but exhibit a genotypic uniformity. Page 9 These breeds have survived where range laws persisted longest, in the South and West of the US. Since these areas were un- der strong Spanish influence, many of our landrace breeds are criollo breeds. Exam- ples are Texas Longhorn, Florida Cracker, Pinewoods cattle; Navajo - Churro and Gulf Coast Native sheep; Spanish goats; Spanish Mustang horses. Feral populations result when animals es- cape or are released from human manage- ment and once again live under natural se- lection. A few feral populations in North America have been isolated for a long time and have come to fit the genetic definition of a breed. Some of these feral breeds are being conserved in their natural habitat (in situ) while others are being conserved (ex situ) by re- domestication in the hands of breeders. Two examples of Spanish founda- tion feral breeds are Ossabaw Island swine from one of the Georgia barrier islands (in situ), and Santa Cruz Island sheep from one of the California Channel Islands (ex situ). Conservation Activities of American Live- stock Breeds Conservancy Research: The first step in any conservation effort is to identify and quantify the resources in question. Knowing what we have helps us to determine where limited conservation resources should be focused. Until very recently the United States De- partment of Agriculture has not recognized the importance of protecting the genetic di- versity in our national herds and flocks. As a result, the most important work of ALBC continues to be research of breed `t Plow Sh w n.g, populations. Monitoring is continuous with periodic inclusive censuses. Annual registra- tions maintained by breed associations and major breeders of each breed of livestock are surveyed. These data are tabulated to measure the breed population as well as the reproductive and genetic health of each breed. The results of this analysis are used Page 10 to generate an annual Conservation Priority List (see tables 3 and 4). This list currently includes more that 100 breeds of livestock and poultry and determines the breeds on which to focus conservation efforts. Conservation Support for Breeders and Breed Associations: Organizing people is a Table 3: Conservation Priority Breeds 2001 Critical - fewer than 200 annual North American registrations and estimated fewer than 2,000 global population. Rare - fewer than 1,000 annual North American registrations and estimated fewer than 5,000 global population. Watch - fewer than 2,500 annual North American registrations and estimated fewer than 10,000 global population. Also in- cluded are breeds with genetic or numerical concerns or have a limited geographic distribution. Study - Breeds that are of genetic interest but lack definition, genetic or historic documentation. Recovering — Breeds which were once listed in one of the other categories and have exceeded Watch category numbers but are still in need of monitoring. Species Critical Rare Watch Study Recovering Asses Poitou American Mammoth Miniature Donkeys Jackstock' Cattle Canadienne' Ankole- Watusi Ayrshire Highland Devon Dexter Belted Galloway Dutch Belted Red Poll Galloway Florida Cracker Guernsey Kerry Milking Shorthorn Milking Devon Pineywoods' Randall Lineback' White Park Goats San Clemente(F)' Nigerian Dwarf Oberhash Tennessee Fainting Spanish' Horses Akhal -Teke Canadian Clydesdale Belgian American Cream' Dartmoor Friesian Percheron Caspian Hackney Horse Gotland Cleveland Bay Lipizzan Shire Exmoor Rocky Mountain' Florida Cracker' Mountain Pleasure' Spanish Mustang/ Spanish Barb' Suffolk Pigs Gloucestershire Old Spots Hereford' Choctaw' Guinea Hog' Tamworth Large Black Mulefoot' Ossabaw Island (F)' Red Wattle' Saddleback Sheep California Variegated Cotswold Barbados Blackbelly' Black Welsh Mountain Mutant/Romeldale' Jacob (American)' Dorset Horn Katandin' Hog Island (F)' Karakul (American)' Gulf Coast Native' Shetland Santa Cruz (F)' Leicester Longwool Lincoln Shropshire Navajo- Churro' Oxford Southdown St. Croix' Tunis' Wiltshire Horn 44 pion, Sh wa- Table 4: Conservation Priority Poultry Breeds 2000 Page 11 The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy's initial poultry research was published in 1987 as the Poultry Census and Sourcebook. A new study is underway. The listings have been updated for turkeys in 1999 and ducks and geese in 2000 to re- flect our understanding of the status of the breeds and varieties. We expect to complete the chicken portion of the research in 2001. Our focus is on genetically distinct stocks that have been of economic and historic significance in North America. Rapid genetic erosion occurring in the poultry species globally, so we are also evaluating breeds of recent development or importation. Conservation categories are based on the estimated number of breeding males and females and the number of breeding flocks. Given the vulnerability of poultry to predators, the number of flocks is important. Conservation breeding flocks" are those of 50 birds and above. Critical - Fewer than 500 breeding birds (male and female) in North America, with five or fewer primary breeding flocks. Rare - Fewer than 1,000 breeding birds in North America with seven or fewer primary breeding flocks. Watch - Fewer than 5,000 breeding birds in North America with ten or fewer primary breeding flocks. Also included are breeds which present genetic or numerical concerns or have a limited geographic distribution. Study - Breeds that are of genetic interest but lack definition, genetic or historic documentation. Species Critical Rare Watch Study Recovering Chickens Ancona Non - industrial Leghorn Australorp All other breeds Delaware Non- industrial Rock' listed as critical by Dominique' New Hampshirel Society for the Pres- Minorca Rhode Island Red' ervation of Poultry Java Antiquities (SPPA) Jersey Giant' Wyandotte' Ducks Ancona Buff (a.k.a. Orpington) Runner (a.k.a. Indian Australian Spotted Aylesbury Cayuga' Runner) Magpie Campbell Saxony Rouen Silver Appleyard Swedish Welsh Harlequin Geese American Buff' Sebastapol African Shetland Pilgrim' Chinese Gray Pomeranian Toulouse; Roman Turkeys Beltsville Small Bourbon Red' Broad Breasted Bronze' Other color varieties White' Royal Palm' of standard turkeys Buff Black Narragansett' Slate' Standard Bronze' White Holland' White Midget' ' originated in the United States 2 Rouen: Two distinct populations, the production birds and the larger exhibition birds. 3 African: The large, dewlapped bird reflects the original phenotype, is an exceptional meat bird and is of conservation interest. The smaller African goose likely contains some influence of the Chinese goose, a relative of the African. `' Toulouse: The standard Toulouse is a large, dewlapped bird with elongated feathers,. loose skin, a keel, is a good layer, is a unique color of gray, and is raised for its fatty liver. This is the bird of particular conservation interest. The smaller Toulouse is a longer legged, tightly feathered, keel -less goose with no dewlap. Exhibition Toulouse have very exaggerated dewlaps. Fil Plow shzwLn.g major element of livestock conservation be- cause what is saved depends'on who is in- volved, and how much is saved is depends on how many people. are involved. ALBC provides breed associations with technical support in establishing bylaws, breed standards, registry systems, organiz- ing member meetings and member net- works, and developing newsletters, bro- chures and other tools to promote the breeds. ALBC organizes an annual confer- ence in different parts of the country to pre- sent papers and workshops on breed conservation. We also provide technical support to breeders with information about marketing, husbandry, selection for genetic conservation. Our web site is increasingly used by the public to gain information about rare breed conservation and about individual breeds. Direct Conservation: ALBC has established its own gene bank to preserve genetic mate- rials of many of the breeds on the Conserva- tion Priority List. The bank includes semen from 15 breeds of cattle, 2 breeds of swine and one each of goats and sheep. In addition, ALBC has been called upon to rescue genetically important populations subject to imminent dispersal or destruction. These have included the Wilbur Cruces Spanish Mustangs, Santa Cruz Island sheep, Sweetgrass turkeys, and Ossabaw Island asses. Public Education: Bringing the issue of breed conservation and the need for genetic diversity in our livestock is an important component of the work of ALBC. Our Page 12 membership is a major conduit for educa- tion. Our newsletter and other publications let our members know changes in the status of breeds, conservation projects and how they can be personally involved as breed stewards. We also provide public education through a network of sustainable agriculture groups. North Americans are discovering many un- counted, costs in our chemical and energy intensive agriculture. Farmers are desperate to cut costs and increase economic returns. Many are rediscovering traditional produc- tion systems such as rotational grazing. They are finding that these systems often work better with breeds that have not been selected for high input productions. While many of the traditional breeds lack the mas- sive output of modern livestock strains, they often can produce at a lower cost. Traditional educational sites such as schools, historic sites, museums, zoos and nature centers are excellent locations for ap- propriate livestock to be housed and inter- preted in programs to audiences of all ages. These sites can also be important and valu- able sites for conserving historic but cur- rently uneconomic breeds. The public media is also a valuable way to inform the public about the importance of breed conservation or of the threatened status of a particular breed. Conclusion The industrial stocks will likely be main- tained by the corporations which own them. The visibility and history of standardized breeds will help to keep them intact. Both landrace and feral populations, however, 45 46 PL&W Sham present a great conservation challenge be- cause they lack economic value in contem- porary agriculture. We know that produc- tion characteristics are rather easily selected for in a limited period of time. Complex behavioral and survival characteristics re- quire much longer and more stringent selec- tion. The landrace and feral populations, including may criollo breeds, are often highly and specifically adapted. Because of this long -term adaptation they are most likely to carry the divergent genes we may need for adapting to a changing envi- ronment. Our mission is to find a place where these populations can thrive and re- tain their contribution to the genetic diver- sity of the livestock species. For more information or to support live- stock breed conservation, contact ALBC at 919 -542 -5704. Visit their website http: // www.albc-usa.org/. Ox Training Workshop September 14 and 15, 2001 at Warren Wilson College Swannanoa, North Carolina Hosted by American Livestock Breeds Con- servancy, Western North Carolina Nature Center and Warren Wilson College in Swan nanoa, North Carolina. This is a rare opportunity to learn the funda- Page 13 mentals of ox training and use from . Dr. Drew Conroy, author of Oxen: a Teamsters Guide. The two day class covers a variety of valu- able topics including: ox driving, selection of teams, the history of oxen, fitting use of the yoke. Since class size is limited, early registration is encouraged. Scheduled Staff • Drew Conroy, University of New Hamp- shire, is a noted ox handler, and author of Oxen Handbook, and videos on training, us- ing, and yoking oxen • John Pilson, Farm Manager, Warren Wil- son College and cattle specialist • Chase Hubbard, Assistant Farm Manager, Warren Wilson College • Weston Utter, Animal Curator, WNC Na- ture Center, Devon breeder and cattle spe- cialist • Don Bixby, Director, ALBC 2001 Oxen Training Workshop Schedule Friday, September 14, 2001 8:30 AM Welcome to Warren Wilson College 9:00 AM Introduction to Ox Driving 11:30 AM Fit and Dynamics of the Ox Yoke 12:30 PM Lunch 1:30 PM . Selecting and Teaming Oxen 2:15 PM Ox Driving 4:30 PM Video - "Basic Training of Oxen" 5:30 PM Slide Show - "Why Oxen ?" Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:30 AM Introduction to Training 10:00 AM Ox- Driving 12:30 PM Lunch 1:30 PM Ox Training 2:30 PM Ox Driving 4:00 PM Video — Advanced Training 5:00 PM Question and Answer Session Plow Sha C1+1e Note: In the case of extreme heat or rain, the starting time and order of sessions may be adjusted. For more information please call the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy office at 919 -542 -5704 or e -mail at < dbixby@albc-usa.org > . Reforming the Farm Bill? press release from the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture applauds the introduction of the innovative Conservation Security Act in the U.S. Senate in May by Tom Harkin (D -Iowa) and Gordon Smith (R- Oregon), and in the House by John Thune (R -SD) and Marcy Kaptur (D -OH). The Conser- vation Security Act, if passed, will estab- lish significant new incentives for farmers and ranchers to adopt and maintain prac- tices that improve the environmental per- formance of working farms and ranches. Support for stewardship incentives in Con- gress marks an important shift in U.S. ag- ricultural conservation efforts, emphasiz- ing the environmental benefits sustainable management of land under active produc- tion can provide. As the bill states, it would complement existing conservation programs, and would help achieve a better balance between Federal payments sup- porting conservation on land used for agri- cultural production and Federal payments for the purpose of retiring agricultural land from production. Benefits provided by good stewardship of active farmland in- clude clean air and water, improved soils, Page 14 restored habitat, and other public goods. The Conservation Security Act establishes three tiers of incentives, with the highest rewards for practices that provide the highest degree of stewardship. At the top tier, farmers and ranchers would integrate a' variety of practices into a plan that addresses the resources of the entire farm. "Good farm stewardship practices benefit everyone -- improving the wa- ter we drink, the air we breathe, the quality of the food we eat, and the health of our nation's ecosystems. The policy isn't just for farmers. It's for everyone," said Kathy Lawrence, Executive Director of the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture. "We are particularly pleased that the bill contains provisions for outreach to limited resource and socially disadvan- taged farmers and ranchers not only by government agencies, but by commu- nity -based organizations as well," said Lawrence. "This important provision will help ensure that those farmers and ranchers who stand to benefit the most from this bill will have access to the resources it provides. " The National Campaign for Sustain- able Agriculture sees the Conservation Security Act as one of several reforms needed to address the failings of the 1996 Farm Bill that have weakened the economic position of family farms and ranches, and cost taxpayers tens of bil- lions of dollars in emergency pay- ments. "The Conservation Security 47 • Plow Sh WLYLO, Act will be a breath of fresh air for fam- ily farmers and ranchers striving to de- velop more diversified operations. But the next Farm Bill must also encourage competition and ensure fair market prices for livestock and grain to stop the expansion of giant factory farm livestock operations, " said George Naylor, a farmer from Churdan, Iowa and member of Iowa Citizens for Community Im- provement. The concept of stewardship incentives in the Conservation Security Act acknowl- edges that our nation's farms area wor- thy investment. Tom Trantham, a dairy farmer in Pelzer, South Carolina said, "This legislation gives farmers a solu- tion - financial assistance for doing good things on the farm to protect the earth - things that farmers might not otherwise be able to do because of cost considera- tions. This bill will help farmers think beyond production. Funding to imple- ment conservation practices on working land will benefit our communities, our states, our nation, and ultimately the world. " Beyond soil, water, and wildlife con- cerns, the Conservation Security Act also addresses emerging issues like inva- sive species, greenhouse gases, air qual- ity, and preservation of genetic diversity in food crops. The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture is a national non - profit or- ganization that organizes diverse inter- ests including family farm organizations, environmental groups, social justice and civil rights advocates, food security and Page 15 interests including family farm organi- zations, environmental groups, social justice and civil rights advocates, food security and hunger organizations, wild- life and animal welfare advocates, faith -based institutions, and farm labor groups in support of federal policies that promote an economically viable, socially just, environmentally sound and humane agriculture and food system. You can visit their website at http: // www.sustainableagriculture.net/. Any mention ofproduct brand names, companies, organi- zations, or points of view by individuals does not reflect on or speak for North Carolina State University, North Caro- lina A & T State University or North Carolina Cooperative Extension. 49 Ptc,w sh.a ri n� Calendar of Events Page 16 August 13: Cooperative Extension's Cut Flower Production Workshop from 7:00 -9:00 p.m. in the Agricul- tural Building auditorium in Pittsboro. Call Debbie Roos at 542 -8202 for more information. August 16: Chatham County Beekeepers Association meeting, 7:30 -9:00 p.m. in the Agricultural Building in Pittsboro. For more information, call Michael Almond at 919 -542 -5253. September 10: Cooperative Extension's Cut Flower Production Workshop from 7:00 -9:00 p.m. in the Agri- cultural Building auditorium in Pittsboro. Call Debbie Roos at 542 -8202 for more information. September 14 -15: Ox Training Workshop, Swannanoa, NC. For more information call ALBC at 919 -652- 5704 or email dbixby @albc - usa.org. September 22: CFSA's South Carolina Organic Growers' School, West Columbia, South Carolina. For more information, call Karrie Joseph at 803 - 929 -0333 or email scgrower2000 @yahoo.com. November 24: 16th Annual CFSA Sustainable Agriculture Conference; Rock Hill, SC. Call Tony at 919- 542 -2402 for more information. If you have anything to list in the calendar, please call me at 542 -8202 by the beginning of the month. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE z .~ •' •;,'�� � � i•,�. a ��,��F�11 N.C. ST ITY AT RALEIGH ATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27695 ' Prrl. .N I..O:R OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 _ USF , 8y � 1 g DAVID STANCIL ORANGE CO ENV & RECOURCE CO P O BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 01 he site is unimposing. Forty acres of farmland with a small building, all within range of the sprawling city of Fresno. Yet this place houses the hopes and dreams of farmers who come here to learn how to make their living work- ing the land. American Farmland Trust bought the 40 -acre parcel at the burgeoning Central California city's southwest boundary two years ago, a move that set in motion a successful multi -group effort to establish the Small Farm Resource and Training Center. This "incubator" farm center and training facility —the first of its kind in the San Joaquin Valley —was opened this spring with a festive, cross - cultural celebration of ethnic foods, exotic crop displays and field tours. Its purpose is to provide the area's underserved population with a low -risk opportunity to try their A M E R I C A N F A R M L A N D S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 From left to right: Greg Kirkpatrick, Richard Molinar, Chuko Thao, Michael Yang gather at the new Small Farm Center. hand at farming and to learn all aspects of the business —budg- eting, production techniques and marketing. Greg Kirkpatrick, AFT's land protection representative in California, recalled during the center's opening that Fresno's rich farming history is based on "wave after wave of immigrants getting a foothold and becoming successful farmers." The coun- ty is the nation's top ranking agricultural producer, but its loca- tion in the San Joaquin Valley gives it another distinction: the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, both encapsulated in the large Central Valley, comprise the top most threatened agricul- tural area in the U.S. Fresno County's farmlands were first settled in the late 1800's under a colony system in which a speculator would acquire a few sections of land and parcel them out in minimums 15 J� Top: Wameng Lee, president of the Hmong American Cooperative, acts as a primary liaison between AFT and the Hmong farmers. Bottom: Will Scott, president of the African - American Farmers of California, says the Small Farm Center brings diverse groups together. of 20 -acre segments to people of the same national origins or like- minded beliefs. For example, one was named Temperance Colony and was limited, as the name implies, to teetotalers. The new Small Farm Center is located on a part of the original Fresno Colony. Before the turn of the 20th century, the area's productive soils attracted a varied mix of nationalities, each with knowledge of their homeland's farm specialties, such as Armenian fig and raisin producers and Portuguese dairymen. There were Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Scandinavians and Yugoslavians. In the early 1930s a large influx of Dust Bowl emigres from Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas added to the farming diversity. The immigrants worked as farm laborers, saved their money and eventually bought their own farms. The primary goal of the Small Farm Center is to assist the current wave of immigrants to become self - sufficient farmers and, ultimately, landowners. THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, with roughly 60,000 Hmong resi- dents, is home to the largest concentration of this ethnic group outside Asia. "Many of the Hmong people are in this valley because of the opportunity to farm," said Chuko Thao, director of the Hmong American Community, a nonprofit group formed to help Central Valley Hmong find jobs, schools, housing and health care. Many of the Hmong living in the United States came to this country as refugees. Thousands of Hmong men and boys were recruited off their farms in the mountains of Laos by the CIA. to fight the North Vietnamese along the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the Vietnam War. When Laos fell to communism in 1975, Hmong immigration into the U.S. began. Many were attracted to agricultural areas of California, Minnesota and North and South Carolina. In addition to being California's richest agricultural produc- er, Fresno County leads the state in the number of small farms. Of its more than 6,000 total farm units, over 62 percent of them are classified as small farms, defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as family -run units that gross less than $250,000 per year in farm product sales. More than half of Fresno County's .small farms are operated by minorities. Of these, Asian farmers (Hmong, Lao, Chinese and Vietnamese) make up the largest segment with 62 percent. The next largest minority farm group is Hispanic, followed by American - Indian and African- American farmers. More recently, the area has also become home to new immigrants from Armenia, Kazakhstan, Russia and India. The concept for the Small Farm Resource and Training Center began four years ago when two dozen public and private agencies and nonprofit organizations met with a group of small farmers to define their needs. The group, known as the Small F. _ a Farm Resource Network, collectively sought direction at meet- ings facilitated through the office of the area's legislative repre- sentative, Congressman Cal Dooley (D- Hanford/Fresno). The result of these workshops was an action plan to address four pri- orities of the small farmers: land acquisition, loan access, techni- cal assistance and marketing. Development of the training center and incubator farm was an integral part of the action plan. The property that became the Small Farm Center was owned by 86 -year old Dusan Misita, whose father came to the area from Yugoslavia and bought nearby farm property in 1900. Misita had received several offers from developers with plans to subdivide the land or convert it to non - agricultural uses. Since he preferred to see it remain in farming, Misita was pleased when American Farmland Trust offered to buy the land, and he accepted a pur- chase offer of $270,000. This fair market value price of around $7,000 an acre reflects the early stages of transition to development values, said Kirkpatrick. Similar farm property further removed from the city would sell for $3,000 to $4,000 per acre. AFT plans to eventu- ally sell an agricultural conservation easement on the property A M E R I C A N F A R M L A N D S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 Part of a Bigger Plan In early April, when folks gathered to celebrate the open - ing of the Small Farm Resource and Training Center in Fresno County, American Farmland Trust privately cele- brated the completion of a triad of outcomes for a broad-. er project of which the center is a part: protecting farm- . .land along an urban perimeter; developing an incubator farm program; and establishing an educational and out- reach center.-. Dennis Bidwell, AFT's director of land protection, said that the purchase of the 40 acres that comprise the Small Farm Center represents AFT's .first easement... acquisition project in the Southwest Fresno area, which has been identified` as a strategically important protec- tion area. we hope it will lead to the establishment of a per_ manent growth boundary of easement - protected farms that will shield the rich farmlands to the west from development pressure and help Fresno divert growth to less productive lands," Bidwell said. The Fresno project is part of AFT's nationwide strat- egy to identify and protect high - quality farmland located at the edge of cities. The Fresno property is. zoned sin- gle-family residential development and is bordered on the east by a residential subdivision. "It all fits together," said Bidwell. "When we bought this property we were convinced that, beyond serving a multi - ethnic group of farmers in training, we were tak- ing steps to keep farming viable in this highly threat - ened area." with funding from the California Farmland Conservancy pro- gram. Richard Molinar, small farm adviser in the University of California Cooperative Extension's Fresno office, and his assis- tant, Michael Yang, help the Hmong American Community with day -to -day operations at the Small Farm Center. Farm budgeting is an important segment of the training cen- ter classes, said Molinar. So far, two farmer participants are each farming three acres at the cost of $275 per acre per year. They must pay for the water they use and rent the center's tractor to disc or plow their parcels. Electricity is prorated to the users, said Molinar. Profits, of course, go to the participating farmer. Eventually, Molinar expects the center to train between 25 to 30 farmers per workshop. The center's goal for next year is to provide technical assistance to more than 300 small farmers and to enroll 18 to 20 families in the incubator farm program. Chuko Thao said accessibility to people and resources is the greatest advantage of the new center. He explained that many members of his community share a language barrier and feel intimidated when he sends them individually to a service A M E R I C A N F A R M L A N D S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 provider such as the Farm Service Agency. "With our classroom —a single -wide mobile unit —we can bring these people to groups of our farmers." There will also be classes in pest man- agement, pesticide safety, financing, crop selection, soil fertility, irrigation and marketing. Will Scott, president of the African - American Farmers of California, one of the groups that helped bring the Small Farm Center to fruition, said the project "is wonderful. We've needed something like this to encourage small farmers. It also brings diverse groups together." Scott raises organic vegetables not far from the Small Farm Center on five acres he bought 25 years ago. He recalls that his father had been a sharecropper in Oklahoma. Scott has been around farming all his life, but he departed from it to become a Pacific Bell engineer after college. When he retired he became more serious about farming and now enjoys the interaction he has with other African- American farmers. His Fresno group has formed marketing alliances with inner -city groups in Oakland and Los Angeles, and is develop- ing an incubator farm of its own near the Small Farm Center. Scott's group is on the advisory committee of the Small Farm Center project, and the two incubator farms are seeking grants together. Scott grows black -eyed peas, okra, corn, tomatoes and squash, which he sells at farmers' markets in Oakland. He said business "has really taken off" and his group has been contacted by other neighborhoods to sell more fresh produce. DURING THE CENTER'S OPENING CEREMONIES, Congressman Dooley presented a check for $98,900 to provide operating funds to the training center from USDA's rural development program. It helps ensure that the combined office /classroom will be manned weekdays with a staff of two. Other funding for the center has come in the form of a $153,326 grant from The California Endowment and nearly $80,000 in two separate grants from USDA's Risk Management Agency. American Farmland Trust will remain a player as the sce- nario unfolds. Two committees have been formed to supervise development of the center. Molinar heads the operations com- mittee charged with developing curriculum, farmer agreements and enrollment. Kirkpatrick is part of the long -term administra- tive team that will handle leasing arrangements, tax payments and operating expenses. The ultimate hope is that property not directly used for training and demonstration will be re -sold to the new farmers who have graduated from the incubator program. "And, most importantly," says Kirkpatrick, "that sale will be at a reduced price because the development value of the property will be removed" M Shirley Kirkpatrick is a freelance writer specializing in agricul- ture. She owns a public relations /communications business and a 50 -acre citrus ranch with her husband near Exeter, California. 17 J3