HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 051601COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Agricultural Preservation Board
From: David Stancil, ERC Director
Date: May 8, 2001 6
Re: May 16th Meeting Agenda
Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for:
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
7:30 p.m.
Conference Room
Planning and Agricultural Center
306 Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC
At this meeting, we will review a new Voluntary Agricultural District application,
consider the recently - adopted 2001 -2002 Annual Action Plan for Lands Legacy,
and consider adopting changes to the Voluntary Agricultural District application
form. We will also discuss the upcoming joint meeting with the Soil and Water
Board and the Commission for the Environment on forestry issues.
Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2597) by Tuesday, May 15th if you will be
unable to attend.
Copies:
David Stancil, Environment & Resource Conservation Director
Fletcher Barber, (Pr, County Director
Brent Bogue, District Conservationist
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD
PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER
Conference Room
306 Revere Road
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
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 - March 21 and April 18
7:35 10
4.
ITEMS FOR DECISION
a. Voluntary Agricultural District Application — Hunter
M. Schofield (attachment)
b. Revised Voluntary Agricultural District application
8:15 12
5.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
a. Followup from May 2nd Joint Meeting
b. 2001 -2002 Adopted Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan
c. Upcoming Joint Meeting on Forestry (with Soil and
Water Board and Commission for the Environment)
d. APB items for Fall 2001
8:50 21
5.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
a. "At Ease With An Easement" American Farmland
article
9:00
6.
ADJOURNMENT
02
Page 1
DRAFT MINUTES
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD
March 21, 2001
PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Elizabeth Walters, Nancy Goodwin, Bob Strayhorn,
Louise Tate, Tony Kleese, Marty Mandell, Environment & Resource
Conservation Director David Stancil, ERCD Preservation Planner
Tina Moon, Administrative Assistant Carol Melton.
Guests present: Carl Walters.
ABSENT: Charles Thompson, Noah Ranells, Rodney Recor.
ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Chair Morrow.
ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Kleese reported on a project called "Sonoma Grown" where local
products are highlighted in the local markets.
Mandell reported that she had attended the Clean Cities
Conference that was held in Raleigh. She noted that the US Dept
of Energy has said that the future of alternative fueled vehicles will
be ethanol fuel followed by electric and that NC has the opportunity
to grow the corn to make ethanol. NC has the perfect climate for
growing corn, and corn will be the key ingredient in this major
upcoming market.
ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 31, 2001 _ .
Motion: Strayhorn made motion for approval of January 31, 2001 minutes.
Seconded by Kleese.
Vote: Unanimous.
Motion: Tate made motion for approval of February 21, 2001 minutes.
Seconded by Strayhorn.
Vote: Unanimous.
Strayhorn asked if the final changes had been done on the
agreement component of the new VAD application form. Staff to finalize form
and bring before the APB at the next meeting.
Draft 3/2112001
Page 2 03
ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
a. Agricultural Priority Areas
Stancil reminded the APB that in June of last year the BOCC asked
them to reconsider criteria for evaluating farmland conservation easements. The
APB developed a Farmland Ranking System, which they (APB) adopted in June
2000. Several of our neighboring counties, who have established agricultural
preservation programs, have identified Agricultural Priority Areas —areas which
tend to have best farmlands, areas that are actively farmed, or areas where
attention should be focused. Orange County has yet to identify agricultural
priority areas.
Staff provided a map of the county showing the location of prime farmland and
the protective watersheds. The County Commissioners have suggested that the
APB focus agricultural preservation efforts in water supply watersheds areas,
because preserving farms that are good stewards and use best management
practices helps preserve water quality. ERCD staff are in the process of
digitizing information from the Farm Service and Soil and Water Conservation
District to determine the location of active farms. The map should reveal the
position of individual fields based on crop categories. The determination of
active farmland within water supply areas will help identify target acquisition or
easement sites for Lands Legacy funds and other grant funds.
The APB had a brainstorming session on active and economically successful
farms and outlined those sites on the map. Kleese noted that it might be
appropriate to rank areas facing high development pressure higher than land that
is not under similar pressure. Stancil advised the group that the ranking system,
that the board approved last June, attempts to balance the importance of highly
productive soils versus active farmland threatened by immediate development.
Moon distributed copies of the farmland ranking criteria to the APB for reference.
Stancil suggested defining different priority areas based on different criteria,
such as water supply watersheds, and having Upper Eno agricultural priority as a
definable bio- region. Kleese noted that some farms might fall in two watersheds.
Mandell suggested defining farm restrictions to encourage farms in priority areas
to help protect the watersheds. Stancil noted that the criteria used so far have
been focused on the Cane Creek, the Upper Eno and Back Creek watersheds.
There is now a precedent with the Walters Conservation easement (Back Creek
watershed) which is under negotiations. The Upper Eno and Cane Creek are
two watersheds where there tends to be a lot of agricultural activity of different
types. One approach might be to designate those watersheds as the priority
agricultural areas and then make provisions for farms that split the boundary.
Classifying them in the watershed where the larger acreage is located might be a
way to go.
Draft 3/21/2001
5LA
Page 3
The APB continued discussing the farms and their locations in the potential four
priority areas of Cane Creek, Upper Eno, Back Creek and Little River. Other
important active farm units were identified and marked on the map. Strayhorn
noted that they had not identified farms that were likely to be lost within the near
future. Morrow noted that there are farms that aren't in a watershed which meet
the other criteria such as soils,.and that the economic vitality is important in
regards to promotion of culture heritage. These farms should be included in
some way. Including farms that are assets to the entire community was
suggested.
Stancil summarized the APB's ideas toward agricultural priority areas. One
approach is to target efforts toward farms in the county's water supply
watersheds. Another approach is to consider economic vitality, value to the
community, and potential threats. These categories were labeled Geographic
and Objective areas.
Kleese suggested going with the general areas as identified at this time pending
on further information. We see the northern third of the county as a high priority
and also the critical watersheds of Cane Creek, Upper Eno. Maybe the
northern /western area of the county should also be included. Mandell asked to
include farm activity regardless of location. Other farms within the objective
criteria economic vitality, environmental water quality areas, threatened areas
were also identified on the map. Staff to create map of the identified areas for
APB review. Mandell asked for a small map to use while viewing the county
farms (while on the road).
Stancil distributed and reviewed two resolutions adopted by the BOCC on March
6th: Deferral of Accrued Use Value property taxes — Farmer to Farmer Transfers
in Voluntary Agricultural Districts and Promote Viable Agriculture /Alternative
Farming & Agricultural Practices.
ITEM #5: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Draft 3/21/2001
a. Farm and Open Space Preservation Work Group: Final
Report
Stancil reported that Commissioner Jacobs is likely to come
to the April meeting to discuss this report.
b. Farmland Preservation Report
C. "Farmers head to Raleigh"
d. Joint Meeting with Planning Board and Historic
Preservation Commission
The APB discussed potential topics for the upcoming joint
meeting with the Planning Board and Historic Preservation
Commission. The most timely topic to discuss is the newly
proposed Heritage /Scenic Corridor Program, which may be
the appropriate tool to preserve St. Mary's Road. Morrow
Page 4 05
suggested having an overlay map to point out the St. Mary's
Corridor and Cedar Grove Crossroads and other things that
might coincide with farmland preservation. Once there are
four or five groups interested in a particular site, more
funding sources become available to possibly buy
easements and meeting multiple goals. May second was
discussed as a possible time for a joint meeting of the APB,
HPC and Planning Boards.
ITEM #6: ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:15.
Draft 3/21/2001 4
M
Page 1
DRAFT MINUTES
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD
April 18, 2001
PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Elizabeth Walters, Bob Strayhorn, Tony Kleese,
Marty Mandell, Noah Ranells, Rodney Recor, Environment &
Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, ERCD Preservation
Planner Tina Moon, Administrative Assistant Carol Melton.
Guests present: Commissioner Barry Jacobs, Carl Walters.
ABSENT: Nancy Goodwin, Charles Thompson, and Louise Tate
ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER
Stancil reported on the common interests between APB, CFE and
Soil & Water District regarding future forestry operations, noting
that any increasing number of property owners are converting to
tree farming. The Commission for the Environment is also looking
at issues related to pursuing, and possibly subsidizing forest
management plans to encourage better forestry practices. One
consideration is to establish a forest stewardship certification to
document preferred timbering practices. The Soil & Water District
Division is interested in helping to move this project along. The
idea of a joint meeting between these groups was discussed and
found agreeable by the APB.
ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, 2001
ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
a. Farm and Open Space Preservation Work Group: Final
Report
Commissioner Jacobs reported on the process and key
provisions of the report. The Farm and Open Space Preservation work group
began monthly meetings in January 2000 with many presentations from different
jurisdictions. There were four workgroups including: Regional Cooperation,
Community & Downtown Vitalization, Transportation and, Farm & Open Space.
It was noted that the key component of the group's work is "Measures to
preserve the benefits of Open Space for present" and "future generations should
support private stewardship and respect private property rights ". Jacobs
reviewed the work group vision, purpose, principles with focus on an attempt to
give individuals tools to conserve land instead of having rules and regulations
Draft 3/21/2001
Page 2 07
implemented. The work group examined the relationship of open space to water
and air quality, erosion, agricultural, preservation of cultural values and quality of
life. People need recognize that farmland is open space and share in the cost of
preserving that open space. The work group reviewed other state programs
such as Phillip Gottwals's Value Added Products project that was presented here
last year. The importance of viewing agriculture as an industry was noted as part
of the report.
Jacobs reported on background information that led to the report objectives
particularly the section on improving farm preservation. Recommendations
included: streamline state regulations to simplify agricultural diversification by
small operators, increase participation in Voluntary Farmland Preservation
Districts, Improve existing Present Use -Value Taxation program, and provide
funds to local governments and land trusts engaged in farmland preservation. A
summary of objectives for Enhance Protection of Forests, funding options -
Support Existing Open Space Protection Programs, Identify and Authorize
Additional Funding Sources for Open Space Preservation was reviewed per the
report. Open discussion included ideas of simpler permitting processes, and a
memo from the Planning Department that lists how to get through the county and
state systems to get a permit for an agricultural enterprise. Jacobs asked staff to
get copies to APB members for their input.
The APB also discussed tools to generate revenue to keep farmers farming such
as the farmer -to- farmer transfer or conservation options for farming. Other
options included developing a local agricultural economy such as preferential
purchasing, a value added processing center, a broker /financial advisor for
farmers. Regional cooperation for connectivity of open space and regional
processing centers was discussed in the work group. The APB discussed the
forthcoming bond issues in regards to open space with staff to report on
information from the CNATF in May. Stancil noted that this would bring together
Items IV.B and V. A for discussion.
The county space study, from the Space Needs Study Task Force, has been
prepared and is looking at two options. One option recommends having the
Planning, Environment Health and ERC departments move to a new building
adjacent the Government Services Center. Option two recommends moving
Planning and Environmental Health leaving ERCD in the present location with
Soil & Water Conservation and Cooperation Extension because we work with
them on farm related topics. This pending study (not BOCC adopted to date),
would reallocate this building (after moving out some department) between those
left and remodel the remaining areas into an Agricultural Center. A canopy
would be added along the eastern edge of the building to establish a farmers
market. Some of the funding for those changes could come from the bond
package, somewhat indirectly. The idea of a freestanding agricultural center at
another location is not part of the bond issue. Morrow noted that other funding
could be sought. Recor noted that if the activities of farmers market, and other
activities are begun at the current location they could be expanded in the future
Draft 3/21/2001
M.
Page 3
with a new building. Renalls noted that a larger facility incorporating previous
ideas of common food processing, etc, better accessibility and other agricultural
functions /special needs would be a better way to spend allocated money versus
constructing a new building for Planning, Environmental Health. Recor asked if
there would be design funds available for the anticipated agricultural center and
what it might look like. Strayhorn reviewed the history of the old agriculture
center idea where all the county offices that farmers had to come into town to
deal with were in the same area.
b. New Consensus for Farmland
Stancil distributed New Consensus for Farmland (NCF)
proposed game plan- January 5, 2001 document as was previously discussed in
February. Noting that the Stakeholder groups were approved by the BOCC,
Stancil reviewed that the next step was to have a kick off meeting to begin
developing a farmland preservation plan. One issue where a lot of time was
spent in February was to include the Ag Center as a part of this project as it
would help get people interested. However, we need to be clear as to the extent
of recommendations for an Ag Center. The kickoff meeting is likely to happen
this fall, since the time -table has been delayed. Stancil suggested for that the
APB consider how to bring the stakeholders together to talk about farmland
planning and the Ag Center. Stancil reviewed the February minutes regarding
the lack of interest of the rural community to participate because they've heard
these ideas for many years without any action being taken. If we prove to the
rural community that we are sincere about an Ag Center being built, their
participation would increase.
Two goals of the new consensus for farmland has overlapping audiences, if they
are separated how will we get the traditional farmer interested in farmland
preservation. The Ag Center could be the focal point to get both goals
accomplished. Other approaches to get different groups to join forces in the
creation of an Ag Center included using the center for home demonstration
clubs, livestock shows, and a possible tie in with hiking trail lands and parks.
The APB concluded with having a discussion with Commissioner Jacobs bout
these things. The APB discussed getting the .information out to people, the
potential for a joint use of facilities, different uses for an Ag Center, and the best
place to broadcast the idea of a new Ag Center. A new Ag Center would show
the county's dedication to agriculture /farmland preservation, a nice Ag Center
does more than words can say about the way all people view agriculture in a
county. The group discussed the different impact and functions of going with a
retrofitted existing building versus a new center. Jacobs suggested that a clear
sense of what should be in an Ag Center needs to be clarified. How does that
vision differ from the Space Study Report of retrofitting this building? Should the
Farmers Market be part of the Ag Center, should the center have meeting rooms,
does the entire center need to be in one building It would be useful to go
through that process to get things settled before it's drawn up. Kleese suggested
that the stakeholders should lay the groundwork for developing a clear design of
the facility. Morrow summarized by saying that by demonstrating that if farming
Draft 3/21/2001
0 9`
Page 4
as a part of the open space system of the county is valuable to people, we
should be able to have an Ag Center, have legislation, and funds to buy
development rights. Timing should be good in the next couple years for the state
and county to do their part, we're urbanizing, the growth rate in the Triangle area
is phenomenal. We need to do maps, and to inventory prime farmlands,
OWASA lands, let it become know as an issue that in Orange County we need a
facility to coalesce these ideas around. The APB agreed to hold off until the fall
of the year to move forward with the project.
C. Voluntary Agricultural Districts
Review of VAD scheduled for May meeting.
d. Smart Growth Commission
Discussed in conjunction with the Farm & Open Space
Preservation Work Group Final Report.
e. May 2nd Joint Meeting w /Planning Board & HPC
Stancil noted topics of interaction between the boards:
value -added programs for bonafide farms, the heritage /scenic corridor proposal
being developed by the HPC.
The APB discussed meeting schedules for May 2, May 16th and early June with
the idea of the joint June meeting with Commission for the Environment and the
Soil & Water District Board early in June, then concluding with a brief meeting
afterwards in lieu of the June 20th meeting.
ITEM #5: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. County Space Needs Study (Ag Center)
b. NC Farmland Preservation Demonstration Program
C. Report to the NC General Assembly
d. "Vineyards Contribute to Open Space Protection"
e. "Plan could lead to zoning," Caswell County protects
farmland
ITEM #6: ADJOURNMENT
Draft 3/21/2001
10
AppllcaLlon
Voluntary Agricultural District
County of Orange, NC
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name:
Address:
Town State ZIP Code
Phone: (day) (evening)
E -mail:
B. PROPERTY INFORMATION
Address of Property:
Township: Property PIN #
Tax Map /Parcel #,
Number of Acres: Deed Book /P
Does this property have a conservation plan on file with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (Soil and
Water District) or the N.C. Forest Service?
Yes No (if no, please complete section C)
Is this land listed for Present Use -Value taxation with the County of Orange Tax Assessor's Office?
Yes No (if no, please complete section C)
11
C, FARMS WITHOUT CONSERVATION PLANS OR USE VALUE TAXATION
To become enrolled as a Voluntary Agricultural District, a farm must have a conservation plan on file with the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (located in the Orange Soil and Water District offices), and must be
enrolled in the Present Use Value taxation program with the County Tax Assessor.
If your farm is not listed in either or both of these programs, would you like someone to contact you about
how to enroll?
Once you have listed a conservation plan with NRCS and enrolled in Present Use Value taxation, the property
may be reconsidered for Voluntary Agricultural District membership,
D. CONSERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY AND PROPERTY OWNER
Once a farm property has been certified as qualifying farmland and meets the provisions listed above, the
County and the farm owner enter into a voluntary conservation agreement, as set out in the N.C. General
Statues (106- 737.1). The agreement may be revoked at any time by written notice to the County of Orange
Agricultural Preservation Board.
Conservation Agreement
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.
agree to voluntarily preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property by
prohibiting non -farm 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.
This Agreement may be revoked by written notice to the County of Orange Agricultural
Preservation Board, or the Board of Commissioners may revoke the Agreement based on
non - compliance by the landowner,
This, the day of , 20
Signed:
Signed:
Landowner of property listed above
Chair, County of Orange Board of Commissioners
Date
12
For the period July 1, 2001 — June 30, 2002
Introduction
The Lands Legacy program, adopted by Orange County in April 2000, is activated
through an Annual Action Plan process. For the initial year of the program, the Board
approved on May 3, 2000 an Interim Action Plan to guide Lands Legacy resource land
purchases from May 2000 through the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2001.
The 2001 -2002 fiscal year will be the first full year Annual Action Plan. The process
begins in August of each year with a staff- generated draft reviewed initially by the Board
of Commissioners and then sent to relevant advisory boards for further development of
priorities for the coming fiscal year. Using the advisory board recommendations, a draft
Annual Action Plan is prepared for distribution to the Board of Commissioners at the
December goal - setting retreat. The Annual Action Plan is to be finalized concurrent with
the CIP process in the spring of each year.
The following sections constitute the draft Annual Action Plan for fiscal year 2001 -2002.
The plan incorporates comments from advisory boards, coupled with the continuation
and completion of goals and objectives from the current action plan.
NOTE: The 2001 -2002 Annual Action Plan does not include priorities that will
be candidates for the proposed November 2001 Parks and Open Space bond.
Potential bond candidate projects may be found within the new Lands Legacy
Long -Term Priorities 2002 -2010 document,
The draft Plan contains goals, a summary of advisory board comments, specific action
objectives, and a priority list of land acquisition and protection projects for the coming
year. There is also a brief list of accomplishments from the first half of the current fiscal
year (2000- 2001). A full Performance Report for 2000 -01 will be completed by
December 2001.
(Note: the following goals implicitly include continuing to aggressively
pursue grant funding for many of the County's proposed projects.)
1. Purchase additional parklands for both active and low- impact
recreation that meet current needs and to "land bank" for future
parks and possible co- location with future schools, in conjunction
with the proposed Parks and Open Space bond projects.
13 Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02 Adopted 4111101
2. Partner with the towns and other entities, such as OWASA, in
acquiring future park sites.
3. Work with a willing seller (and a partner entity, if feasible) to
acquire additional farmland conservation easement(s) in
conjunction with the N.C. Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.
4. Work with Durham County on completing the land acquisition for
the Little River Regional Park and Natural Area. Finalize plans for
park development with Durham County.
5. Protect sensitive natural areas in the Seven Mile Creek Natural
Area and Pickard's Mountain Natural Area
6. Accomplish preservation of riparian buffers, historic and
archaeological sites, identified natural areas, and prime forest/
wildlife habitat through parkland acquisition, when possible.
7. Finalize update of the 1988 Orange County Inventory of Natural
Areas and Wildlife Habitat, for eventual inclusion in the Natural
Areas Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
A. Commission for the Environment (CfE)
Recommends protection of Seven Mile Creek area (Natural Heritage sites
NO2/NO3), Southern Shagbark Hickory Forest (M16), Little River corridor
(large tracts), Pickard "s Mountain (50 acres within M01), lands adjacent to
Eno River State Park, Upper Eno River watershed critical areas, and Upper
New Hope Creek headwater areas. Also, all opportunities to protect
riparian habitats throughout the County should be considered.
B. Agricultural Preservation Board (APB)
Recommends working with willing sellers to purchase farmland
conservation easements. in the Cane Creek and Upper Eno watersheds.
Apply for grant assistance from the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.
C. Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC)
Recommends adhering to the proposed goal of,Partnering with the towns
and other entities such as OWASA in acquiring future park sites, where
possible (Goal #2 above) —the "most important goal." Also, the pursuit of
all available grant funds should continue even if it would require additional
staff to do so.
PJ
Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02 Adopted 4111/01 14
D. Historic Preservation Commission (HPQ
Recommends working with the owners of theChatwood and Faucette Mill
historic sites to protect the combination of cultural and natura,ffeatures on
those properties. Also, to accomplish preservation of historic and
archaeological sites through parkland acquisition, whenever possible.
The following acquisition objectives have been developed from existingplans,
discussions with conservation groups and advisory board recommendations This
list is designed to match the following tables as projects that can be
funded and pursued in FY 2001 -2002. A number of the other goals and
priorities of advisory boards are reflected in the Long -Term Priorities
document for activity beyond 2001 -2002.
A. Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
• Continue working to protect (through acquisition and other means) identified
Natural Areas for the Seven Mile Creek area
• Continue working with the NC Botanical Garden and others to preserve a
state - significant Natural Areas site (Southern Shagbark Hickory Forest)
adjacent to the Mason Farm Biological Reserve in Chapel Hill
• Work with Triangle Land Conservancy and others to protect (through
acquisition or other means) land within the Pickard's Mountain natural area
that are surrounded by already protected lands
B. Farmland Preservation
Work with the Soil and Water District and /or OWASA to identify willing
seller(s) or donor(s) of conservation easements in water supply watersheds,
in the Cane Creek, Upper Eno or Back Creek watersheds. Preservation of a
farm in the watershed that also contains riparian buffers would meet multiple
conservation goals.
Apply for a second grant from the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund. by Dec.
2001, for assistance in acquiring the conservation easement.
Work with owners of Chatwood historic site on development of long -term
protection of agricultural lands and open space on the property.
C. Parklands and Open Space
• Using existing plans and the comprehensive resource database, pursue
acquisition of park sites in the following areas:
• Acquire additional property suitable for active recreation for the
"Cedar Grove Park" at Northern Human Services Center (beyond that
which is anticipated to be acquired in 2000 -2001)
3
15 Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02 Adopted 4111101
• Finalize land acquisition for a Bingham Township Community
Park (with active and low- impact recreation), in conjunction
with OWASA
• Assist in the development of the November 2001 Parks and Open
Space bond, and adjust priorities for the Action Plan accordingly
• In all acquisitions, be cognizant of potential school site co- location
D. Cultural and Archaeological Sites
• Continue efforts to accomplish preservation of cultural and
archaeological sites associated with parkland acquisitions during this
timeframe.
• Develop a plan and identify acquisition priorities for proposed "heritage
corridors" in central Orange County, a multi -year objective of
protecting colonial and pre - colonial historic sites and roadway
corridors, such as St. Mary's Road, Indian Trading Path, John Lawson
trail, historic Grayfields, prominent Revolutionary War battlefields and
other areas.
• Conduct or support research on possible location and significance of
Grayfields, site of first County of Orange court — in preparation for the
upcoming 250th anniversary of the County (2002).
E. Riparian Buffers
• With the focus on parklands, natural areas and farmland easements
attempt to accomplish preservation of buffers in water supply
watersheds through parkland acquisitions during this timeframe.
11
0
Q
16
v
O
') O
R O
O
Ln
°
3 >, E � cq
�
an
a.
°}' P.' G -; m � o
::3
_ Cd
o o U
°
En
o o
r s R,
00
o
� � 00
°ob
o°Cr : =°�
o
Lz a
°
En
oboo
cd
bn G
�i "C)
H 3
Z o
N
N
C.
U cC
61
U
°
'al
ct
4.
el)
CIS m
O
cn
u cn
41
cu
_ >
fl
i U
ol
a� O
w
tu
�
N
x
�.
cd
U
G.
U
.
p 3
a�i o y a�
a>
(�" U
A.
CZ
v
O
N O
U
a>N=
O - 0
(�
a�
a� ��_
o
>
>
3
- U �UC7ZUv�U
ozi 91.4 =0. °��
O �E� 3 a0 QU
16
17
a
a
Q
O
O
N
Q
Q
al
v
V
Q
U)
p
C
N
0
U
0
a.
E
c
0
O
0)
O
c
c �
t,.
U �
�L
fl.'7Q
� •i
N
0fa
E
I-.r
fo Q)
0-O
L
CL
a� a
C) C 2
fu
Ln 0
20)
fa
N �
O
L-
= (a
0U)
Q)
N i_+
f�6 E
L
a
E n.
+5 0
V) C:
a) o
U
� v
� co
R
Q co
I
b a�
-d a
�Oc°-A u
rig
0
CU
cd
U
u
cy
b
O
U
0
0
O C d
°ov°Fiw E
O
°�'
0
v�
tz
sG�ZH�°
v)
o
U
b �
" >w
O
U
0 121
En
cd U +.
S.
U +' E
a
O, •� .� N
cd
'"'N fir., G U
O +-' N
O •b
y
Rr ftS
"�
n F-i U
Cd
°
Cd o
..
'
z
o
�
E�
.°
o a
a�
bA b o 0 ^d
r.
-d
o $
En
En
a� x bA
o
o"
Cd
H � � � �
�
CZ ° w"aw�u'd
o
`d
ce)�
cs
cs
U
O O Q O
U
O
cad
>
c
cd
w
o O
cad
Cj
s� O Lt
os
cn
In
G�W o 03 c°>U�
v)4A
Q
U)
p
C
N
0
U
0
a.
E
c
0
O
0)
O
c
c �
t,.
U �
�L
fl.'7Q
� •i
N
0fa
E
I-.r
fo Q)
0-O
L
CL
a� a
C) C 2
fu
Ln 0
20)
fa
N �
O
L-
= (a
0U)
Q)
N i_+
f�6 E
L
a
E n.
+5 0
V) C:
a) o
U
� v
� co
R
Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02 Adopted 4111/01 g
In addition to specific acquisition
objectives, actions may be needed in
the area of long -term strategy to
facilitate land conservation both
publicly and privately. For the
upcoming year, priority strategies
include:
1. Working with Duke University to
develop a process for helping
protect the Duke Forest resource
— including a right -of- first - refusal
arrangement on lands to be
divested by the University, and
planning to assist in acquisition of
easements for sensitive natural
areas within the Forest
2. Continue to meet with the Land
Conservation Alliance twice a
year to discuss among staffs
potential conservation
opportunities
3. Develop and mail a notice to
landowners with land containing
an identified natural area
apprising them of the resource
on their property and suggesting
methods of protection (public
and private)
4. Meet with neighborhood groups
to discuss the benefits of
conservation easements and the
Lands Legacy program
1. As acquisitions are explored, staff
will consider parks and resource
lands in the context of long -term
trail linkages with parks as listed
in Joint Master Recreation and
Parks Work Group Report (and
include in update to County
Master Recreation and Parks
Plan). Staff will also consider
acquisitions in context of
potential school /park co- location,
and pursue accordingly.
2. Other acquisition inquiries
received from landowners and
potential partners during the year
will be compiled and periodically
presented for the Board's review
and direction on whether to
pursue acquisition.
7
1 Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02
Because another six months remain
in the first year of the Lands Legacy
program, a complete report on the
2000 -2001 fiscal year will not be
available until December 2001. The
following are a few items worth
mentioning from the first half year of
the current Annual Action Plan.
Received grants of $1.14 million
toward land acquisitions — as
follows:
• $377,000 from the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund and
$250,000 from the NC Parks and
Recreation Trust Fund for land
acquisition for the Little River
Regional Park and Natural Area.
Also received a grant of $262,000
from the federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund for development
of the park
• Purchased the Orange County
portion (136 acres) of the proposed
391 -acre Little River Regional
Park and Natural Area (November
7, 2000) to be owned and managed
jointly with Durham County.
[Durham County purchased 170
acres; another 85 acres to be
purchased by July 2001]
• Closed on the McGowan Creek
Preserve, a former Duke Forest
landholding purchased from Duke
University, using $143,000 in grant
funds from the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund
• Received grant of $107,000 from
Farmland Preservation Trust Fund
Adopted 4111101
for farmland conservation easement
on Victor Walters farm in Cedar
Grove Township
• Received grant of $5,000 from the
NC Natural Heritage Program for an
update of Orange County's
Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitat. Note: All
Inventory sites are now incorporated
in the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
• Established the Orange County
Land Conservation Alliance,
bringing together staff from partner
entities in land conservation to share
information for potential
collaboration on resource protection
projects
Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 -02 Adopted 4111101 20
During this first half year of the
Lands Legacy program (adopted
April 2000) the County evaluated
and _ pursued four acquisitions of
public parkland, a "pilot" farmland
conservation easement, a nature
preserve in Seven -Mile Creek,
planning for a "pilot" rustic woodland
trail project and an update of the
Orange County inventory of natural
heritage sites. A total of $624,000 in
grant money was awarded for these
projects by the Parks and Recreation
Trust Fund, Land and Water
Conservation Fund, Farmland
Preservation Trust Fund, and N.C.
Natural Heritage Program.
Including funds awarded for
Lands Legacy projects since
March 2000, grant funds
totaling $1.14 million have been
awarded.
For the coming 12 months, the
proposed action plan focuses on
1. completing parkland acquisition
projects initiated during the
previous year to address the
County's parkland deficit,
2. continuing to pursue land
acquisition /protection of lands for
the Seven Mile Creek Preserve,
3. additional conservation
easements for preserving
farmland and priority riparian
corridors (Eno, New Hope and
Little rivers),
4. acquiring missing links for a pilot
rustic woodland trail,
5. working to protect the Chatwood
and Faucette Mill historic sites,
and developing a plan to protect
heritage corridors in central Orange
County.
The coming fiscal year will also be
one which will require close
coordination with the proposed Parks
and Open Space Bond in November,
2001. As projects are developed for
this bond, they will be added to the
final version of this Annual Action
Plan.
Finally, staff will continue to
aggressively pursue grants to fund
these projects, and solicit the
involvement of partner agencies,
wherever possible and practical. Co-
location of school and park facilities
will be evaluated in each case.
9
21
Pioneers of Land Protection
AT EASE WITH AN EASEMENT
Two landowners discuss what it's like to have an agricultural
conservation easement on their properties, and to partner with AFT.
By Valerie Berton
What is it?
Utility companies use them. Your
neighbor may have one. Many of us
live with them every day and don't
think much about them. They are
easements, and they are so common .
in our society that they often go
unnoticed.
But what about easements that are
used as tools for farmland protec-
tion? This type of easement certainly
requires more thought. What is it?
How does it work? And what is it like
to live with an easement that protects
your farm? Fortunately, there are a
growing number of farmers, ranchers
and organizations across the country
that can answer these questions.
American Farmland Trust began
dealing with these questions when it
acquired its first easements shortly
after its formation in 1980. The kind
of easement AFT uses to protect
farmland, an agricultural conserva-
tion easement, does so by restricting
the development of valuable farm-
land. People new to this concept
might ask how AFT does that. The
answer - is: AFT doesn't; the
landowner does.
Many landowners contact AFT
because they are concerned about
N
the future of their farms. They may
be experiencing intense development
pressure from nearby cities and
towns. They may be concerned with
the economic viability of their prop-
erty as a farm. They may be facing
estate tax and farm transfer issues.
But the common thread seems to be a
love for the land on which they live
and work. These landowners volun-
tarily restrict the fiiture uses of their
property to protect it as farmland for-
ever, and AFT partners with them in
their protection efforts.
Simply put, an-agricultural con-
servation easement is a voluntary
contract in which the landowner
gives up certain rights and limits the
use of the property primarily to agri-
cultural purposes. Landowners still
hold title to their property and enjoy
all the rights of ownership, but the
conservation easement is perpetual
and binding on future owners. A
qualified nonprofit organization such
as AFT, or a governmental agency,
then holds the right to enforce the
easement in perpetuity. Easements
can either be sold or donated to these
organizations or agencies. The IRS
considers donated easements chari-
table donations, and in many cases,
the landowner or "donor" may real-
ize some tax benefits.
When AFT works with a
landowner to draft an agricultural
conservation easement, it is clone
with two primary goals in mind.
First, the intent of the easement is to
protect the agricultural and natural
resources of the property. Second,
the easement is drafted with the
needs of the farmer or rancher in
mind. A certain amount and type of
farm - related development is expect-
ed. In many cases, the right to build a
residence for family members is
retained by the landowner. In other
instances, the landowner may wish to
retain the right to construct only farm
structures. Whatever the restrictions,
it then becomes AFT's responsibility
to uphold the terms of the easement.
It is a responsibility that AFT
takes seriously. Being a good steward
of its easements not only supports its
mission, it also supports the land
trust movement as a whole. To this
end, AFT has developed a steward-
ship program to manage its 60 -plus
easements. This is quite an undertak-
ing, as AFT holds easements on
more than 50,000 acres in 20 states.
AFT's Stewardship Manager,
Kristina Ely, says, "The story doesn't
end when everyone signs on the dot-
18 A M E R I C A N F A R M L A N D S P R I N G 2 0 0 1
a
x
22
ted line. In many ways it is just the
beginning. This is the start of a long
relationship between AFT and every
owner, present and future, of that
protected property."
How is it maintained?
As one can imagine, this type of pro-
gram requires a lot of time and finan-
cial resources. Monitoring easement-
protected properties across the
country is expensive, and reviewing
landowners' plans for their proper-
ties can be time consuming. To
finance the cost of this program,
AFT has established a conservation
easement stewardship endowment
fund, to which anyone can donate.
Typically, when AFT receives an
easement, it is accompanied by a
contribution to the endowment fined.
These contributions are pooled and
invested. The stewardship program
is run on a percentage of the returns
from the investment. "It seems like a
lot to ask of landowners, to grant an
easement and then give us money to
enforce it," says Ely. `But an ease-
ment on paper doesn't mean much if
we don't have the resources to
uphold its terms. These easements
are intended to last forever."
Whenever an easement is added
to the AFT program, it is mapped,
inventoried and described in a
"Present Condition Report" The
report includes information about
the property's topography, existing
structures and natural resources like
soil types, wetlands and streams.
This becomes the standard against
which future decisions about the
property are made.
At least every two years, AFT's
stewardship manager or another
AFT staffinember visits or flies over
the property and measures it against
the Present Condition Report to
ascertain whether its condition lives
up to the intent of the easement.
Regular monitoring ensures that
there are no misunderstandings of
the easement's terms. In its 19 -year
history as a holder of easements,
AFT has not found a problem that
couldn't be resolved relatively easily.
Other land trusts have ended up in
court to resolve easement issues, but
AFT has been fortunate. "So far,
there hasn't been a problem that a
letter or phone call couldn't solve,"
says Tim Storrow, AFT's land pro-
tection program manager.
"Monitoring is the most enjoyable
part of the job," says Ely. "I travel all
over the
country to
visit some of
the most
beautiful
places you
can imagine,
and I meet
Sam Gary gives
a four on horse-
back during an
AFT stewardship
visit last year.
great people who are committed to
protecting these places." And it's a
good thing Ely enjoys traveling; this
year she will be visiting Kentucky,
Indiana, North Carolina, Michigan,
Wisconsin, California, Colorado,
Montana, Pennsylvania, Maryland
and Oregon. These visits will be
spent with landowners, answering
questions and listening to landown-
ers' plans for their properties. "If
monitoring is the most enjoyable part
of my job, then listening is the most
important part," says Ely.
How do you live with one?
Sam Gary donated an easement on
his Colorado ranch to The Nature
Conservancy in 1981.One year later,
TNC, which focuses on preserving
threatened habitats or ecosystems,
transferred the Gary easement to
AFT, and it became AFT's first stew-
ardship responsibility.
One of the first Coloradans to
place an easement on an agricultural
property, Gary was determined to
stem the tide of development that
was sweeping through Summit
County, home to popular ski areas.
"We're more convinced than ever
that we needed to do it, and we're
proud of what we did," says Gary,
who runs 440 head of cattle on the
ranch. "All you have to do is look at
the development that comes down
the valley towards us, then starts
again on the other side of our prop-
erty, to see proof that we needed to
do what we did."
Since the easement was trans-
ferred, Gary has heard from an AFT
stewardship manager every year.
Stewardship visits afford easement
holders the opportunity to plumb
A M E R I C A N F A R M L A N D S P R I N G 2 0 0 1 19
Z
a
x
Doug Kleiss and one of his Blue Heelers stand between Holsteins in "Feed Alley." Weiss's photogenic farm, Stardell, above.
AFT for advice about the easement
terms, natural resource issues and
other questions about their proper-
ties. Sometimes they ask for interpre-
tations of the easement; other times
they want to share their latest farming
techniques.
"During a visit, we enjoy face -to-
face time with landowners to talk to
them about their plans for the proper-
ty and how their easement fits into
that," Ely says. "We also need to look
for any violations of the easement, but
the real emphasis is on landowner
communication. That's how viola-
tions, especially the unintentional
variety, are prevented and good rela-
tionships are maintained."
AFT's previous stewardship man-
ager, Stephanie Gilbert, toured
Gary's ranch on horseback last sum-
mer.
"It was useful because AFT is so
far away. You can look at maps and
legal descriptions of the property, but
that's pretty abstract," Gary says. "It
was good to have her here to help her
understand the scope of what's going
on better. When AFT is managing
their easements and being active in
stewardship, they need to understand
what's happening on the ranches,
what's adjacent to the ranches, and
the wildlife issues."
The stewardship program also
provides a steady organizational con-
tact for AFT's easement holders. The
stewardship manager, who stays in
regular contact with easement hold-
ers through a newsletter, phone calls
and visits, remains available for prop-
erty owners who may have questions
or concerns.
"The stewardship manager is the
main point of contact for our ease -
merit holders; the friendly face they
see in person or the helpful voice they
hear on the phone," Storrow says.
"We want to foster that ongoing rela-
tionship with the people who took
the bold step to protect their proper-
ties. Often, they're community lead-
ers or visionary folks, and they repre-
sent a base of support for AFT's pro-
grams."
Easement holders say they have
not felt AFT's stewardship program
to be intrusive or burdensome. To the
contrary, they say they appreciate the
regular contact and the organization's
efforts to uphold the terms of their
easements.
Doug Kleiss put an easement on
his 260 -acre crop and livestock farm
in northeast Iowa in the mid- 1980s,
and has never regretted his decision.
"I think it's a good idea to place an
easement when you've got really good
farmland," he says. "Let them build
their houses where the land's no good
for raising food. We don't want the
city to get closer to us."
Kleiss has hosted a stewardship
representative from AFT every two
years. Each time, he drives the stew-
ardship manager around his property
and enjoys their exchange of ideas.
Partly because of AFT's advice,
Kleiss switched from conventional
plowing to conservation tillage on his
cropland.
Asked if the stewardship program
was an imposition, Kleiss doesn't hes-
itate. "Heavens, no," lie says.
Gary agrees. "It's not a burden,"
lie says. "The mechanics of getting
along with AFT have been very sini-
ple and unobtrusive." cis
For land protection options, go
to wzozo frtr•ntlalzd.org/protectI
irtdex.him.
For in -depth reading oil conservation
easements, order Saving American
Farmland; What Works, published biv
AFT Call 1 -800- 370 -4879 to order.
Valerie Berton, a former editor of
American Farmland, zoorks fin• the
USDA's SastainableAgriculture Research
and Edrtcation Program.
20 A M E R I C A N F A R M L A N D S P R I N G 2 0 0 1