Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 032002COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: March 13, 2002 Re: March 20 Meeting Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for: Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2597) by Monday, March 18 if you will be unable to attend. Copies: Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director Fletcher Barber, CES County Director Brent Bogue, District Conservationist Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager Mike Lanier, Ag Economic Development Specialist AGENDA Wednesday, March 20, 2002 Planning and Agricultural Center Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 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 — February 20, 2002 7:35 07 4. ITEMS FOR DECISION a. Voluntary Agricultural District Application — Don Johnson Farm 15 b. Recommendation on Triangle GreenPrint 17 c. Annual Chair and Vice -Chair Elections 8:45 25 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Review of Voluntary Agricultural District Application — Lee Miller Farm b. Update on VFFPO Draft c. Blackwood Farm Site Visit —April 10th 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. N.C. Million Acre Initiative 2001 Annual Report b. Common Ground, Conservation News from the Conservation Fund c. Farm Chronicle, "Citizens Urge Preservation of Farmland, Open Spaces" article 02 Draft MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD February 20, 2002 PRESENT: Whit Morrow, Bob Strayhorn, Marty Mandell, Tony Kleese, Rodney Recor, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, ERCD Preservation Planner Tina Moon, and Carol Melton. Guests present: Barry Jacobs, Helen Strayhorn. ABSENT: Elizabeth Walters, Louise Tate, Noah Ranells, Charles Thompson ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Morrow called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., thanked everyone for coming and asked if anyone had new additions or items for consideration to add to the agenda. Stancil added item e. — other staff updates, and asked the board to hear Gordon Warren's ideas on the voluntary agricultural districts (VAD) program. All present approved of the additions. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 19, 20011 MOTION: Recor made motion to approve the December 19th, 2001 minutes. Seconded by Strayhorn. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Subcommittee Report — Letter re: Blackwood Farm Morrow congratulated the County Commissioners on the addition of the Blackwood Farm to the county's land trust. The APB discussed a draft letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding their interest in the Blackwood property and their request to participate in the planning process, as appropriate. Stancil reminded the APB that a subcommittee was created at the December meeting to work on this letter from the ideas and suggestions made at the November and December meetings. Further discussions included the interpretations of low impact recreation - -how mountain biking, horseback riding, and ball fields are a different from low impact recreation. Stancil clarified that in the Parks Report that active recreation includes playing fields, picnic shelters — 0.3 things that are programmed. Low impact recreation typically includes more individual pursuits such as walking trails, nature trails and an occasional picnic area. Morrow and Strayhorn mentioned that part of the purpose of the letter was to ask to be included in the planning process or committee for future decisions about the property. Strayhorn explained how the family wished to protect the overall farm vista as an example of agriculture in the county. Modifications and clarifications to the letter were suggested and agreed upon including a Blackwood farm photo in the letter. The possibility of a site visit by the APB was broached and everyone indicated that they would like to see the property. Staff to poll the members for a date in April. b. Revisions to Voluntary Farmland Protection Ordinance Stancil reviewed the APB discussions during the past year regarding strategies to preserve farming and active agriculture lands in Orange County. The following items reflect potential revisions to our existing farmland preservation ordinance (VFPPO) to better incorporate these new strategies. Language Changes: Review (again) the new model ordinance developed by North Carolina State University and consider using some of its language to revisit VAD issues. Clarify the language in Section D. Application and Certification procedures item 6. to more clearly differentiate the conservation agreement requirement to participate in a voluntary Agricultural Districts versus a traditional conservation easement (to simplify the old eight page form). Stancil reported that the county attorney has indicated the updated form is ,satisfactory, however, he has not returned it formally. Ways to improve the Voluntary Agricultural District Program (VAD) Increase the number of incentives to participate in the VAD program: • Reduce minimum farm size • Provide more benefits Decrease number of disincentives to participate in the VAD program • Revise agreement form • Reconsider qualifications for a seat on the APB regarding district representation. ,Utilizing the Farmland Ranking System Update the ranking system to reflect agricultural priority areas (as information about the location of active farms becomes available) Other issues and potential partnerships Economic Development for Agriculture Farmland Preservation through land use planning r Pursue a Transfer of Development program with the Planning e Department. • Ensure that the APB has the opportunity to review development proposals within a one -mile radius from a VAD and have input into substantial land use planning policy and regulation changes. Stancil suggested that the group think about important topics for focus on, possibly drafting a straw proposal on acreage limitations and, having changes finalized in a couple months. Additional Agenda Item Gordon Warren introduced himself as retired federal employee, renovating a farm, in Eno Township, for beef cattle production that has been in his family for about fifty years. He said that this group represents the agricultural interests before the Board of County Commissioners, and currently it's power base is small. This representation could become larger if more farms participated in the VAD program. Since its inception in 1992 approximately 1700 acres have been protected through the Orange County VAD program. He reported that Alamance County's VAD program went into effect in November and already have 1700 acres enrolled and a backlog to be processed. He shared copies of the VAD programs from surrounding entities including Durham, Alamance, Chatham, and reported on Caswell and Person Counties progress. He requested that the minimum qualifying acreage be reduced to a number that will allow smaller farming operations less than 50 acres to be represented by the APB. He noted that in Alamance County if you qualify for land use value program, you automatically qualify to be a VAD: farms including 5 acres for horticultural, 10 acres for agricultural or 20 acres for forestry . Durham as well as Chatham counties have a 20 -acre minimum, however if two farms are within one mile of each other they can be combined to get the twenty acres. Alamance County also uses a `Right to Farm' approach as farmers are pressured by developments to alert potential homeowners that farms produce noises, lights, dusts, odors and. Orange County farmers need that kind of protection, particularly the small farm operationers. The APB discussed ideas and examples of notification for new neighbors and new subdivisions of existing farms and farm operations. Other discussions included comments about how the quality of life for the rural community is different from other folks, protection of agricultural districts, protection of farming practices whether it be swine or timbering and, the importance of communication between farmers and neighbors. Everyone thanked Mr. Warren for his efforts and comments of the evening. Kleese reported that the Carolina Farm Tours is scheduled for April 20 -21 from 1 -5 p.m. and that notices would be sent. Stancil said that staff could look at what other counties have done for VAD programs, the new model ordinance, and some other benefits that could be provided in terms of notification for nuisance suits. He noted that currently we have a little flag that goes up on the lands records systems but that doesn't get into the level of detail that Alamance County does. Staff could also investigate the possibility of putting something on the plat. Stancil added that if you have any feedback between now and the next meeting, send it to staff and we'll come back with some ideas on potential changes based on what we heard tonight. 05 Other discussion included the original setting up of the program and why it was based on 80 acres. Strayhorn noted that when the program was originally set up it had intended on getting more VAD program participation by farming neighbors encouraging others to join when they didn't have the minimum acreage on one farm and, it is time for a change, as it didn't work out. It was noted that the APB had discussed at length a lower acreage recommendation about a year ago and forwarded to the county attorney a simplified agreement form that participants sign when they joint the VAD program. However, the final VAD agreement form had not been formally approved by the county attorney nor returned to the APB. Once that step has been completed the APB could move forward. Commissioner Jacobs offered to assist with this. He suggested that the APB document the thought process for the Board of County of Commissioners to show how the APB derived at the acreage recommendations. Stancil closed in noting that staff would bring back examples for the acreage ideas at the next meeting. C. Update — Board of Commissioners Annual Retreat Stancil reported that much of the time spent at the retreat was related to the latest state budget cuts and how the county would be affected. Kleese asked about the Preservation Trust Fund at the state level getting cut and if it would affect what happens in the county on agricultural preservation issues. Stancil noted that the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund was only funded about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars this year. They had already notified the counties that they wouldn't be funding any easements and possibly only transaction costs. We are still planning to try to submit for some transaction costs. He also reported that the Clean Water Management Trust fund is looking at having to freeze their grant cycles. Commissioner Jacobs reported that there is also the 3 million dollar commitment on the bond schedule spending period. And, conservancies with Clean Water Management Trust fund were receptive about trying to use some of their funding since there wasn't farmland preservation money to buy easements in protected watersheds. Once these funds become available again, that idea may still be an option. Vice chair, manager and commissioner to meet with David Price to bring up two agricultural things — 1) money for farmers market structure in Hillsborough, 2 -have his staff look at finding money for conservation easements for agriculture. There is an interesting wrinkle in federal regulation for state's being eligible for matching monies from the federal government, that is a county has to have its program funded for a certain number of years in a row. It was put in by states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, who have been doing farmland preservation for a while. North Carolina, however, has only done it sporadically and if we stop this year, we'll go right back to zero. We'd like to see if 4 06 Congressman Price can get that requirement changed or at the least get some type of minimal funding this year. Other discussion about possible funding issues including a notification on the federal level farm bill that that could have potential funds channeled to NC through the NRCS, staff worked on database of people who had expressed interest and submitted it and hope to hear back next month. Also there has been interest expressed at the Agricultural Summit for another Golden Leaf Foundation application. Stancil recalled that we submitted an application in late 1999, which was not funded. At the Agricultural Summit Commissioner Phipps noted that the tobacco quota may be gone in a couple months. If that happens we may have tobacco farmers, in Orange County, looking to sell land for development purposes. A grant asking for funds to match Orange county funds for conservation easements on tobacco farms might be something to try. Stancil noted that the next application cycle appears to be in August and asked for feedback from the APB. The APB favored submitting another grant application. Kleese suggested approaching the grant from a job creation perspective —such as getting money to set up a processing facility where local farmers can pool their produce and get it into the system, thereby putting people to work. Another issue discussed was that the Carolina Organic Growers have a cooperative in the state and that they have lost their distribution drop site at the airport and are looking for a central location for a new distribution warehouse in the state. It was suggested that the APB work with the Ag sub - committee of the EDC, and that the two boards could co- promote job creation. The idea of having EDC associated with the application would give it that extra spin. Staff to investigate and report back to the APB. d. Report – 4th Annual Ag Summit (February 19) Stancil reported that about 70 people came to the Agricultural Summit including about about 35 farmers. The APB reviewed the results of the questionnaire distributed at the Summit. Warren suggested more participation for the FFA from Orange High School in next year's program. e. Other Staff Updates Stancil reported that staff have received inquiries from two potential VAD applicants, Don Johnson with the Bacon Family Limited Partnership located on St. Mary's Road and Lee Miller on Pearson Road. The Bacon application should be on the next meeting agenda in March. Stancil reminded the APB that it is time for the annual chair and vice -chair elections and asked members to be prepared to nominate and vote at the next meeting. The next meeting date, March 20tH ITEM #5: Adjournment The APB adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 07 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE, CONSERVATION_ DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Brent Bogue, District Conservationist John Smith, Tax Supervisor From: Tina Moon, Land Use /Preservation Planner Date: February 14, 2002 Subject: Bacon Family Limited Partnership Application for Certification as Qualifying Farmland Please find attached the application of Donald N. Johnson and Mary G. Bacon of the Bacon Family Limited Partnership for Certification as Qualifying Farmland. Mr. Johnson submitted the form as part of the application process for the County's Voluntary Agricultural District Program. The property is listed for present -use taxation program but does not have a plan on file with the Natural Resources Conservation Service or North Carolina Forest Service. To secure such certification, a tract must: 1. Be participating in the present use -value taxation program established by the NC General Statutes, Sections 105 -277.2 through 105 - 277.7, or is otherwise determined by the County to meet all the qualifications of this program set forth in the NC General Statutes, Section 105 - 277.3. [ Response to be provided by Tax Supervisor] 2. Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS) as being a farm on which at least two- thirds of the land is composed of soils that: a. Are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops; b. Have good soil qualities; C. Are favorable for all major crops common to Orange County; d. Have a favorable growing season; and e. Receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields for an average of eight (8) out of ten (10) years; OR be one on which at least two- thirds of the land has been actively used for agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations as defined in the NC General Statutes, 08 Johnson Application for Certification as Qualifying Farmland page 2 Section 105 -277.2 (1,2, and 3), during each of the five (5) previous years, measured from the date on which the determination must be made as to whether the land in questions qualifies. [Response to be provided by District Conservationist] 3. Be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, 'in accordance with the NRCS - defined erosion control practices as specified in the 1985 Food Security Act. [Response to be provided by District Conservationisf] In accordance with Section V of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance, you have 30 days within which to evaluate the application for compliance with the above requirements and return your finding to the Environment and Resource Conservation Department. In your response, please be as specific as you can be regarding how the property complies. Provided the property is certified as qualifying farmland, and the Advisory Board recommends designation as a voluntary agricultural district, the Board of Commissioners could consider the request in late April 2002. Please note that the proposed agricultural district is comprised of 3 tracts, totaling 170.64 acres. Thus, the acreage requirement is satisfied, since the farm consists of one tract, or two or more contiguous tracts containing at least 80 acres. I have included a vicinity map showing the boundaries of the property and a tabulation of acreage by soil type. You may wish to refer to these in completing your review. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If I can provide additional information, please contact me at extension 2583. /tm attachments cc: David Stanci1, Environment and Resource Conservation Director 19e S u 6 1171 "1z: 4-1- fddkLOrange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION AS QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND DESIGNATION AS AN ORANGE COUNTY VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONS: Before completing the application, please review the provisions of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance, then fill out the form as accurately and completely as possible. Please sign and date the form, and return it to the Orange. County Environment and Resource Conservation Department, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278 APPLICANT: 0Or1 1;z1C1 %zt- 2f r /e, 09 Name: M4a r - RA-co R, Slicoki) T0.rnl'd L ^ M,rFg Pw--ttAJQ_;'. hl P Address: /'Y ar i,�y City: State: Zip Code: J Phone Number (Day): `Z r2-- RL2 q_ 2 - ",-� ~(Evening) 12 2 - 3 Z Ra, /1n E -Mail: tTc°0W,62 e — �� � �.tS� ,ti (° i'YZ�,��'Prt A0 a Ca .,L PROPERTY INFORMATION: tion/Address: ,��d 1 --1J/ 5 / ma lscbol dtA�r� >� /5 -41 ` 9wnship:��� Tax Map )D Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 'V 1.2- Block: Lot: /.I IL.'IL•,M Number of Acres: 7�2 19<4 Deed Book: Q o,26 Page: Does this land have a plan on file with the Natural Resources Conservation Service or NC Forest Service? Yes: No: ! If "No ", please complete back of form Is this land listed for Present Use taxation with the Orange County Tax Office? Yes: No: If "No ", please complete back of form OWNER[S] CERTIFICATION: I [We], the applicant[s], hereby certify that, to the best of my [our] knowledge, the foregoing application is complete and accurate. Signature: fh Date: /%:1 `%- 2 -:4Z Signature: Date: `� C r Please direct inquiries to: clo Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough • 732 -8181 Chapel Hill • 967 -9251 Durham • 688 -7331 Mebane • 227 -2031 10 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VOTE: Complete this information O„ NLY: If you are NOT participating in the farm present use taxation program; OR If you do NOT have a plan on file with the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the NC Forest Service. 1. How long have you owned your farm? L,- years 2. How long have you lived on your farm? C.5-� Y ears 3. Has your farm exceeded $1,000 in gross income in each of the past three years? Yes No 4. How many acres on your farm are under cultivation? _acres 5. What are the major crops that you plant each year? III How many acres on your farm are used for pasture? acres BACON PROPERTY SOIL ANALYSIS Soil Typo Description 5.12..11 5.12,15A 5.12..17 Total `Acreage Ch Chewacla loam 10.3 6.5 16.8 WxF Wilkes gravelly loam, 15 -45 percent slopes 1.2 1.2 TaD Tatum silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1.0 1.0 EnB Enon loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.1 0.1 HrC Herndon silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 21.0 0.1 8.9 30.0 A B Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 27.4 32.5 59.9 HrB Herdon silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 1.3 16.8 18.1 GeB Georg eville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 8.4 8.1 16.5 A C Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 0.4 1.5 11.2 13.1 HeB Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 8.7 3.8 12.5 w Water Totals 69.1 10 90.1 +/-169.2 �V N Bacon Family Limited Property Soils Analysis TMBL 5.12..11 5.12..15A Scale 5.12..17 1 inch = 800 feet Total Acreage 170.64 Orange County ERCD February 2002 B. Young S OIL & NVATE R C O N S E R V A T I O N Orange Soil & Water Conservation District Phone: 919- 732 -8181, Ext. 2750 Natural Resources Conservation Service Phone: 919 - 644 -1079, Ext. 3 y�, _,J, � Lw USDA PO Box 8181 306 Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 This report serves to document how the proposed farm qualifies for acceptance into the Voluntary Agricultural Districts in Orange County. 1. Two - thirds of the soils on the farm must: a. Be suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops. YES X % 99 NO % Comments: b. Have good soil qualities. YES X NO Breakdown of soil classes in percent: Class I Class II 120.1 Class III 47.9 Class IV Class V Class VI Class VIIs 1.2 Comments: Classes I, II, III are primarily used for cropland Classes III -VI are generally best suited for pasture or woodland. Class VII generally unsuited for agricultural use. c. Be favorable for all major crops common to Orange County. Major crops are corn, tobacco, small grain, pasture, and loblolly pines. 99 % favorable 1 % unfavorable J� lit d. Have favorable growing season. (YES) The growing season for Orange County is approximately 200 days. It begins in approximately the second week of April and runs until about the last week in October. This response will be consistent for all farms in Orange County. e. Receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields for an average of 8 to 10 years. (YES) Orange County receives approximately 42 -45 inches of rainfal! annually. This response will be consistent for all farms in Orange County. Lo . At least two - thirds of the land has been actively used in agriculture, horticulture or forestry operations as defined in the NC General Statutes, Section 105 -277.2 (1,2, and 3) during each of the five previous years, measured from the date on which the determination must be made as to whether the land in question qualifies. Acres in cropland Acres in forestland Acres in homestead, farmstead or other related use Total TRACT acres Greater than two- thirds in designated uses. Yes % No % Comments: 1. Farm must be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, in accordance with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) defined erosion- control practices as specified in the 1985 Food Security Act as amended. Plan on file in NRCS Office YES X NO If NO, plan will be required before acceptance into the Voluntary Agricultural Districts Program. Comments: 15 Recommendation on Triangle GreenPrint The Board of Commissioners referred this item to advisory boards for comments on February 25th. A copy of the report was provided in a separate mailing to you previously. The BOCC is asking for advisory boards review and recommendation on the Triangle GreenPrint. You may view the Triangle GreenPrint report at www.trianglegreenprint.org Or call ERCD staff for a copy. 17 County of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) ORANGE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE ARTICLE I — INTRODUCTION A. Purpose To establish procedures for organizing the business of the Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board, hereafter referred to as the Board, in executing its duties and responsibilities. B. General The Board shall be governed by the terms of the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance and by the terms of Article 61 of Chapter 106 of the N.C. General Statutes, Section 106 -735 et. Seq. as they may be amended or revised and by these rules to the extent that they do not conflict with the law. For procedures not covered by these rules, the Commission shall follow the rules contained in Roberts Rules of Order, Revised. ARTICLE II - OFFICERS A. Membership The Board shall be composed initially of seven (7) members, plus one member for each District created and existing under the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance (VFPPO), all appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional appointments may be made to satisfy the requirements of Section W.B. Lb of the VFPPO. 1, Membership Requirements a. Each Board member shall be a resident of Orange County. b. Each District existing pursuant to this ordinance shall be represented on the Board by a person owning farmland in the district. The Board of County Commissioners shall appoint the District representatives and shall make its selection of a representative from each District from among those owning farmland in the District. c. The remaining members of the Board shall be appointed at -large by the Board of County Commissioners to represent a broad range of agricultural interests. 1 18 County of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) 7 TPnrnre. a. Each member shall serve a term of three (3) years, except that the initial Board is to consist of two (2) appointees for terms of two (2) years, two (2) appointees for terms of three (3) years, and three (3) appointees for terms of four (4) years. b. Thereafter, all appointments are to be for terms of three (3) years, with reappointments permitted. c. Notwithstanding the term limits contained in this section, District representatives may be appointed and re- appointed as necessary to insure that each District is represented as provided in Section B. Lb of the Orange County VFPPO. 3. Chair The Chair shall preside at all meetings and public hearings, make committee appointments, and decide all points of order and procedure subject to these rules unless directed otherwise by a majority of the Board in session at that time. The Chair shall have the right to vote but shall not have the right to break a tie vote in which he or she participated. 4. Vice Chair The Vice Chair shall serve as acting Chair in the absence of the Chair and at such time have all the powers, duties, and voting rights as the Chair. 5. S ecretary The Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Director shall serve as Secretary to the Board. The Secretary, or his/her designee, subject to the direction of the Chair and Board shall keep all records, shall conduct all correspondence of the Board, and shall generally supervise the clerical work of the Board. The Secretary, or designee, shall keep the minutes of every meeting of the Board. The minutes shall show the record of all important facts pertaining to each meeting, every resolution acted upon by the board and all votes of the Board members upon any recommendation, resolution or upon the final determination of any questions before the Board, indicating the names of members absent or failing to vote. 6. Election of Officers The Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected annually at the Board's meeting in February. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve terms of one (1) year and shall be eligible for re- election. They shall be eligible to succeed themselves for not more than three (3) years. A majority of members present shall be necessary to elect officers. County of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) 19 7. Vacancy a. A vacancy in the office of Chair shall be filled by the Vice Chair succeeding to the office for the balance of the unexpired term. b. A vacancy in the office of Vice Chair (including a vacancy due to 7.a above) shall be filled by election of a Vice Chair from the Board for the balance of the unexpired term. ARTICLE III — MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the third Wednesday of each month at a time established by the Board. Regular meetings will be adjourned no later than 10:30 p.m. but may be continued past that time with a unanimous vote of members present. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the Board may call a special meeting in accord with Section B. below. B. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or by written request of two (2) members of the Board submitted to the Board or Chair. Written or oral notice of special meetings shall be given to all members at least forty -eight (48) hours prior to the meeting and shall state the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. C. Cancellation of Meetings. Whenever there is no business to come before the Board, the Chair may dispense with a regular meeting by giving notice to all members not less than twenty -four (24) hours prior to the time set for the meeting. D. Quoru m. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the appointed members of the Board. A member who has withdrawn a from a meeting without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present shall be counted as present for the purpose of determining whether or not a quorum is present. 3 20 County of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) E. Order of Business: The order of business at regular meetings shall be as follows: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Consideration of Additions to Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes 5. Public Hearings 6. Items for Decision 7. Discussion Items 8. Informational Items 9. Adj ournment The order of business may be varied by unanimous consent of the members present. F. Time Limits 1. The Board may limit the length of a meeting or set a time for adjournment by a concurring vote of a majority of those members present. 2. The Board may limit the time each person at a public hearing is allowed to speak by a concurring vote of a majority of those members present. G. Open Meetings All regular and special meetings, public hearings, records, and minutes of the Board shall be open to the public, however, the Board shall have the power to meet in executive session providing appropriate procedural necessities are complied with as prescribed in North Carolina's open Meeting Law, N.C. General Statutes, G.S. 143-318.1 to 143 -318.7 (1974). The press shall be notified by telephone or in person of special meetings at leas forty -eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. H. Agenda 1. The agenda for each regular or special meeting or public hearing shall be prepared by the Secretary of the Board, following consultation with the Chair. 2. The agenda for each meeting shall be mailed to all members no later than three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting or hearing, except in the case of special meetings called under Section 3.B. in which the agenda will be delivered or orally transmitted, as appropriate, to the members no later than forty -eight (4) hours prior to the scheduled meeting or hearing. 3. No business, either old or new, may be considered by the board unless such item properly appears on the agenda. However, any matter may be considered 0 21 County of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) by the board as a non - agenda item if such matter is approved for consideration by a majority vote of the members present. I. Attendance 1. A member who will be unable to attend the regular meeting of the Board must contact the Chair or Secretary at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting and indicate the general reason for being absent. Earlier notification is encouraged. The Board will be notified o f the absence and reason at the meeting. 2. Any members of the Board who miss more than three consecutive meetings or public hearings, or who miss more than one -half of the meetings in a calendar year, for something other than an approved absence as determined by the Chair, may lose their status as member of the Board and may be replaced by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. Absence due to sickness, death of an immediate family member, professional leave, or other valid reason shall be considered approved absence and shall not affect the member's status. 4. In the event of a long illness or other cause for prolonged absence, the member may be replaced. ARTICLE IV — CONDUCTING BUSINESS A. Decisions The vote of a majority of those members present shall be sufficient to decide any matter before the Board, provided a quorum is present. No member shall be excused from voting except as required in Section 1V.B or in Section W.D. In all other cases, a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the meeting room or who has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members, shall be recorded as an affirmative vote. B. Qualifications to Vote No Board member shall vote on any matter before the board unless that member shall have attended the Board's previous deliberations on such matter, or shall otherwise have the approval of the Chair to vote on such matter. The Chair's approval shall be contingent on the assurance by the member that the member has read any material distributed to the Board members related to the matter and the minutes of any meeting at which the matter was discussed. 5 22 County of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) C. Impartiality Required No Board member shall, in any matter, discuss any application with any parties prior to the Board's deliberations on such application, except as authorized in advance by the Chair. However, members may seek and/or receive information pertaining to the application from any other member of the Board or its staff prior to the hearing. D. Conflict of Interest No Board member shall take part in any hearing, consideration, determination or vote concerning a property in which the Board member or a close relative (spouse, sibling, child or parent): 1. Is the applicant before the Board; or 2. Has a financial interest in the subject property or improvements to be undertaken thereon. In addition, a Board member may request to be excused from taking part in any hearing, consideration, determination or vote concerning a property in which a business associate or employer of the Board member: 1. Is the applicant before the Board; or 2. Has a financial interest in the subject property or improvements to be undertaken thereon. E. Motions The Board shall proceed by motion. Any member, including the Chair, may make or second a motion. A substantive motion (non - procedural motion) is out of order while another substantive motion is pending. A motion may be withdrawn by the introducer at any time before a vote. F. Debate The Chair shall state the motion and then open the floor to debate on it. The member who made the motion is entitled to speak first. A member who has not spoken on the issue shall be recognized before someone who has already spoken. 6 Count of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) � l) G. Procedural Motions In addition to substantive motions, the following procedural motions, and no others, shall be in order in the following priority: 1. To adjourn. This motion may be made only when action on a pending matter concludes. It may not interrupt deliberations of a pending matter. 2. To take a recess. 3. Call to follow the agenda. The motion must be made at the first reasonable opportunity or it is waived. 4. To suspend the rules. 5. To defer consideration. A substantive motion, consideration of which has been deferred, expires one hundred (100) days thereafter unless a motion to revive consideration is adopted. 6. Call of the previous question. The motion is not in order until there has been at least twenty (20) minutes of debate, and every member has had an opportunity to speak once. 7. To postpone to certain time or day. 8. To refer to a committee. Sixty days after a motion has been referred to a committee, the introducer may compel consideration of the measure by the entire Board, regardless of whether the committee has reported the matter back to the Board. 9. To amend. An amendment to a motion must be pertinent to the subject matter of the motion, but it may achieve the opposition of the motion's intent. The motion may be amended and an amendment may be amended, but no further amendments may be made. 10. To revive consideration. The motion is in order any time up to 100 days after a vote to defer consideration. A substantive motion, consideration of which has been deferred, expires 100 days thereafter unless a motion to revive consideration is adopted. 11. To reconsider. The motion must be made by a member who voted with the prevailing side. It must be made at the same meeting as the vote was taken. It cannot interrupt deliberation on a pending matter but is in order at any time before actual adjournment. 12. To rescind or repeal. 13. To ratify. H. Suspension of rules The Board may, upon affirmative vote of a majority of members present, suspend these rules of procedure for consideration of any matter before the Board. 7 County of Orange, Agricultural Preservation Board Rules of Procedure (amended September 7, 1999) ARTICLE V - AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF PROCEDURE These rules may, within the limits allowed by law, be amended at any time by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of members of the Board, provided that such amendment shall have first been presented to the membership in writing at a regular or special meeting preceding the meeting at which the vote is taken. ARTICLE VI — NOTIFICATION OF ZONING CHANGE /PERMIT APPLICATIONS In order to facilitate the exercise of the Board authority and responsibility in promoting and preserving the farmland and rural heritage of Orange County, the Board requests that the Environment and Resource Conservation Director notify the Board of pending applications for zoning changes, use permits, variances and demolition permits, and proposed zoning text amendment or other proposals which effect properties currently in agricultural and/or forest use. Adopted: May 6, 1992 Amended: September 7, 1999 WN INFORMATIONAL ITEMS APB March 20, 2002 • 2001 Open Space Results ■ In 2001, voters in 24 states agreed to spend almost $1.7 billion for parks and open space. Last year, voters OK'd 137 of 196 state and local ballot measures (7070), according to the Land Trust Alliance (lta.org) and Trust for Public Land (tpl.org). On Nov. 6 alone, voters approved $1.2 billion in funding for parks and open space in 86 of 115 ballot measures, a 7570 ap- proval rate. Among the larger measures approved Nov. 6: • $192 million in Morris County, N.J., for open space, recreation and farmland preservation, • $160 million in Santa Clara County, Calif., for parks, open space and trails, and • $115 million for the Great Outdoors Colorado program. On page 3 are open space measures approved Nov. 6. New Jersey listings are incomplete due to limited space. See Open Space page 3 Land Protected in Florida, Maryland and Georgia ■ The Conservation Fund recently helped the Suwannee River Water Management District obtain a conservation easement on the 32,000 -acre California Swamp in Dixie County, Fla., one of the largest ever placed on private property in the state. The Fund worked closely with land- owner Forest Systems in the $13.6 million acquisition, which culminated 20 years of effort by the state to protect the site. The easement permanently restricts development on the land, which borders the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge and acts as a freshwater filtration basin for the Lower Suwannee watershed. The company will con- tinue pine forestry operations on 15,000 acres of upland under new guidelines aimed at enhancing the swamp eco- system. Forest Systems retained rights to hunting leases but will allow public access for hiking and bird watching. See Land Protected, page 6 Ib Vol. 13, No. 1 January —March 2002 Editorial: The Conservation Fund's chairman calls for an American network of parks and open space. 2 Small Tracts: Oregon's growth management law faces another challenge, America steps up its recycling of brownfields, Coloradans 4 take steps to better manage growth and California links growth with water supply. Thank you: A grateful thank you to 140 readers who recently contributed $6,685 to the COMMON GROUND Research Fund. Corporate Notes: American Electric Power, BP and Alliant Energy are helping develop the nation's first carbon emissions trading 7 system, and Johnson & Johnson and Philip Morris are supporting Conservation Fund projects in several states. Personnel: Lawrence A. Selzer succeeds John Turner as president and CEO of The Conservation Fund. Databank: The South produces more timber than any country in the world (except the U.S., of course). 8 27 COMMON GROUND VOL. 13 NO. 1 JANUARY -MARCH 2002 ED • America's Network of Parks and Open Space is published quarterly as a service to the conservation community by The Conservation Fund Patrick F. Noonan Chairman Lawrence A. Selzer President Mike McQueen Editor Jack Lynn Editorial Consultant Meg West Art Director For address corrections and information, contact: April Berry Circulation Manager The Conservation Fund 1800 N. Kent St., Suite 1120 Arlington, VA 22209 703/525 -6300 COMMON GROUND routinely grants permission for reprints. Address editorial correspondence and reprint queries to: COMMON GROUND 940 Stillwater Lane Earlysville, VA 22936 434/973 -7324 coground l aol.com COMMON GROUND is available on the World Wide Web at http: //www.conservationfund.org Printed on recycled paper. We need new, smarter approaches to land conservation to leverage funding and address the accelerating rate at which land is being developed. In the 1970s, when I began work in con- servation, we protected individual parcels of land. Today, we protect networks of open space. Still, too many land conservation ef- forts are haphazard and reactive in nature. Successful land conservation must be: • more proactive and less reactive, • more systematic and less haphazard, • multifunctional, not single purpose, • large scale, not small scale, and • better integrated with other efforts to manage growth and development. The key to accomplishing this is "green infrastructure," a framework that provides a strategic approach to land conservation. Just as growing communities need to upgrade and expand their built infrastructure (roads, sewers, utilities, etc.), so too they need to upgrade and expand their green infrastruc- ture —the network of open space, wood- lands, wildlife habitat, parks and other natural areas that sustains clean air, water, and natural resources and enriches our qual- ity of life. Green infrastructure repositions open space protection from a community amenity to a community necessity. Green infrastructure can help reduce opposition to development. When citizens think all land is up for grabs, they oppose development everywhere. But when people have some assurance that special places will be saved, they become more amenable to ac- commodating new development. When I started in conservation, many of us were winging it. We hadn't been educated or trained for what we were doing. There was little science and even less thinking about economic development. There were few opportunities for professional develop- ment. By almost every measure, the work of conservation is becoming more complex. Conservationists need to understand mar- keting, business planning, real estate and tax law, as well as ecology and geographic information systems. We need to build the capacity of our movement by embracing the concepts of training, education and lifelong learning. We also need to educate the public about the benefits derived from green infra- structure. And, we need to attract the best and brightest to our field. The final chal- lenge is people. We must broaden our movement to include more of the young and people of color. Our work is fundamentally about people —our children and theirs. Now is the time for a more strategic and comprehensive approach to land conserva- tion. The opportunity is before us to create a national system of parks and open space community by community. Our nation's 3.2 million miles of rivers and streams provide a natural framework for America's green in- frastructure design and —when linked with working landscapes, farms and forests con- served by conservation easements— repre- sent a new era of smart conservation. The new measure for smart conserva- tion is "acre for acre." For each acre we develop, we protect an acre. We have the opportunity to create — community by com- munity and state by state —a national sys- tem of parks and open space that will stretch from "sea to shining sea." — Patrick F. Noonan The aitthor is chairman of the board of directors of The Conservation Ftind. - _ t 1r_ r' r v ° — . O e 0 -ate 'c 0 c 0 a � = L N cS O 6g COMMON GROUND VOL. 13 NO. 1 JANUARY -MARCH 2002 Open Space, from page 1 State Jurisdiction Description Funding Arizona Gilbert Open space bond $20.4 million California Placer County Property tax for parks and recreation $8.4 million Santa Clara County Property tax for parks, open space and trails $160 million Colorado Statewide Great Outdoor Colorado open space bonding $115 million Basalt Bonds for open space, parks, wildlife, etc. $3 million Broomfield Sales tax for parks and open space $8 million Douglas County Bonds for open space $43 million Manitou Springs Sales and property tax for parks and open space $1.4 million Parker Bond authority for parks, open space $12.5 million San Miguel Property tax for parks, open space, trails, etc. $14 million Superior Sales tax for open space $8 million Connecticut Glastonbury Bond for open space $3 million Florida Lake County Sales tax for parks $30 million Georgia Suwanee Bond for parks, open space, trails, greenways $17.7 million Iowa Ames Bond for conservation/ recreation area, water supply $4.97 million Massachusetts Agawam Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $1.6 million Cambridge Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $25.7 million Easthampton Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $1.9 million Newton Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $10.2 million Peabody Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $3.1 million Maine Falmouth Bond for land acquisition and open space preservation $1.5 million Michigan Birmingham Bond for parks, recreation and land acquisition $25 million Missouri Green County Sales tax for parks, trails, zoo, etc. $18.7 million New Jersey Barnegat Township Property tax for conservation and recreation areas, etc. $1.28 million Bloomfield Township Property tax for open space, recreation and conservation $4.1 million Califon Borough Property tax for open space $87,475 Chatham Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $390,000 Delaware Township Property tax for open space, farmland preservation $2.3 million Demarest Property tax for open space, farmland preservation, etc. $283,645 Egg Harbor. Township , Property tax for conservation and recreation $6.5 million Fairfield Township Property tax for open space, conservation $730,000 Franklin Township Property tax for recreation, farmland preservation, etc. $380,000 Gibbsboro Property tax for parks, open space, etc. $560,000 Glen Gardner Borough Property tax for open space, farmland preservation $47,529 Gloucester Township Property tax for parks, open space, etc. $8.9 million Hainesport Township Property tax for open space $89,820 Hamilton Township Dedicates funding for open space - Hope Township Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland preservation $1.32 million Jackson Township Property tax for open space, recreation, water quality $4 million Lawrence Township Property tax for parks, open space, etc. $4.9 million Little Egg Harbor Property tax for conservation $1.8 million Little Silver Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland pres., etc. $1.3 million Manasquan Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $315,175 Manchester Township Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $3.4 million Mendham Township Property tax for land conservation, recreation $663,089 Middlesex County Property tax for recreation, conservation, etc. $188 million Midland Park Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland preservation, etc. $240,500 Moorestown Township Property tax for open space $4.8 million Morris County Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland preservation $192 million New York Ardsley Village Bonds for parks, open space $1.75 million Dobbs Ferry Bond for park, open space $3 million Easthampton Bond for open space $5 million Southold Bond for open space, farmland preservation $2 million Tarrytown Bond for land conservation $3 million North Carolina Orange County . Bonds for parks, open space, recreation $20 million Ohio Gates Mill Property tax for land and water preservation $90,500 Miami County Property tax for land preservation $21 million Stark County Property tax for parks $19.2 million West Geauga Park District Property tax for environmentally sensitive land acquisition $276,000 Pennsylvania Franconia Township Income tax for open space, farmland preservation $8.5 million Patton Township Bond for open space $2.5 million Plumstead Township Bond for open space, conservation easements, etc. $6 million Stroud Township - Income tax for open space $3.6 million Texas Alvin Bond for land acquisition and improvements, parks, etc. $3.15 million Cedar Park Bond for parks and recreation $10.6 million Harris County Bond for parks $60 million Houston Bond for parks, recreation $80 million Round Rock Bond for parks $17.3 million Travis County Bond for parks $28.6 million Washington Bainbridge Island Bond for open space, forest acquisition, etc. $8 million Source: LandVote 2001, tpl.org, (ta.org I���� . • • ... .. .... .... ... • .... ... • .... • ... •...., ..... i 1 - .1 w,. Iliu . 11....Iw•. W ... \.•..�i\1.. li ., . -1. \.� . 11 .i:..' w,...1:.•.111t.: _�.4 .w.u.lt. •.1 .s. • .. • ..• '`, ,• COMMON GROUND VOL. 13 NO. 1 JANUARY -MARCH 2002 The Conservation Fund Vital Statistics Land protected by TCF and partners, 2001: Acres protected: 302,349 Est. value: $284,420,256 Cumulative land protected, 1985 -2001, by TCF and partners: Acres protected: 3,252,362 Est. value: $1,624,603,864 TCF's average annual fund- raising expense: 17o of total income The Conservation Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization established to advance land and water conservation in America. The Fund is a member of Earth Share and participates in the Combined Federal Campaign as #0930. O.Earth Share Conservation leadership Courses "Gateway Communities: Keys to Success," interactive TV workshop, Feb. 27. Contact Anne Desmarais, 703/525-6300. "GIS Design for Regional Conservation Planning," March 11 -15 and Nov. 18 -22, Shepherdstown, W.Va. 304/876-7452. "The Practice of Environmen- tally Sensitive Development," March 21 -22, Orlando, Fla.; April 11 -12, Chicago, Ill.; and April 29 -30, Vienna, Va. 800/321-5011. "Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Approach to Green Space Planning and Conser- vation," May 14 -16, Chicago, Ill. 304/876-7462. 4 It better rain in California: As the nation's most populous state (pop. 34.5 million) pre- pares for another 11 million residents by 2020, water supply becomes more crucial by the day. Gov. Gray Davis recently signed a bill (SB 221) that for the first time directly links water supply and land use planning. The new law bars cities or counties from approving residential subdivisions of more than 500 units unless there is written verifi- cation that enough water will be available for the development. The law goes a step further than a 1995 act that requires planning agencies to consider information provided by water suppliers in their decision whether to approve new development. Under the 1995 law, planners can ignore the information and approve a development if they wish. The 500 -unit trigger originally was set at 200 but was raised to gain legislators' approval. Keep in mind that the proposed Newhall Ranch project in Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County would create 21,600 homes and at- tract 65,000 residents, the largest develop- ment project in county history. FWS, BLM directors confirmed: The Senate approved the nomination of Kathleen Clarke as director of the Bureau of Land Manage- ment on Dec. 21. Since 1998, Clarke served as executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources and deputy director from 1993 to 1998. The Senate also confirmed Steven Williams as director of the Fish and Wildlife Service on Jan. 29. Williams has di- rected the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks since 1995. Born in Vermont, he also worked for state fish and wildlife agen- cies in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Little warm? The global average surface temperature in 2001 is expected to be the sec- ond warmest on record, just behind 1998. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred since 1990, according to the World Meteorological Organization (www.wmo.ch). Although global temperatures have risen more than 1.08° F during the past 100 years, the rise hasn't been steady. Since 1976, the global average has risen three times faster than the century -long trend. And 2001 was the 23rd consecutive year with the global mean surface temperature above the 1961- 1990 average. In central England, where sur- face temperatures have been kept for 343 years, October 2001 was the warmest ever. S M A L L Get outside: More than 7070 of Americans said that outdoor leisure activities are more effective in reducing personal stress than indoor activities, according to a 50 -state survey conducted by RT Neilson for Recre- ational Equipment Inc. (rei.com). Nine in 10 people said that spending leisure time out- doors lifted their spirits, the October survey of 1,000 households found. Other findings: Of the 7070 who planned outdoor activities over the recent holidays, one -third said they planned to spend more time outdoors than the previous year. And 7570 strongly agreed that engaging in outdoor activities is a good way to build family relationships. Recycling land: More than 112,000 acres (175 square miles) of contaminated land in the U.S. are being redeveloped, according to the second annual ECS Land Reuse Report (ecsinc.com, 800/327- 1414). California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had the most sites planned for or under redevelopment, according to ECS Inc., an environmental insurer, and the International Economic Development Council (iedconline.org, 202/ 223 - 7800), an association of economic and community development professionals. In- dustrial use of recycled land dropped to 2170 from 3870 last year, replaced by a higher pro- portion of mixed uses, office, residential and cultural and recreational uses. Growth management in Colorado: Gov. Bill Owens signed several growth management bills in November approved in a special ses- sion of the state General Assembly. The two most significant laws: House Bill 1006 for the first time requires high - population and fast - growing counties to create comprehensive land use plans. One caveat: The plans aren't binding. The counties can ignore them. Sen- ate Bill 15 gives counties and all cities —not just home rule cities like Denver —the au- thority to assess impact fees to pay for infra- structure, such as roads and sewers, that serve new development. Two bills that didn't make it to the governor's desk which legislators may revisit this year: one to make binding the new county comprehensive plans and a second requiring the six - county Denver metro region to develop a regional plan that would be binding on all local gov- ernments once two - thirds of the affected lo- cal governments approve it. TRACT S Grants for sustainable forestry. The Na- tional Commission on Science for Sustain- able Forestry (202 / 530 -5810, ncssf.org) is soliciting proposals for 10 grants up to $250,000 each for research on the relation- ship between biodiversity and forest management. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Packard Foundation and National Forest Foundation are funding the commission, which launched the five -year, $7.5 million project in January. It aims to improve the scientific basis for the development, implementation and evalua- tion of sustainable forestry practices in the United States. The commission is conducted under the auspices of the National Council for Science and the Environment (202 / 530- 5810, NCSEonline.org), a nonprofit group working to improve the science behind envi- ronmental decision - making. "Our number one charge is to conduct the highest priority, objective, non - advocacy research on biodiversity and sustainable forestry that is most relevant to improving management practices in the next five years," said John Gordon, commission chair and former pro- fessor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. COMMON GROUND VOL. 13 NO. 1 JANUARY —MARCH 2uur- Backers of Oregon's model growth manage- ment law await a critical state Supreme Court decision regarding the legality of a property rights measure that, if put into place, could decimate the 28- year -old law. Measure 7, approved by voters in November 2000, requires that landowners get paid for any drop in land value stemming from most state or local regulations. The state of Oregon estimated the measure could cost $5.4 billion a year, equivalent to the state's annual gen- eral fund budget. A trial court judge invali- dated the measure in February 2001 on constitutional grounds, and the state Su- preme Court heard arguments on appeal in September. A decision is expected as early as February. The growth management law requires 241 Oregon cities to draw urban growth boundaries to rein in development and limits 25.5 million acres to farm and for- est use. By one estimate, farmers and forest land owners have received $3.5 billion since 1973 in compensation through property tax reductions. Their land is taxed at a special as- sessment rate that is much lower than even farm use value, let alone development value. No matter what the high court decides, vot- ers will likely revisit the issue this fall. Oregon's Measure 7 requires that landowners get paid for any drop in land value stemming from most state or local regulations. The Conservation Fund would like to thank the following recent contributors to the COMMON GROUND Research Fund: David H. Ackerman Michael Alexander Cynthia Andrews Candace Ashmun Henry Baker Jr. Barbara Bedford & Charles Geisler Carole Bell Matthew Bender Robert Bennett Jr. Kenneth Berlin John Bethell Jerry Bley Bruce Watson Boyd Winifred Brand Don Bronkema Barbara Brown Hamilton Brown & Martha Worthington Andrew Cadot John Carlock David Carrington Ronald & Pamela Castle Marian Chertow James Clarke Charles Conklin Jr. Walter Cook Lane Coulston William Cowles Charles Creighton Edmund Cronin Jr. Barbara Dean Frank Dinovo Kathleen Donaghue Frederick Dorrell Judith Doty Dumke Steve Durrant George Edwards Jean Taylor Federico William Flournoy Jr. Henrietta Forcanser Mike Fotos & Claudia Lindsey Eve Fout David Fox Christine Freitag Grenville Garside Elizabeth Garst William Ginsberg Mr. & Mrs. Robert Glennon More than 160 donors gave $8,045 to the COMMON GROUND Research Fund in 2001. If you would like to make a gift, please do. Send your check c/o The Conservation Fund,, 1800 N. Kent St., Suite 1120, Arlington, VA 22209 -2156. Scott Gongaware Christopher Graham Mr. & Mrs. Henry Gray Arlene Grubbs Otto Gutenson Guy Hager Steven Hamburg Samuel Hamill, Jr. Doreen Hamilton Clifford J. Harrison, Jr. Marjorie Hart Scot Heath James Henry Alix Hopkins Robert Houck Shelley Hughes Lynne Hull Donald Hunsaker Frederic Jandrey Karen Jescavage- Bernard Elizabeth Kaeding Michael Keathley Dorothy Keough Karen Kerner Charles & Anita King David Kinnamon Douglas Knudson Josephine Kohn Karen Kress Mike Kruse Berthe Ladd Ney Landrum W. Michael Lane Bob Langsenkamp Jr. George Lauff Elizabeth Lewis Barbara Lipscomb orie Loucks Carolyn Lowe Cyrus Lyle Jr. Donald Mansius Catherine McCracken Peggy McNeill Sara & Ned Meekins Geary Mizuno Robert Morey Letitia Morris Francis Moul Mark Myers Darby & Geraldine Nelson Duncan Patten Harrison Payne John & Mary Pelton Bruce Pendery Nina Ratrie Peyton Richard Pritzlaff Thomas Pytel Ala Reid Robert Reid Jr. Ellen Reneke Kenneth Ribbeck Eugene Roark G.A. Robinson III Mike Roeder Edwin Scott Rosenbaum Michael Russell Darla Sather Mary Savala John Scott Jr. Michael Seeland John Simpson Sandra Smith Elizabeth Stanek Marion Stoddart Marjory Swope Evelyn Tapani - Rosenthal James Taylor Elizabeth Tilbury- Marquard Jules Tileston Edward Voss Ann Wait Richard Watkins Georgia Welles Gary Werner Kris Wernstedt Meg & David West C. David White Andrew & Stephanie Wilbur Edith Wilhelm Howard Williams Frank Wolff Mark Wyckoff Jan Zimmerman 3 31 COMMON GROUND VOL. 13 NO. 1 JANUARY -MARCH 2002 • Maryland contributed $7.6 million to a fed- eral- state - county partnership to protect 5,000 acres of farmland along the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. The Urban Land Institute and the U.S. Green Building Council will host a two -day symposium about the practice of sustainable development. For more information on "The Practice of Sustainable Development," to be held March 26 -27 in Pittsburgh, Pa., call 800 1321 -5011. u� Land Protected, from page 1 ■ In the largest conservation easement in its history, Maryland contributed $7.6 million to a federal- state - county partnership to protect 5,000 acres of farmland along the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Chino Farm, the largest in Queen Anne's County, in- cludes 2.5 miles of Chester River shoreline. About 300 acres will be managed under the federal Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to create buffers and improve water quality. More than 100 acres will be re- planted with trees to provide wildlife corri- dors to link adjacent forest lands. The Fund, which helped arrange the easement, has as- sisted in protecting 99,000 acres in the state. ■ DeKalb County, Ga., tapped its new $125 million fund for parks and green space in December to add 940 acres to the Davidson - Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve 20 miles east of Atlanta. The acquisition coincided with a 100 -acre gift to the county by the Richard King Mellon Foundation that in- creased the reserve to more than 1,600 acres. The land includes rocky outcrops, woodland and a stream within the South River water- shed. The additions form a land bridge that connects the preserve with Panola Mountain State Conservation Park. The Conservation Fund assisted with the gift. ■ The Denver Business Journal recently chose the preservation of the 21,000 -acre Greenland Ranch in Douglas County as a Groundbreaker of the Year Award winner. The project, which Sydney Macy of The Con- servation Fund's Colorado office worked on for years, brought $70 million in funding to- gether from Great Outdoors Colorado, Dou- glas County and a conservation buyer. The county purchased 3,600 acres of the ranch for recreation. A conservation easement was placed on the remaining 17,400 acres of the working ranch, which was purchased by the conservation buyer in July 2000. ■ Leaders of 45 state natural resource agen- cies, led by John Oliver, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, met at a landmark meeting in Shepherdstown, W.Va., in Octo- ber to seek ways to encourage multistate partnerships and more effectively communi- cate their interests to the federal govern- ment. The leaders were joined by Gale Norton, Interior secretary, Fran Mainella, director of the National Park Service, Steve Williams, since confirmed as director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "We hope this meeting is the first of an ongoing effort to engage the states in setting the agenda for natural resources conservation in this country," Norton said. The group plans to meet April 25 -27 to discuss the work of committees on land conservation, transporta- tion and agriculture. The Conservation Fund, with assistance from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, provided financial sup- port for the initial meeting. ■ Jim and Lucia Gilliland of Memphis, Tenn., recently loaned $500,000 interest -free to The Conservation Fund to create the Con- servation Partners Fund. Like many Ameri- cans, the Gillilands have watched a sputter- ing stock market and record low interest rates and decided to seek a better return by looking beyond traditional investments. Through the new partners fund, investors agree to loan at least $250,000 interest -free to the Fund for at least two years. The money will fund land conservation projects, and loans will be repaid at the end of the term. The Gilliland money helped protect 5,000 acres along the Cumberland Trail in Tennes- see. The state, which aims to create a 280 - mile linear park, secured more than half the land, leaving more than 2,000 acres unpro- tected. With a boost from the Gilliland loan, The Conservation Fund bought the land and now has time to raise money with its part- ners to protect it for the long term. For more details about the Conservation Partners Pro- gram, contact David Phillips (703/525-6300, dphillips @conservationfund.org). ■ In the largest environmental grant in its history, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (mott.org) has given $3.975 million to The Conservation Fund to create a revolving loan fund (616/426 -8825, pkohring @aol.com) to protect coastal and freshwater ecosystems in the 8 -state Great Lakes basin. The revolving fund will provide land trusts and govern- ment agencies with short -term loans to pur- chase ecologically significant areas and conservation easements. The Conservation Fund will provide technical assistance to help complete the acquisitions. The new fund is expected to protect $15 million of land in 5 years. "This grant is a tremendous leap forward," said Peg Kohring, the Fund's Midwest director. "We can look at larger blocks of land and be more systematic in the preservation of ecologically important sites." JL COMMON GROUND VOL. 13 NO. 1 JANUARY -MARCH 2002 • RPOR ATE N • ■ Chicago and Mexico City have joined American Electric Power, BP, Alliant En- ergy and dozens of other companies in the development of North America's first carbon emissions trading system. The Joyce Foun- dation (joycefdn.org, 312/782 -2464) has given $1.1 million to Northwestern Univer- sity and Environmental Financial Products to establish the Chicago Climate Exchange (312/554 -3350, chicagoclimatex.com). The exchange, to open later this year, will enable participants to get credit for voluntary emis- sion reductions and buy and sell credits to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 57o be- low 1999 levels over 5 years. Credits will be given for emission offset projects, including methane destruction, solar and wind energy projects and reforestation. ■ Johnson & Johnson recently awarded a $50,000 grant to The Conservation Fund to accelerate work in three community -led con- servation efforts: brownfield redevelopment, urban green infrastructure and conservation programs for disadvantaged youth. ■ The Philip Morris Companies has awarded a $40,000 grant to The Conserva- tion Fund to help create the nation's first land trust that helps African - Americans re- tain land ownership, protect critical land and water resources, implement sustainable farm practices and spur economic development that showcases African - American heritage. The Sandhills Family Heritage Association (SFHA, 919/489 -2416, sandhillsfamily @yahoo.com), led by Ammie Jenkins, is serving African - American landowners in the six - county Sandhills region of eastern North Carolina, one of the country's most signifi- cant and endangered ecosystems. SFHA will provide programs that use conservation techniques to help black land owners retain their property, preserve the area's natural resources and celebrate local cultural and historical heritage. SFHA, the Land Loss Prevention Project and the Fund also are sponsoring workshops on land ownership laws. The partners are seeking funding to buy conservation easements to protect Afri- can- American land ownership in the area. Selzer Succeeds Turner as Fund's CEO ■ Lawrence A. Selzer has been chosen as president and CEO of The Conservation Fund The Fund also has hired an Illinois state director and a Montana field representative. Selzer succeeds John Turner, who joined the Bush administration Nov. 13 as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Interna- tional Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Selzer, who joined the Fund in 1990, most recently served as senior vice president of the Fund's sustainable programs. He was respon- sible for the Fund's American Greenways Pro- gram, the Freshwater Institute, the Conserva- tion Leadership Network, the Civil War Battle- field Campaign, Resourceful Communities Program, sustainable forestry and six state field offices. Selzer, 41, earned his undergradu- ate degree in environmental sciences from Wesleyan University and ran marine research programs out of Woods Hole, Mass., before re- ceiving a master's degree in business from the University of Virginia. "Larry brings a unique combination of skills and experience to meeting new chal- lenges," said Patrick Noonan, chairman of the Fund. "He is at the forefront of 'smart conservation,' which balances economic re- turn with environmental principles. Larry has shown that we can create productive, in- novative partnerships with the private sector and work with public agencies to achieve long range economic and environmental goals. We welcome his leadership," he said. Turner joined the Fund in 1993 after serving as director of the Fish and Wildlife Service during the first Bush administration. As president, Turner guided the Fund to help conserve more that 3 million acres of wildlife habitat, river corridors, historic sites and community open space. "I speak for all of us in expressing admiration for John's commitment to conservation and his contri- butions to public service," Noonan said. ■ The Conservation welcomes staff mem- bers, William "Will" Humphrey and Gates Watson. Humphrey (whumphrey@conserva- tionfund.org, 312/332- 6292), the Fund's new Illinois state director, came from Jones Lang LaSalle, a real estate services, development and investment management firm. Watson (406/541-8555, gwatson @conservationfund. org), the new Montana field representative, most recently worked at the Pennsylvania Environmental Council near Pittsburgh. A grant from Philip Morris Companies will help establish the nations first land trust to help African- Americans protect their land and heritage. Selzer has shown that we can create productive, innovative partnerships with the private sector and work with public agencies to achieve long range economic and environmental goals. 33 COMMON GROUND VOL. 13 NO. 1 JANUARY -MARCH 2002 I Southern Forests Study Forecasts indicate that 31 million acres of forest will be developed and 25 million acres of farmland will become forest land between 1992 and 2040. 'O'Q 'NO.LONIHSN�1'1 PKE 'ON 1111 Hd (I IVd SOVISOd 'STI 'ONO .LId021d-NON About 12 million acres of the South's forests could be lost to urbanization between 1992 and 2020, with the largest losses in the Piedmont and coastal plains, according to the Southern Forest Resources Assessment (free, 828 / 257 -4200, www.srs.fs.fed.us / sus- tain), a two -year study released in Novem- ber by the Forest Service. The effects of urban and suburban areas extend far beyond city limits, resulting in wildlife habitat frag- mentation, a scarcity of forest benefits, such as recreation opportunities, and limitations • The current forest area in the South (214 million acres) is 60% of the total in 1630 and 917o of that recorded in 1907. Eleven percent ip ^�---, ed by gov- ernment, with the remainder to private hands. The forest industry owns 22% of the private land, fol- lowed by farmers (21 %) and corporations (121 o), with the remaining 45% owned by others. • Forecasts indicate that 31 million acres of forest will be developed and 25 million acres of farmland will become forest land between 1992 and 2040. • Between 1953 and 1997, the South's timber pro- duction more than doubled, its share of U.S. pro- duction increased from 41% to 587o, and its share of world production increased from 6.37o to 15.87o. The region now produces more timber than any country in the world, except the U.S. • Timber market models forecast that timber pro- duction in the United States will increase by about one -third between 1995 and 2040. Nearly all of the growth will come from the South where produc- tion is forecast to increase 567o' for softwoods and 477o' for hardwoods. • Although softwood inventories will increase steadily until at least 2040, hardwood removal is forecast to exceed growth by 2025. 1219-9LZLZ ON 'WHOH49S11IH I9I9 X49 4d 1d34 U39NOO SH 181AN3 A1d410NU80 1IONd1S GIAV4 HW on management options necessary to keep forests healthy, concludes the study. It was compiled by more than 25 scientists from the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, state forestry and fish and wildlife agencies and several universities. Any effective strategy to ensure the long- term health of the 214 million acres of south- ern forest will require the cooperation of 5 million private landowners who oversee nearly 90% of the land. Some findings: • Planted pine increased to 32 million acres in 1999, up from 2 million in 1953. Pine plantation acreage is forecast to jump 677o' to 54 million aces by 2040, mostly through conversion of cropland. • Ozone pollution is forecast to jump between 207o to 507o from 1990 and 2025. Growth reduc- tions in southern pines are expected as a result. • In 1997, timber harvests produced 700,000 jobs in the wood products sector and more than $118 billion in total industry output. Total economic impacts of these activities were about 2.2 million jobs and $251 billion of total industry output. • In 1997, outdoor recreation -based tourism con- tributed between 0.64% and 2.887o of southern jobs. Public lands represented 56% of the contri- bution. Recreation pressures on public land are substantial. Much private land is unavailable for public recreation. The trend is toward less access. • Of the 1,208 vertebrate species known to exist in the South, 132 are considered to be of conser- vation concern, and 28 are classified as critically imperiled. The South, the center of amphibian biodiversity in the nation, has 54 amphibians classified as species of concern, and 19 as criti- cally imperiled. GRiSRnOax NOLLDRENOD SSRxaGW 60ZZZ V1 `U0I0U11JV OZ11 a11nS `.1S luaX 'N 0081 ri ti 1, k I 34 NC MILLION ACRE INITIATIVE 2001 Annual Report The NC Million Acre Initiative is a state -led, collaborative endeavor meant to accelerate the rate at which land is protected in North Carolina by fostering partnerships among private and public land protection partners, promoting more regional open space planning, and providing information about the importance of open space protection. The goal is to permanently protect a million acres of open spaces including working landscapes, historic and cultural areas, floodplains, land essential for water quality protection, natural areas, species habitat, and recreational lands. INDEX OF TOPICS Essential Information Executive Summary Land Protected Where We Were Where We Are Land Protection Highlights Information and Technical Assistance Regional Planning Efforts Open Space Mapping Website Presentations Funding Environmental Finance Center Report (EFC) Funding Constraints and Grant,Applications The Year Ahead Proposed Strategies Appendix Million Acre Initiative Legislation Staff and Contacts 1 2 3 3 6 7 8 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 36 ESSENTIAL INFORMATION Introduction: During the 1998 Session of the General Assembly, lawmakers directed the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to protect, through private and public actions, an additional million acres of farmland, open space, and other conservation lands across North Carolina between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2009. This directive is found in G.S. 113A- 241 (Included in this report as an appendix). The NC Million Acre Initiative is a state -led, collaborative endeavor meant to accelerate the rate at which land is protected in North Carolina by fostering partnerships among private and public land protection partners, promoting more regional open space planning, and providing information about the importance of open space protection. The goal is to permanently protect a million acres of open spaces including working landscapes, historic and cultural areas, floodplains, land essential for water quality protection, natural areas, species habitat, and recreational lands. Goals: Four fundamental goals of the Million Acre Initiative have been established - One primary goal and three secondary goals that support realization of the primary goal. 1) PROTECT LAND - G.S. 113A -241, directs the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to lead the effort to permanently protect an additional one million acres of open space, farmland and other conservation lands by the end of 2009. 2) PROMOTE COLLABORATION— To facilitate efficient land protection, communication networks between land protection partners must be supported. 3) INCREASE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PLANNING — Developing plans for local and regional open space protection is an important step in the process of balancing North Carolina's development needs and conservation needs. 4) PROVIDE INFORMATION — The state government has a unique ability to centralize and distribute important statewide open space protection information. The state can provide a leadership role in open space protection education. Which Land Counts: Not all protected lands in North Carolina count toward the goal of protecting an additional million acres. In order to qualify, land must be permanently protected through the purchase or donation of a conservation easement or fee simple interest. The easement or deed must be held by a public or private conservation oriented entity. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY September 2000 through August 2001 has been an exciting, yet challenging, 12 months for the North Carolina Million Acre Initiative. News of the Initiative and the successes of its many land protection partners has been common in the media of our state and has periodically been noted and acclaimed outside our borders as well. Support for open space protection and reaching the goal of protecting an additional million acres of open spaces remains high across the State, and the foundation for accelerated land protection in North Carolina is in place. A look at the numbers of acres protected, though, reveals that we are not yet on course for reaching our million -acre land protection goal. There are two primary reasons for this: Money is the primary factor in determining the rate at which we protect land in North Carolina. While existing state trust funds meet many of the critical needs of our land protection entities, the present combined federal, state, local, and private expenditures for land protection in North Carolina will not allow the state to reach the million acre - o al by 2009. It is clear that the state's budget situation makes it a difficult time to appropriate more revenues to land protection activities. It is also clear that until the land protection partners of North Carolina identify new sources of money for land protection, we will continue to fall short of the number of acres we need to protect each year. The Million Acre Initiative is a new program. Our initial steps in the implementation of the Million Acre Initiative have been spent developing program goals and policies, implementation strategies, standardized procedures, information systems, and many other program components that allow us to turn our desire to protect open spaces into a functioning initiative to get it done. Over the past two years, divisions within DENR have increased their permanently protected land holdings by approximately 15.5 percent. These same entities are working together with other land protection partners to develop statewide land protection strategies and locally driven implementation plans, making sure we protect a network of lands essential for water quality and natural area protection, recreational opportunities, cultural and historic preservation, economic prosperity, and flood hazard mitigation. We are working diligently to develop a sound land protection initiative that is poised to makimize the use of additional resources when they become available. As we continue to protect essential open spaces across the state - in big cities, small towns, and in the rural countryside - we must also address the great need for a state -led educational campaign that focuses on how permanently protected open space in every community is essential for maximizing quality of life. Helping the general public understand the ecological, economic, and social importance of protecting open space will be an important step forward in reaching North Carolina's land protection goals. 1) . �41 LAND PROTECTED Where We Were When the goal to protect an additional million acres of open space was announced in January 2000, no reliable calculation of the amount of open space already protected in North Carolina existed. In order to establish that baseline number, hundreds of surveys were sent out, returned, and tallied during the summer and fall of 2000. These surveys confirmed the original estimate of 2.8 million acres of existing protected land in the state. Table 1 -1 below shows the breakdown of how much land was already protected by each of the land protection sectors that hold land for conservation purposes in North Carolina Table 1 -1 SECTOR Acres of Land Protected as of 12/31/98 Local Governments 52,2821 State Government 529,813 Federal Government 2,066,138 Local Land Trusts 38,464 Other Conservation Organizations 73,997 Total 2,7609694 1 Local Government figures are based on survey responses from 61 of 100 counties and 139 of 538 municipalities. Where We Are Now Once the baseline figure was determined, a system for tracking the additional million acres was developed. Figures for state, federal, and private sector land protection partners are collected through surveys every six months (end of calendar year and end of fiscal year). The local government totals have not been updated since the baseline survey was completed during the summer of 2000. Totals for each of the sectors as of 12/31/00 are presented in table 1 -2. Table 1 -2 SECTOR Acres Protected Between 1/1199 and 12/31/00 Local Governments 916731 State Government 67,144 Federal Government 7,012 Local Land Trusts 221738 Other Conservation Organizations 5,183 Total 111,750 1 Local Government figures are from 1/99 — 6/00. 91 4v The University System of North Carolina has not been counted in these figures nor have all the land protection partners at the state level. The private data are complete, but the local government information is incomplete as some of our larger municipalities and a number of counties have never replied to the surveys that were sent to them. Since many of these local government entities have a substantial number of acres in protected status, the total number for local governments should be higher. Based upon the figures that have been collected, however, the annual rate of land protection in North Carolina is approximately 56,000 acres per year. At this rate, it would take 18 years to complete the Million Acre Initiative. To reach the goal of one million acres in a decade's time, we must average 100,000 acres per year. Table 1 -3 (on the following page) offers a better picture of which entities are protecting what quantity of land within the individual sectors. Maps of the land that has been protected so far are included later in the report in the Open Space Mapping section (starting on page 8). To realize the million -acre goal that was established as state law in June 2000, we must double the rate at which we are protecting land in North Carolina. 2 43 TABLE 1 -3 Acres Under Permanent Protection (note: a blank cell means no data was cnllected_ 0 means no land was nrntar foil Rv- rK /,. w �s4f.54...�'f._l: �7�~ ` • WY}C 't. ' ' K .�_1Y) ij'.\r \ ^l.11: it, . M1 'IR7'�7�i�fiul�r,►cpa.`,''•!ai. State Agency category PRE 1999 1/99-6/00 7/00 - 12/00 TOTALS DENR - FOREST RESOURCES state forest 44,141 592 1,154 45,887 DENR - SOIL AND WATER conservation reserve enhancement program 0 0 349 349 WILDLIFE RESOURCES game lands 266,929 11,164 16,846 294,939 DENR - WATER QUALITY wetlands restoration program 891 139 0 1,030 DENR - PARKS AND REC. state park state natural area state rec area state lakes 80,618 27,169 12,239 29,135 8,284 37 0 0 5,613 278 0 0 94,515 27,484 . 12,239 29,135 DENR - COASTAL MNGMT. coastal reserves public beach /access submerged lands 31,406 28 1,415 18,758 0 0 32 0 0 50,196 28 1,415 DoA &CS - PLANT INDUSTRY state nature preserve other lands 19 22,026 158 3,740 3,917 22,026 DCR - HISTORIC SITES " state historic sites 1,506 1,506 STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM " university roe 12,291 12,291 SUBTOTALS 29,813 39,132 28,012 596,957 Local Governments ALL CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS parks, greenways, watersheds, etc. 52,282 9,673 61,956 SUBTOTALS 52,282 1 9,673 1 61,956 Federal Agency FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE national wildlife refuge 419,674 1,031 111 420,817 US FOREST SERVICE national forests 1,243,507 1,703 809 1,246,019 USDA -NRCS WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM wetlands reserve 15,067 1,986 1,163 18,216 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE national park R87,890 209 0 388,100 SUBTOTALS ,066,138 4,929 1 2,083 2,073,149 Ui- Local Land Trusts NC LAND TRUSTS protected lands 38,464 16,378 6,360 61,202 SUBTOTALS P8,464 16,378 6,360 61,202 Other Conservation Groups THE NATURE CONSERVANCY nature preserves 57,000 4,224 382 61,606 AUDUBON SOCIETY nature preserves 6,200 0 0 6,200 AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST farmland 8,797 0 0 8,797 PRESERVATION NC historic preservation 2,000 438 139 2,577 SUBTOTALS 3,997 1 4,662 1 521 1 79,180 TOTALS ,760,694 74,774 36,976 2,872,444 Does not include Dupont State Forest DCR: Have not responded to surveys; Universities: Have not been surveyed again According to Survey Responses from 61 of 100 counties and 139 of 538 municipalities "'° 25 local land trusts that regularly partner with the Conservation Trust for North Carolina �i Land Protection Highlights: This is a sampling of the land protection projects of 2000 -2001. For each project, information on location, significance, partnerships, and funding sources is presented. • Boiling Spring Lakes, Brunswick County. Protection Partners: NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Plant Conservation Program), The Nature Conservancy (NC Chapter), Town of Boiling Spring. Significance: Nationally significant natural area, unusual concentration of endemic plant species. Funding Sources: ; Tatural Heritage Trust Fund, NC Conservation Tax Credit Program. • Bullhead Mountain, Alleghany County. Protection Partners: NC Division of Parks and Recreation, National Audubon Society, Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust, Conservation Trust for North Carolina, local residents and elected officials. Significance: Viewshed for Blue Ridge Parkway, critical hawk migration area. Funding Sources: Natural Heritage Trust Fund, NC Dept. of Transportation. • Emily H. Allen Wildflower Preserve, Forsyth County. Protection Partners: Private landowner, Piedmont Land Conservancy. Significance: Home to over 500 species of wildflowers from across the southeastern United States, including 28 species of Trillium. Funding Sources: Piedmont Land Conservancy, Winston -Salem Foundation, John and Anna Hanes Foundation, NC Conservation Tax Credit Program, local and regional garden clubs, other private donations. • Farmland Conservation Easement, Hyde County. Protection Partners: Private landowner, NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program - CREP). Significance: Farmland important for water quality protection. Funding Sources: US Department of Agriculture- Natural Resource Conservation Service, Clean Water Management Trust Fund. • Gar Creek, Mecklenburg County. Protection Partners: Mecklenburg County, Catawba Lands Conservancy. Significance: Undisturbed riparian and upland habitat for water quality protection, conservation of wildlife habitat. Funding Source: Mecklenburg County Land Preservation Bonds. • Lake Logan, Haywood County. Protection Partners: NC Wildlife Resources Commission, The Conservation Fund of NC, US Forest Service, The Boy Scouts of America, Save Lake Logan Committee, The Episcopal Diocese of Western NC, elected officials, and private donors. Significance: Protection of Lake Logan and its tributaries, conservation of wildlife habitat. Funding Sources: Natural Heritage Trust Fund, Clean Water Management Trust Fund, private donor, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Boy Scouts of America, US Forest Service, The Episcopal Diocese of Western NC. • Seven Mile Creek, Orange County. Protection Partners: Orange County, Eno River Association. Significance: Undeveloped bottomlands, large roadless area, wildlife habitat, water quality protection for headwaters of the Eno River. Funding Sources: Orange County (Lands Legacy Program). • Working Forest Conservation Easement, Moore County. Protection Partners: Private landowner, Sandhills Area Land Trust. Significance: Endangered species (Red- cockaded Woodpecker) habitat, water quality protection. Funding Source: Private landowner (using North Carolina Conservation Tax Credit Program). 45 INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Regional Planning Efforts To ensure that we are protecting one million acres of important open space and not just any million acres of land, we must sul: ort local open space planning efforts. A number of these efforts are underway across the state in various different forms. The most effective planning efforts are the ones that go beyond individual local boundaries to incorporate the open space needs of an entire region. Ideally, these plans will be developed in a way that allows for blending across regions as well. The following map shows where regional open space planning efforts are either underway or being considered. Map 2 -1 Regional Open Space Planning Efforts ® Upper Catawba River Basin M Voices and Choices e Determining How to Proceed Two regional planning efforts are more comprehensive than others in the state: The Charlotte Area Voices and Choices program and the Triangle Area GreenPrint. Less comprehensive projects are underway in several other communities. These are generally led by local land trusts 7 ,a. fir: �± t �t c `t =` r d.n^' •� mot„ i.:+ 1+ r y r Y +� Z'•n . C J ' MY, ;,�' "Sy �; k • J ii^ : .r 9�E.. ��l ey't, -f ,,, 1� ti- 57 � sr�7� 4 !'�-. f � Y{ _�Y.ei -� T'. 3"!, f I ,,, !.� t i'•i. ' 4 - + 'r Z ', r t. •,V haw .. �Ia t, .�.K ", y Y j Reglonal"Open_ Sp_ ace Pl'anning Ellorls.IU.Norlh;�.'Catdllna •Yr� +Zv tf f•:' Y,, Sj', t`I:!"�'''�+�'wti"�'•�,.r�,.: � 3�,}�'�iy�'�i••'��,.w�'�:!.+� �j ` bl�a» •�,�.'�.�t YL. yµ'-� -, s r•,n;:'7• ?t1-' fit... ,•`•':ti..,, .'. Mfr. iY'f Tnan le. GreenPnnt = Amalfi" Base: o ect to develo ` z "'" '� }'* '�" " }�`'Ft g P. _ _ Pr J p a commonly agreedupon », ` _...r...�•.� '. t•' - Z. : T - +T(�c tWiC t •r,•iYt` 'r r rnx plan forprotecting tl e<cntical greenKnfrastructif — the,six- county nanglea area` �t a .:Sponsors t �, r Triangle Land Conservancy, Triangle. J Council oE.Goverizinents �. s� tt.yr i71 '�fi'*'tr c - �_rx�• F >> -.� + i�CD Li:�it.��j�J�,f�,��F ,' ;'' �ii �C y I i.t `;y�� {,,i� =,��j � I� +„' t1�' "7�cN >.,i �' �. •��'E."' ` yl 7 tl 6 ��.y. P�,Ji 1 •_ ! •fr%'.n � - ,i;'`�y f3 '� 7'irVr �i. e •Y iit�6'a ,�X- ��Y "p""�4j' !.. �.`rl',fa.+JG ��, ����'1'JJ � ���t���,r ;C��L �r. .: a�rt'„J�tyi'a r.+,i ri�?= ML.�- .�r?M.1`!��r+t '['�.e , i�+% fK�y�.r�'�.�eF�'.�� Voices•,and Choi_ces,41 �,' is s one component of their, gea�.rcomm= Ylsionui r�r mss+ :: �l .1R, �r k:'G.'�+u'1,►•i�$'X.'�K•W ♦�" %4G.3;i, it z71r q,4y processrfor the fourteen cotmtSr�CbarTotteQVTecklenbiiift a D+r sen�byctlre'C�?oices; `I _y+,., :' ,,Y.,.� �,yr •r- .+. -R''s .•r;• � ,� +ea ey,�.rrr � .1'it.:. �.: - ��r {r .F�, +,f.�iv�.,�714F .if��,a. -��'►a Y�'I `�tq Y"F t: and Choices staff yvith,teclintcalrsupport from'tfie=Carolinas; Landnsesvatton, A y ' V• ti •i`r•i Y!'{,v- • rl� T..til{. Network and L;andDesign (g pnvate consulting firm) 1 `f rcr rir .si, i f+ _S * `h�y�t i+ `' lr�" ry + -J~ r • . i r;3 N' R t •r� - Cw.A,1 M- T-11:N5: -pfj • 'S+ L ~ +i s•+ 3 is tr. i, . nT,ti r 1r,.,,.,.i- ' %�" 'i'!! , ,r % yj , i ` 1 .:.. i r� �• 'tr' T-O +t tt `% RrV.,% .. .. •G: v-F. .k.r �..�..t • s I i. �'- �'Y Upper Catawba River Basin This'effort is being. led by tfie Foothills: Conservancy of North Carolina' "and is focused-�on protecting the natural lentage of the Upper+ Catawba:RiverBas�: Community visionu g wo kshops have been held;to'di'scuss 41 protection targets and strategies.` >� .. �, ` n�` fi..•.�II ,t ii. 4 xis r 1:. '!< n I 1;- t � •: i � S+r t .r-.1 :•Y � Fes.! A a iJ',.. ..r;; .L tM �� •,. 1.: � G ,r: h + , � Piedmont Area = Projectis still being developed.through leadership from the '' rI ' piedmont_; Triad Council of Governments and flee Piedmont Z.and Co'nseivancy ; T +'.sti r .S�r'' .-Their workwillmostldcely focus on.incorporating broad open space planning�goals info smaller area Flans } 1 c a r 3 P_ S a f ha j +.. •. + �. 1 t ,C•. +� i �. ' I t ,. :,, -,'. a t' S..• Ja, � 'a;� t F+ r � .f t ..'. a+. ♦ - .j i r♦ aF 7�' ` 1 �' ;t; 1'l '�.ti .' s Land of Sky Individual interests in a . common effort to develo a:region wide strategy for profectmg open spaces are: coming ogether }Key partners include'the .. +,.. ,: 1: Land of Sky Council.of Governments, the Carolina Mountaui Land Conservancyr `y 'and local electedofficials� .s r 4. ,. i' 'h J�+�7 _. rL{ -i ':� rS. i <t �.J n.,Srl�.�SI � 1 ✓'tom• -+- . a a'�'ti�S n37s � � ll;� �y�j"'�'� • 1kA ' � .n. Y� t • II ►. t, , I t 1.1, {� l+� ,I'.F` rll tl .� I "1„t , t. . 1 ^1. v/. •1_ • '•�' •{'Sa'E -�f 4_. .i' 1 1' . ate• E ?i�t -.j_a. :. :.: Open Space Mapping and focus predominantly on protecting natural areas. Additionally, there are other communities that are expressing interest in creating a regional open space protection plan, but do not yet have the resource capabilities or for other reasons are not ready yet to proceed with creating a regional open space protection plan. Communications between and among the different groups is being promoted through the Million Acre Initiative. As part of the State Budget of Fiscal Year 2000, the General Assembly allocated $200,000 to the Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) as part of the $1.7 million Farmland Preservation Trust package. This money was used to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) for storing and mapping open space protection data in North Carolina. Dozens of meetings were held to discuss the technical intricacies of establishing such a complicated spatial database. The GIS was designed to achieve two goals: 1) To map each protected property in North Carolina, documenting the owners, managers, funding sources, management strategies, type of protection, date of transaction, and many other important pieces of information about each land protection project. 2) To bring together layers of data that can be used to develop strategies for future land protection. Data layers include prime farmland, municipal boundaries, water bodies, wildlife habitat areas, and target regions of various land protection programs. The structure of the database has been completed and the data have been partially collected. Additional data layers have been added to the protected areas layer to create a complete "project" _X V 47 that is available on CD -ROM and viewable using GIS software. CGIA is handling the distribution of this product. In its present state, though, the product will not be able to serve all the functions it was designed to do. In order to be completely functional, more spatial data needs to be created and incorporated into the GIS. In North Carolina, and most other states, digital, geographic information about the land holdings of the local governments and the private non- profit land trusts is lacking. Until this information is collected, and in some cases created, the Million Acre GIS will only be partially effective. Collecting all the land protection information that is needed will take time. It will involve developing partnerships between state government, regional councils of government, local governments, and private land protection interests. The maps on the following pages are products of CGIA's Million Acre Mapping project. The first map shows the extent of protected lands in North Carolina before the Million Acre Initiative and the open spaces that have been protected as part of the Million Acre Initiative. The second map is a larger scale focus on one portion of the map — the Wilmington area in this case - used to show detail that cannot be seen on a statewide map. The maps are being presented here only for the purpose of demonstrating some of the information available in the GIS. They are not of sufficient quality to be used for land protection analyses. The maps present approximately 107,000 acres of the total 112,000 acres that have been identified as protected as part of the Million Acre Initiative. Some discrepancies exist at the local government level and some of the private lands that have been counted are not included in the map work. All state lands that have been counted toward the million -acre goal are shown on the maps and nearly all the federal lands are mapped as well. Corrections and updates will be made to the CGIA Million Acre GIS as more funds become available to do so. Discussions are underway to determine the best way for individual land protection partners to make updated information available to CGIA. go N ca J as v a� 0 L a N N r-1 43 Map 2 -3 Detail of Protected Lands Data 5 0 5 10 Miles '�;, Interstate highways Protected lands Federal government ® State government Local government 0 Private sector 0 County boundaries Website In October 2000, the Million Acre Initiative website was made public. By visiting htip:/ /wvvw.ncsparks.net/millionacre, anyone can learn what the Million Acre Initiative is about and can access information about land protection projects, conservation easements, costs of development vs. cost of undeveloped land, land development trends, land protection incentives such as the North Carolina Conservation Tax Credit Program and other general open space protection issues. Users can also link to a number of other land protection entities in North Carolina and in other states including the federal government, state government, local government, and private sector land protection bodies. As the initiative develops, the website will become a one -stop shop about all kinds of land protection projects in North Carolina. Links will be included to similar projects in other states, news and journal articles about the importance of open space protection, maps of open space protection efforts in North Carolina, tools for local governments and private citizens who wish to protect open spaces, funding opportunities, and technical assistance with land stewardship concerns. The site will become a central clearinghouse for information about open space protection and an essential stop for anyone interested in open space protection in our state. Presentations As part of our program of information dissemination and technical assistance, we have taken our land protection campaign on the road. We make presentations to groups interested in open space protection. Some examples of our outreach efforts include the P Annual Regional Environmental Summit in Charlotte, The Recreational Resources Service's statewide teleconference, and the NC Regional Council of Governments Conference on Smart Growth Principles. In addition to these one -time events, the Million Acres staff often provides longer -term input to steering committees and advisory boards. In the fall and winter of 2000 -2001, we worked with the Farm and Open Space Workgroup of the Legislative Commission on Smart Growth, Growth Management and Economic Development. Staff worked to include recommendations that are important to the realization of the state's land protection goals. The final report of the workgroup included important recommendations related to: • Promoting regional open space planning • Educating the residents of North Carolina about the importance of open space protection, and • Empowering local governments to do more land protection, and • Increasing funding levels for both running the initiative and land protection 12 FUNDING Meeting North Carolina's land protection goals requires resources for both actual land protection and for the management of the programs that facilitate land protection. Presently, this financial support comes from a number of sources including donations from private citizens and businesses, federal grants, local government expenditures, state appropriations, state tax incentives, and through the funding mechanisms of four trust funds. A great many of the acres protected were partially or fully p.-;d for using grants from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Natural Heritage Trust Fund, Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, or the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund. The Conservation Tax Credit Program has also been instrumental in facilitating donations of open space by offering tax incentives to the donors. This program has allowed for the donation of 82,000 acres of land over its eighteen -year life. Continued support for these four trust funds and for the Conservation Tax Credit Program is essential if we are to meet the goal of protecting one million additional acres of farmland, conservation land and other open spaces. Environmental Finance Center (EFC) Report At the request of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (EFC) completed a study on the costs and funding options for the North Carolina Million Acre Initiative. This report was released in February 2001. The full report, about 75 pages long, is available on line at: http: / /www.efc.unc. edu/ projects/ MillionAcresI MillionAcresReportFinalColor.pdf Highlights of the EFC Report Amount of land currently being protected: • At present funding levels, between 43,000 and 63,000 acres per year are being protected in ways that meet the Million Acre Mandate (G.S. § 133A -241). Costs of funding "the gap" • Additional costs, over and above FY 2000 funding levels, are expected to range from $95 million per year to $270 million per year, with a reasonable point estimate of $125 million per year, for the next 10 years. Local fiscal impacts • The maximum estimated county property tax revenue loss (without considering offsetting gains in property values) from state acquisition of the entire one million acres of conservation property is $9 million. Further research and implementation • The state should provide administrative funding to coordinate open space planning and tracking. • The maximum benefits from land preservation will only occur if acquisitions are made in conjunction with some coordinated planning. 13 The report blends information gained from both stakeholder meetings and individual communications with people experienced in land protection in North Carolina. It was developed with data collected from state and federal agencies, local governments, nonprofit land trusts, environmental groups, business and development interests, and 55 academics. This collection of information was put into a model that estimated the likely amount of land that will be protected in North Carolina with present funding levels and ratios during the period of the Million Acre Initiative. Based on that estimate the authors suggest different approaches for closing and funding the "gap" between existing land protection efforts and what will be needed to accomplish the goals of the Million Acre Initiative. In their suggestions, they stress the importance of programs like the North Carolina Conservation Tax Credit Program because of its ability to leverage, "the willingness of individual property owners to receive less than full market value in exchange for the permanent protection of their property." Funding Constraints and Grant Applications The Million Acre Initiative is facing resource constraints that limit our ability to meet the state's land protection goals. While a solid set of goals and strategies is being developed, some operational funds are necessary to put programs and projects in place. Grant money was sought in place of state money once news of the state's budget crisis was released. Two grant applications were submitted in the Winter /Spring of 2001. The first was to the Z. Smith Reynolds foundation for money to promote regional open space planning across the state and to fund the Million Acre coordinator's position for an additional year. This application for continued funding was turned down. The second grant application was to the US EPA (Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special Purpose Grants; CFDA 66.606) for money specifically to continue the coordinator's position. This application was approved and is being used to pay the coordinator's salary during fiscal year 2001. Future grant applications will be submitted to help pay for education and outreach projects, to help in the gathering of open space protection data across the state, and to assist local and regional governments with their regional open space planning efforts. To meet some of the additional staff needs, an internship has been proposed for the summer of 2002 and the possibility of acquiring an Americorps volunteer is being explored. 14 THE YEAR AHEAD Accelerating the rate at which we protect land in North Carolina is essential if we are to reach our million -acre target by December 2009. While the most critical element in our rate of land protection is availability of funding, there are ma►iy other factors that also affect that rate. Embracing the following strategies will help us achieve our protection goals. Proposed Strategies Provide Leadership in Promoting and Assisting Regional Open Space Planning As mentioned earlier in the report, regional open space planning is an important part of making sure the million acres we eventually protect are the right million acres — not a piecemeal, patchwork of undeveloped lands but a system of essential greenspace whose network supports the complete functionality of each piece of land protected. Provide Coordination for the Initiative. Protection of one million acres of farmland, parks, natural areas, and watersheds across North Carolina will involve the participation of many state and federal agencies, local governments, private land trusts, conservation groups, and other organizations involved with land conservation. Coordination among these many participants is needed to share ideas, to foster partnerships, to minimize duplication of effort, and to ensure that the Million Acre Initiative results in conservation of North Carolina's most environmentally important lands. Supply Information. There is a great need for an organized, targeted, statewide open space education campaign. Presentations about the importance of open space protection should be delivered to business groups, civic groups, school groups, local officials and their staffs and boards. These presentations should stress the importance of open space protection from an environmental perspective, economic development perspective, and a quality of life perspective. They should be based on a consistent message and should be offered broadly throughout the state. As a supplement, the Million Acre Initiative website should be continually updated with interesting and informative links for individuals who want to know more about protecting open space in North Carolina. 15 57 APPENDIX Million Acre Initiative Legislation Approved June 28, 2000 Article 17. Conservation, Farmland, And Open Space Protection And Coordination. § 113A -240. Intent. (a) It is the intent of the General Assembly to continue to support and accelerate the State's programs of land conservation and protection, to find means to assure and increase funding for these programs, to support the long -term management of conservation lands acquired by the State, and to improve the coordination, efficiency, and implementation of the various State and local land protection programs operating in North Carolina. (b) It is the further intent of the General Assembly that the State's lands should be protected in a manner that minimizes any adverse impacts on the ability of local governments to carry out their broad mandates. (2000 -23, s. 2.) § 113A -241. State to Preserve One Million Acres; Annual Report. (a) The State of North Carolina shall encourage, facilitate, plan, coordinate, and support appropriate federal, State, local, and private land protection efforts so that an additional one million acres of farmland, open space, and conservation lands in the State are permanently protected by December 31, 2009. These lands shall be protected by acquisition in fee simple or by acquisition of perpetual conservation easements by public conservation organizations or by private entities that are organized to receive and administer lands for conservation purposes. (b) The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources shall lead the effort to add one million acres to the State's protected lands and shall plan and coordinate with other public and private organizations and entities that are receiving and administering lands for conservation purposes. (c) The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources shall report to the Governor and the Environmental Review Commission annually beginning on September 1, 2000, on the State's ; progress towards attaining the goal established in Section 2 of this Article. (2000 -23, Ss. 2, 3.) 16 58 MILLION ACRE INITIATIVE STAFF AND CONTACTS The Million Acre Initiative has one full -time staff member dedicated to realizing the goal of protecting one million additional acres of open spaces in a decade's time. Initial funding for the coordinator's position was secured through a one -year grant from the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. A separate grant from the US EPA has been acquired to pay for the coordinator's position through state fiscal year 2001 -2002. Staff: Mr. Marc deBree, Coordinator NC Million Acre Initiative Division of Parks and Recreation 1615 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1615 Phone: 919 - 715 -7735 Fax: 919- 715 -3085 Email: marc.debree a,ncmail.net Other Contacts: Dr. Phil McKnelly, Director Division of Parks and Recreation 919 - 715 -8710 Ms. Carol Tingley, Chief Natural Resources and Planning Section Division of Parks and Recreation mim : S31 Don Reuter, Public Affairs Director Department of Environment and Natural Resources 919 - 715 -4112 17 N Citizens Urge rpH Preservation of Z rmland Open Spaces by Rebecca Jackson Virginia's urban sprawl has breached its concrete dikes and floods over near- by farmland like a lava flow, forever converting furrows to pavement. It's happening everywhere, from the Washington, DC suburbs of northern Virginia and the Tidewater corridor, to the fertile fields of the still largely rural Piedmont. Many people feel a cause for alarm, considering that the food on their plates Is produced not in some big -city labora- tory, but from land devoted to agricul- ture. Agriculture is a viable industry in the commonwealth. But Virginia lost nearly 450,000 acres of prime farmland from 1987 to 1997, about five percent of the state's total land devoted to agriculture, according to the Conservation Land Coalition. Virginia's Northern Piedmont, a breadbasket since Colonial times, was ranked the second most imperiled farm- land region in the nation In a 1997 study by the American Farmland Trust. There is hope, however, with steps be- ing taken across the state to preserve agricultural land for the future. Land preservation, too, has the back- ing of Virginia's new Governor, Mark L. Warner, who took office in January. When he campaigned for the post, Warner told audiences he wants to keep Virginia's land preservation efforts more In line with the other mid- Atlantic and Southern states. Warner wants to dedicate $40 million annually towards green space and farmland preservation by permanently allocating a portion of state recordation tax revenues. That levy, which is as- sessed on land and real estate transac- tions, brings in $150 million each year. A farmland preservation agenda un- veiled by Warner would phase the mon- ey in over several years. The state cur- rently has no dedicated funding and spends no money on open space preser- vation. Virginia lags far behind other states In this area, with North Carolina, New Jersey and Florida spending $60 mil- lion, $100 million and $300 million re- spectively. Maryland plans to spend more than $170 million this year, ac- cording to a report in the Washington Business Journal. At the same time, a poll conducted last year by the American Farmland trust shows taxpayers want family farms preserved for the future. Four hundred registered voters residing In Northern Virginia's Fauquier County were interviewed in the survey, with 94 percent of them saying they thought it was important to preserve farmland. The Fauquier County board of Super- visors is considering a plan, much like one already in place In Virginia Beach, that helps protect remaining, at -risk farmland and green space. As in the Sites like this - prime farmland converted to housing devlopments - are becoming com- monplace throughout the commonwealth. Photos by Rebecca Jackson 4 t _1+ rA Yr7 � 4{.ri t sfo 1' ci , e.t: n The, idea of Tarml�and Ilretietvatioci noin farm purppaes , If:t11e landown 19 foreign to mahy'farmerg. llxi Vir- I' ers dr anyone else Win developing giril Beach program offers the fol- ; the..propetfy for'norl4arin purposes lowing ariewera, to farmers ooncerng if the ltvridowntr:wished to. chatyge Doer the landowner / aue to offer ' fit& typ+~'of tarihing; he would .be,pera ." all of tile/ her proptrtyp ' ::''" i tectiy free ,Jo do'9o; tithe didii't'warit Noy They may offer to sell all; or y .fa fainx-thc -F, ,6rty et.alI,; he. would ;,' any pack of theirprdperty ''' be rfee to lease it':to someo*n6 else tot, What u►ould,/tappert (f the r._!: ` Wit or sell it. -'Che only: restribitone landowner iroLd ,his deaelnpment. on'ttlp latldotl�mer or anj� substqueni rishta and ti►eeri decided !o change ovlrArr Is it the`propt, cannot be thg type of fprmtny, or guff farm -' rr developed for non =farm purposes treg all tQyrthar? liven if tZic 1>indownbr'sold the prep ,:+ Nottiingin ihie prograt>r!! cegttiree�; *t +erty+,tiiCet3trictlgii a�aingt develop �l the faitdtrwner bo farm his prvperty� uSent arouid contlquc with the land Stlltng developintnf rights blmpl>t'e ;Wha! i�eiitirictions would 6e':; sbrlcta >Ehs landaWaer or lsn blx jpifaiZed �y >the land in the A$ricu[ lra wd U11 I rta►1t, of pie: 4 4 i did l •, '7�'!•� _„+.r " 4' '+(t i .. i,'-° l ''x `' Virginia Beach plan, which was successfully implemented In 1995, Fauquier's effort would call for the county to pay farmers for the develop- ment rights to their property. This means the owner could still farm the land, or sell the land for farming, but no one could build a resi- dential subdivision or commercial develop- ment on this land. Virginia Beach's Agri- cultural Reserve Pro- gram (ARP) was de- signed and promoted by a coalition of farm, con- servation, business and Balancing the needs for housing and development with the civic leaders. They need to preserve the region's agricultural and rural foundation shared a common con- are key goals for farmland protection organizations. cern for resource and growth management, as well as preservation of agribusiness and a balanced tax base. It's going to take several years, but the city hopes to buy development rights on as much as 20,000 acres in the southern portion of Virginia Beach. When a farmer sells the development rights to property, he or she not only ensures the land will be used for agri- cultural purposes, the producer also reaps several federal, local and state tax breaks. This Includes deferral of taxes on capital gains and tax- exempt Inter- est. Concern over the mounting loss of farmland to development led to Vir- ginia's adoption of the Virginia Agricul- tural Vitality Program (VAVP) In 2000. Current legislation calls for strengthen- ing the program In response to demand. "We must fortify the Virginia Agricul- tural Vitality Program because Vir- ginia's farm families need all the help they can get to transition these farms and businesses to the next generation," said state Sen. Emmett W. Hanger, Jr. "Seventy percent of the family farms in Virginia will change hands in the next 15 years. Agriculture is the leading eco- nomic engine In the commonwealth; Virginia cannot afford to just hope that all that land stays in farming." On Dec. 18, 2001, federal, state and county officials, along with citizens of the Mason Neck region of Fairfax Coun- ty (Northern Virginia) celebrated the eulmins::_ ...o years of working together to preserve more than 800 acres of open land on the Mason Neck Peninsula. One of Fairfax Coun- tv's commissioners, Gerry Hyland, hailed the completion of the Meadow - land Farm - Lorton Land Exchange as the epitome of collaboration between government and citizens. The land exchange was a complicated deal involving the General Services Ad- ministration, the Bureau of Land Man- agement- Eastern States, the county, a developer and a private landowner. But It was a natural for the Mason Neck community, which already was home to 6,000 acres of protected land. The area's open space provides both recre- ation for Mason Neck residents and pro- tection of wildlife habitat. A similar campaign, to preserve farm- land, green space and monitor the placement of development, is under way across the state in Bedford County, Vir- ginia. Members of Bedford Citizens for Land Preservation (BCLP) don't tote taunting banners, stage sit -ins, or lie down in the path of developers' bulldozers. Instead, this fledgling group labors quietly behind the scenes, mustering support by educating others about the vital Importance of preserving farmland for agricultural enterprises and open spaces for everyone to enjoy for many generations in the future. Although it is still primarily rural, Bedford County is witnessing the high- est growth rate for any Virginia county outside of the Northern Virglna- Tidewa- ter urban crescent. Those who've lived In Bedford County -which is sand- wiched between the metropolitan areas of Roanoke and Lynchburg - for Just the past decade have seen farm after farm carved up for development. BCLP formed late last year, according to member Annis McCabe, as a grass roots group to see how Bedford County was planning for anticipated future growth and what kind of measures would be taken to preserve agriculture land. The organization, which held its third meeting in October, set of three commit- tees to explore conservation, easement and preservation of development rights; agricultural opportunities; and plan- ning and zoning. With the information Its members gather, BCLP will be a vo- cal and vital force in the development of a new comprehensive plan for Bedford County. "Our mission statement is that we 'are dedicated to the support of respon- sible growth while maintaining a rural quality of life'," said Nancy Raine, an- other member of BCLP. "How well growth is managed is the will of the people in an area," added Mc- Cabe. "We don't know what that is yet," but an informal survey of members in- dicates rural land preservation is a clear priority for Bedford as well as the rest of Virginia. At the group's next meeting, BCLP will hear a presentation by Mary Hein - richt, Mid- Atlantic director of the Amer- ican Farmland Trust. She will share kev elements of the Virginia Beach Agricul- ture Reserve Program, and how parts of this successful program can be applied to rapidly growing Bedford County. to W 0 s 60