Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPB agenda 082102COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Date: August 14, 2002 Re: August 21 Meeting Agenda °sI�ON%CS AUG 15 200-9 Please find attached the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for: Welcome to new members Kimberly Roberts and Gordon Warren! Dianne Reid and Mike Lanier from Economic Development will be joining us to discuss the Local Harvest web site and plans for a agricultural- oriented event in September 2003 to wrap up the Orange County 250 year. Please contact Carol Melton (245 -2590) by the Tuesday before the meeting, 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-- �0,ul ITY OF' OF AI iG ACF�ILTUFL.'R�T OI`ICJAD PLANNING AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER Conference Room 306 Revere Road HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:30 p.m. Time Pate AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 7:31 02 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 19 7:33 4. WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS 7:45 5. ITEMS FOR DECISION None 7:45 7 6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Orange County 250 / September 2003 Ag Event (Attachment 1 — additional info to be distributed) b. Local Harvest Guide Web Site (Attachment 2) c. Agricultural Business Options (Attachment 3) d. APB Mission and Charge /Organizational Chart (Attachment 4) e. Update on Federal Farm Bill Grants f. VFPP Ordinance Revisions — Revised (Attachment 5) g. Update - Land Use Committee 8:55 34 7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Drought Impacts on Agriculture Report b. "Why Save Farmland? American Farmland Trust C. "Orange County Models Strategies" American Farmland Spring 2002 d. "Wells go deep for drought's effects" e. "County Prepares to Celebrate 250 Years of Cultural . Diversity" f. "Plow Sharing" — July 2002 g. "Farmland Preservation Report" h. "Asphalt Eden" 9:00 8. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT MINUTES AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD June 19, 2002 PRESENT: Tony Kleese, Louise Tate, Elizabeth Walters, Rodney Recor, Noah Ranells, Marty Mandell, Gordon Warren, Environment & Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, Preservation Planner Tina Moon, and Carol Melton. ABSENT: Whit Morrow, Bob Strayhorn ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER Kleese called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and thanked everyone for attending. Stancil noted that on June 18, the BOCC appointed two new members, Gordon Warren and Kimberly Roberts, and reappointed Marty Mandell. Kleese noted that he had asked to review the goals from the BOCC for the Agricultural Preservation Board in order to understand the group's charge and to stay on task. Kleese asked if anyone had new additions or items for consideration to the agenda. He reported that the USDA National Conference on Sustainability Agricultural Research, and Education is scheduled for October 23, 24, and 25 in Raleigh. The program will include bus tours of sustainable farming operations. ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Stancil reported that Commissioner Jacobs was unable to attend this meeting due to conflict with a BOCC meeting and presented the appreciation gifts from the BOCC to the APB members. He thanked everyone for the time and expertise in the accomplishments of the APB. Stancil distributed the Agricultural Resource Guide recently published by Economic Development Commission and Mike Lanier. Members asked if the Guides are free for citizens, and it was noted that the Guide would be on the county's web page. ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 17, 2002 MOTION: Ranells made motion to approve the April 17th, 2002 minutes. Seconded by Walters and Mandell. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT a. Agricultural Business Options Moon summarized the packet of information presented to the BOCC in May regarding agricultural - related business options. In an effort to better accommodate agri- business and other non- traditional forms of agriculture, the Planning Department, Economic Development, and Farm Agency staff have been working together to examine, where appropriate how to revise county regulations regarding farm related uses. Work to date has focussed on three key elements: 1. Streamlining the bonafide farm accessory use process. Planning, Economic Development and Farm Agency staffs are proposing a new approach for establishing farm - related business operations, outlined in the "Considering a New Farm - related Operation? Five easy steps can get you on your way" brochure. Applicant would deal directly with the farm agencies to determine bonafide farm status, develop a project plan, and pursue all farm - related regulations. 2. Looking at existing land uses and accessory uses for bonafide farms that are currently allowed. There are already a lot of agricultural -type land uses in our ordinance but are laid out in a way that is a bit difficult to see. Rather than try to anticipate every possible use, the new approach is to categorize potential uses. That way future uses can be linked to a category instead of requiring amendments to the zoning ordinance. 3. To identify uses that are not allowed in our present ordinance but may be appropriate. This is the area where the APB may be particularly helpful. Moon referred to the chart "New Ways To Support Our Rural Economy- Agri- business" in the packet. The chart provides a snapshot of the proposal to increase opportunities for agricultural business options in the County by, categorizing uses and permitting requirements based on their intensity and direct link to farming and /or a specific farm, and determining permitting requirements based. The chart also shows the approximate process time for the various types of permits, so that one can see the relationship between the use, the permit requirement, and the typical approval period. Staff would probably also create performance standards to address the case -by -case nature of these types of projects. Another part of the proposal is to revisit the `agricultural service area,' provisions in our zoning ordinance. It may be more appropriate to rename 'ag service' to 'ag industrial' and create a new category, which truly is ag service -- such as veterinary services, or stores that provide feed and products for farmer. DRAFT 03 r APB members expressed the need to have clear definition of bonafide farm. While the advisory board liked the proposed brochure, in general, and liked the definition on the brochure the group felt that it would like to discuss it more at the next meeting. The idea of the determination of whether a- farm is bonafide or not being the job of farm service agencies prior to a project going to the planning department was also agreeable. Other ideas and comments: ➢ Would there be an appeal mechanism? ➢ What is the best way to distribute brochures to let folks know about the process —could real estates agencies and lending agencies hand out pamphlets to property buyers? ➢ What are the current land use permitting fees? ➢ Site plan requirements are too over zealous -need alternatives. ➢ How does average person know the rules? Need a central point of information to help folks with agricultural enterprises. ➢ How about charging a yearly license fee for home businesses to somehow reduce property taxes (Mandell to investigate and report back). ➢ "Agri- business" sounds to large /industrial. ➢ Make it clear that the intent of the new effort is to support ag enterprises- - reducing the burden of permitting hoops instead of increasing it. ➢ Getting different answers from different county departments on the same questions regarding ag- related functions on traditional farms is a problem. ➢ Legality of allowing petting zoos in Orange County may be a controversial issue with animal rights groups. ➢ How does the addition of more County regulations conflict with state laws governing farms and farm related activities – Moon noted that these are intended for non - bonafide farm operations. ➢ How would do you determine if a commercial stable is large or small scale? ➢ What are the next steps? Take to public for feedback? ➢ Would like to see cooperatives exempt. ➢ Will there be a percentage linked to the permitting requirements —say a farmer that is selling more than 50% of their own produced items and less than 50% of off farm items is exempt? ➢ Finalize bonafide farm definition – who has the last word? ➢ Need for better customer service- front desk staff tells folks they can't do something on their land so folks just do it without proper permits. ➢ Need a one -stop information center. The brochure is a good start. Stancil noted that other advisory boards are talking about giving realtors packets for new property owners that have to do with wells, septic tanks, and other environmental awareness issues. Moon noted that if the proposal for accessory uses was approved, brochures could be made available in planning and the associated agricultural related departments and offices. Members noted that the brochure could be distributed at the tax office level and register of deeds for new property owners so that if someone buys land next a Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) they could get some type of information about agriculture practices associated with the VAD farm. Members reported that folks ask them (because al e1TY L) they serve on the APB), to help them do something they want to do when the county implies too many restrictions. Members agreed to have comments prepared and send to Tina for a second draft of the matrix for the meeting in August. Next potential check in point with BOCC is the public hearing in November. b. Federal Farm Bill — Farmland Protection Program In May of this year, Congress adopted and the President signed the new Farm Bill. Part of the Farm Bill provided for appropriations to the Farmland Protection Program, which channels funds to the states for assistance in the acquisition of conservation easements. The Farmland Protection Program provides a 50% match for the acquisition of farmland conservation easements, based on appraised value of the easement. The federal government timetable requires obligation of funds by the end of the Federal fiscal year on September 30th; so a short window of opportunity exists — with applications due July 15. The County has been working with several farmers on potential easement acquisitions over the past several months, and may wish to apply for FPP funding to augment and leverage County funds for easement purchases. Applications to the Farmland Protection Program require a 50% match toward the easement purchase over the next three County fiscal years. Proposed grant applications totaling $1 million would require a like amount of County funds over three years (between FY 2002 -03 and FY 2004 -05). County matching funds would come from the existing and future appropriations to the Lands Legacy Fund and future appropriations for conservation easements from alternative financing, as proposed in the Manager's Recommended CIP. C. VFPP Ordinance Revisions Stancil noted that work is ongoing on the revisions (this was on a previous agenda where there was not a quorum) and pointed out the inclusion of information about other NC County Ordinances and programs in a summary chart. This item was deferred until August due to the time of the evening. d. "Orange County 250" Stancil reported that on September 9th, 1752 the county held it's first colonial court session at Grayfields along the Eno River. The committee working on this project seeks advisory board assistance in celebrating. Stancil outlined some of the 250th committee's proposals for events and referenced the recent budgetary constraints. APB members suggested the possibility of a harvest meal in the fall to get people together, the possibility of a driving tour of local agricultural activities, the use of local produce for the community dinner (already in the works), and a blue grass festival contest. APB to continue discussion of these potential activities at the next meeting. DRAFT 4 016 e. New Voluntary Agricultural Districts Stancil reported that the two new VADs (Miller and Bacon) approved by the BOCC last month are in the process of signing and recording the agreements. Once the agreements are recorded VAD signs will be installed on the farms and the farmers will be offered a seat on the APB. f. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee The first meeting for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) is scheduled for June 24t ". Made up of representatives from the county's advisory boards and the county commissioners, the committee will serve as sounding board for the Planning Departments different strategies for updating the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mandell, the representative and Ranells, the alternate will be providing reports to the APB for feedback. ITEM #5: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Agricultural Preservation Goal Kleese noted that he had asked for a copy of the Commissioners' Agricultural Preservation goals and the APB's mission statement to keep everyone on track with their assigned tasks. He suggested that the APB start to think about goals for next year for inclusion to the BOCC annual retreat packet in November. As a part of that process, Kleese asked the APB to revisit its charge or mandate to make sure that any plans the group proposes to the Board fall within those adopted goals. He also requested a flow chart of the advisory boards. Stancil reviewed the BOCC's Rural Character Preservation Goal, which references farmland preservation. Members discussed the process for developing and adopting the goals. Members requested updated roster in next agenda packet. b. Items for next agenda Revise Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance (VFPPO) Review Agricultural Resource Guide Revisit APB charge /mission Review of county attorney's comments on simplifying the VAD application form to encourage more participation and revisit districts approved in 1992 where agreement was never signed. (Gordon noted other county's forms had been given to staff for review). Discuss Orange County 250th plans. ITEM #5: Adjournment The APB adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA CELEBRATING .250 YEARS Local Harvest Guide for Orange County, North Carolina http://www.co.orange.nc.us/harvest/guide.htm ATTACHMENT 2 LOCAL HARVEST A GUIDE TO FARM PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, 2002 Information Collected and Compiled By The Agricultural Economic Development Coordinator Economic Development Commission & Cooperative Extension Service Orange County, North Carolina ,��� Orange County Economic Cooperative Extension - Orange Development Commission County Center * ** Look for a revised and enhanced website during the summer of 2002 * ** Guide in pdf format Table of Contents in udf format F,�J -Get Acrobat° Download Adobe Acrobat Reader to read pdf format Adobe Reader Local Harvest has been created to help develop the local market for Orange County's locally - produced farm products and services. The project is a joint effort of the Orange County Economic Development Commission and Cooperative Extension Service. The guide is not an exhaustive list of all farm goods and services found in Orange County. The first edition contains listings of farmers who responded to a brochure mailed last fall. The mailing list was compiled from all of the mailing lists maintained by the Cooperative Extension Service and included more than five hundred farmers. Brochures were also available at several businesses in the county that cater to the farming community. Some listings in the guide were also included due to referrals from farmers who responded to the brochure. Guidelines were established to determine the eligibility of farmers to be included in the guide. Farmers who own or lease farmland and derive an income from the farm by growing crops or raising livestock were eligible to list goods and services in this guide. Additionally, farmers who own their farms and are offering related services not traditionally thought of as agricultural were permitted to list those services as well. If you meet the above criteria and are not listed in the guide but would like to be, complete the form in the back of I of 4 08/13/2002 9:05 AM STATE 1�N1RS[TY a -- A &T STATE UNIVERSITY NCCWPERATIVE r,,; �.: OffENSION !� Helplrrg People Put Knowledge 7o Mork 01r�Q[�I�tEt�l C College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, NC State University School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences NC A &T State University Orange County Economic Cooperative Extension - Orange Development Commission County Center * ** Look for a revised and enhanced website during the summer of 2002 * ** Guide in pdf format Table of Contents in udf format F,�J -Get Acrobat° Download Adobe Acrobat Reader to read pdf format Adobe Reader Local Harvest has been created to help develop the local market for Orange County's locally - produced farm products and services. The project is a joint effort of the Orange County Economic Development Commission and Cooperative Extension Service. The guide is not an exhaustive list of all farm goods and services found in Orange County. The first edition contains listings of farmers who responded to a brochure mailed last fall. The mailing list was compiled from all of the mailing lists maintained by the Cooperative Extension Service and included more than five hundred farmers. Brochures were also available at several businesses in the county that cater to the farming community. Some listings in the guide were also included due to referrals from farmers who responded to the brochure. Guidelines were established to determine the eligibility of farmers to be included in the guide. Farmers who own or lease farmland and derive an income from the farm by growing crops or raising livestock were eligible to list goods and services in this guide. Additionally, farmers who own their farms and are offering related services not traditionally thought of as agricultural were permitted to list those services as well. If you meet the above criteria and are not listed in the guide but would like to be, complete the form in the back of I of 4 08/13/2002 9:05 AM .ocal Harvest Guide for Orange County, North Carolina http:// www. co .orange.nc.us/harvest/guide.htin the guide and return it for inclusion in the next edition. If you question your eligibility to be included in the guide, call the Agricultural Economic Development Coordinator for more information about the guidelines and requirements. There will be two versions of this guide, one hardcopy and the other online. The hardcopy version will be updated annually. The online version will be updated regularly throughout the year and will include new and updated information within a few days of being received. You are encouraged to use the Local Harvest guide online for the most complete and up to date information, at: http:// www. co. orange.nc.us/harvest /guide.litm. Introduction (pdf document) How To Use This Guide Rural Etiquette Products and Services for the Home (all items in this section are pdf documents) AgLicultural Heritage Products Agritourism Boarding Cut Flowers and Plants Dairy Products Eggs Fall Decorative Items Firewood Fleece, Animal Skins, and Wool Products Fruits Herbs Honey, Bees, and Bee Products Instruction /Classes Landscaping, Yard Services, and Supplies Meats Mulch Ornamental Horticulture „fa 08/13/2002 9:05 AM Local Harvest Guide for Orange County, North Carolina http:// www. co .orange.nc.us/harvest/guide.htm Pets Services Value Added Products Vegetables Products and Services for Farm and Business Livestock Livestock Feed and Bedding Material Mulch Rental Facilities Services Suppliers Contract and Commodity Crops, Livestock, and Products Dairy Feeder Calves Ornamental Horticulture Tobacco Marketing Outlets Community Supported Agriculture Farmers' Markets On Farm Sales Pick Your Own (PYO) Operations Roadside /Produce Stands Proposed Website Pages Farmers' Bulletin Board Farmers' Forum I „ir n 08/13/2002 9:05 AM ,ocal Harvest Guide for Orange County, North Carolina Customers' Forum Apprenticeship Opportunities Directories Farming Resources Farn1 Contact Infonnation Market Contact Information Supplier Contact Infonnation Farm Entry or Change of Information Form http:// www. co .orange.nc.us/harvest/guide.htm 4 of 4 08/13/2002 9:05 AM 'a ATTACHMENT 3 z� ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: Tina Moon, Land Use /Preservation Planner Date: August 14, 2002 Subject: Agricultural Business Options Over the last several years, many local farmers have looked for options to supplement their income. Unfortunately the innovative nature of these options often make the permitting process more challenging. In an effort to remedy this situation, planning, economic development and farm agency staff have been working together to evaluate our current regulations, and to consider revisions that will better address the needs of our rural community. At your last meeting on June 19, 2002 Planning /ERCD staff outlined a proposal developed by this interdepartmental group for feedback. The proposal focuses on the following issues, which were identified by the group and local farmers: ✓ Streamlining the bonafide farm accessory use process ✓ Reviewing the agricultural - related land uses in our existing ordinance ✓ Considering new options for small and medium size operations, and /or operations that are agricultural in character but not directly linked to a specific farm, or are cooperatives ✓ Combining similar uses into categories to allow for future (unforeseen) uses ✓ Creating permitting procedures based on the intensity of the use, subject to performance standards The attached chart provides an overview of the proposal. Uses are categorized based on the strength of their link to agriculture and their land use intensity (hence the progression from green to brown), and assigned permitting procedures accordingly. Since a good part of the purpose behind this project is to make it easier to establish agricultural - related businesses, the approximate length of the permitting process is shown as well. The attached matrix lays -out the proposal within the framework of our existing regulations. Existing land uses are shown in black, new uses are shown in red. The columns indicate the zoning districts where the land uses would be permitted, the permitting process, and if the use is existing or proposed. A site plan is approved by planning staff, a Class B Special Use Permit is approved by the Board of Adjustment, and a Class A Special Use Permit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Please review the materials and come to the meeting with specific comments, language changes, etc. Once your input is incorporated into the proposal staff will arrange a meeting with members of the community who have either established a successful farm - related business or are interested in pursuing one. You are encouraged to participate in this meeting, and /or suggest other people to invite. After the community meeting, staff will incorporate your comments and other new ideas into the proposal and begin to draft amendments to the ordinance. NEW WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR RURAL ECONOMY - Agri- business Proposed New Use Categories and Permitting Requirements based on Intensity • Pick - your -own fruits & vegetables • Retail sales for site grown products • Processing for site grown products • Agri- tourism for site grown products: corn mazes, hay rides Exempt • Sales: wayside stands cooperative stands & seasonal sales • Agricultural education: rural heritage museums, petting zoos, agricultural learning centers • Seasonal, or Special Events: corn maze, hay rides Site Plan Review 2 -4 Weeks • Veterinarian services • Farm machinery repair • Landscaping • Grading operations • Retail for farm, forest, horticulture, nursery, or equine related products Site Plan or Class B SUP 2 Weeks to 2 Months • Vineyard/ Winery • Dairy product processing • Special product production (sauces, etc.) • Small -scale meat processing • Small -to medium scale cold storage facilities • Farmers' Markets Class B Special Use Permit 1 -2 Months • Large -scale processing, distributing • Livestock yards/ meat processing • Grinding/ composting facilities • Cold storage facilities Rezoning/ Class A SUP Quarterly Public Hearing 6 -9 Months Agricultural Business Options Matrix (Uses are listed and shaded based on the intensity of the permitting requirements - -least difficult to most difficult) Land Use Residential Zoning Districts Nodes/ Existing Commercial - Industrial Permitting Process Existing/ Proposed Bonafide Farm Accessory Uses AR R1 RB Accessory-See brochure Existing Botanical Gardens & Arboretums AR R1 RB LC1 NC2 Site Plan Existing Greenhouses, no on- premise sales AR, R1, RB, existing AS NC2, EC5 Site Plan Existing Class I Kennel AR, R1, RB, existin AS Site Plan Existing Garden Center LC1 NC2 Site Plan Existing Farm Equipment Sales EC5 Site Plan Existing Animal Hospitals, Veterinarians EC5 Site Plan Existing Greenhouses, on- premise sales NC2, EC5 Site Plan Existing Stealth Communication Towers (75 or shorter) AR, RI, RB LC1, EC5 Site Plan Existing Rural Guest Establishments (3 rooms or less) AR, RI, RB Site Plan Existing Agricultural Tourism * Sales: ■ Wayside stands, and cooperative stands ■ Seasonal sales: Christmas Trees, pumpkins, orchard sales, specialty fruits & vegetables, flowers AR, R1, RB LC1, NC2 Site Plan Proposed Educational: Agricultural education: rural heritage museums, petting zoos, agricultural learning centers Seasonal, or Special Events: ■ Corn maze Small -Scale Equine - Related Programs AR, R1, RB Site Plan Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments (forthcoming) for proposed new land uses will include performance standards such as: thresholds for the number of patrons /employees associated with the business or lot size, hours of operations, traffic generation, time of year, time of operation, intensity of use. Land Use Residential Nodes/ Existing Permitting Process Existing/ Communication Towers 200 feet or greater) Zoning Districts Commercial- Industrial SUP A Proposed Special Events Under 150 people) AR Ri RB SUP B Existing Cam /Retreat Center AR R1 RB SUP B Existing Class II Kennel/ Riding Stables AR, R1, RB, SUP B Existing Greenhouses on-premise sales (existing AS Rezoning & Site Plan : Existing Communication Towers 199 feet or shorter AR Ri RB LC1, EC5 SUP B Existing Rural Guest Establishments 4 -8 rooms AR R1 SUP B Existing Agricultural Processing/ Retail AR, R1, RB, LC1, NC2, EC5 SUP B Proposed • Vineyard/ winery (existing AS) = Rezoning & Site Plan Existing • Dairy product processing AR -AS _ Rezoning & Site Plan Existing ■ Special product production (sauces, etc.) AR -AS Rezoning Site -Plan Proposed ■ Small -Scale meat processing AR -AS Rezoning. & Site Plan Pro osed ■ Small -to- Medium Scale Cold Storage Facilities AR-A&:, :Rezoning & Site Plan Proposed - Farmers' Markets 1 AR, R1, RB LC1, NC2 SUP B Proposed Historic Sites Non- Residential /Mixed Use = AR,. R1, RB SUP A Existing Communication Towers 200 feet or greater) AR R1r RB LC1 EC5 SUP A Existing- Rural Guest Establishments (9 or more. rooms or 4 or more rooms & Restaurant AR, R1 SUP A Existing Animal Hospitals, Veterinarians AR -AS ** Rezoning & Site Plan Existing -Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing = Includin large-scale cold story a facilities AR -AS Rezoning & Site Plan Existing Greenhouses on-premise sales AR -AS - Rezoning & Site Plan : Existing Commercial Feeder Operation AR -AS Rezoning & Site Plan Existing Sawmills AR -AS Rezoning & Site Plan _ Existing Stockyards. - Includin lar a -scale meat processing facilities` AR-AS. = Rezoning & Site Plan._- Existing Garden Center AR -AS = Rezoning & Site Plan Existing Farm Equipment Sales AR -AS _ Rezoning & Site Plan Existing Grind in /com posting facilities or yards , AR -AS Rezoning Site -Plan Proposed Bio -a ricultural industries AR -AS Rezoning. & Site Plan Pro osed Commercial stables _ AR-A&:, :Rezoning & Site Plan Proposed - Lar e -scale processing, distributin 6tora a facilities AR-AS - Rezoning & SUP A , ` Proposed `* AS Agricultural Service is a floating zoning district available for appropriate uses within the AR zoning district, subject to the rezoning process. Other Ideas: Consider changing existing "agricultural service" to agricultural industrial and create new agricultural service to address services for farmers (i.e. veterinarians, farm machinery repair) New Ag Service Categorx— (Services for farmers or rural property owners) ■ Veterinarian — mobile unit or hospital ■ Farm machinery repair, small engine repair ■ Landscaping ■ Grading operations • Retail for farm, forest, horticulture, nursery, or equine related products Existing Zoning Districts: AR Agricultural Residential R1 Rural Residential RB Rural Buffer NC1 Neighborhood Commercial LC1 Local Commercial EC5 Existing Commercial AS Agricultural Service (Rural Activity Nodes) (Rural Activity Nodes) (Commercial activity in existence prior to zoning & not in Node) (Floating zoning district available within AR, subject to the rezoning process) i �9 ATTACHMENT 4 This caption is from BOCC Clerk's Advisory Board information on the intranet site. Agricultural Preservation Board - Members are appointed by the Board of Commissioners. The purpose of this board is to encourage the voluntary preservation and protection of farmland from non -farm development, recognizing the importance of agriculture to the economic and cultural life of the County. From APB Rules of Procedure: 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. From APB VFPPO: Section II - PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to encourage the voluntary preservation and protection of farmland from non -farm development, recognizing the importance of agriculture to the economic and cultural life of the county. D. DUTIES The Board shall have the authority to: 1. Review and approve the form of the agreement to sustain agriculture required in Section V of this ordinance; 2. Review and approve applications for qualifying farmland certification and make recommendations concerning the establishment and modification of agricultural districts; 3. Review and make recommendations concerning proposed amendments to this ordinance; 4. Hold public hearings pursuant to Section VII of this ordinance; 5. Hold joint public hearings with the Orange County Board of Commissioners on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations within Orange County; 6. Advise the Board of County Commissioners on projects, programs or issues affecting the agricultural economy or activities within the county and that will affect agricultural districts; 7. Study additional methods of farmland preservation and make recommendations to the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and 20 8. Perform other related tasks or duties assigned by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. Excerpt from the VAD brochure: What is the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board? The Agricultural Preservation Board is composed of a number of County residents, which includes farmers representing newly - formed Agricultural Districts. APB members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The APB reviews and approves applications to the Agricultural Districts program. They also make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on other issues related to the preservation of farmland in Orange County. About the Agricultural Preservation Board..... The Agricultural Preservation Board supports voluntary measures and incentives that will lead to the continued and future viability of farming in Orange County, and to the preservation of farmland as a factor in Orange County's quality of life. APB contends that farmland as a resource is best preserved by protecting the property rights and property values of the farmland owner. The goals of rural preservation, which encompass the conservation of prime farmland, the scenic vistas of the agricultural landscape, the family farm tradition, and the economic viability of agriculture in Orange County, are best served by keeping farming a profitable enterprise. Orange County Government- - BOCC Assistant County Manager Aging Advisory on Aging Board Adult Care Home Advisory HS Transportation Board Nursing Care Home Advisory Cable TV Citizen Board Child Support Cooperative Extension Health Board of Health Healthy Carolinians 2000 Housing & Community Development Human Rights and Relations Human Relation Commission Commission For Women Human Services Advisory Commission Human rvies Coordination Council Library Hyconneechee Regional Library Board Recreation & Parks Recreation and Parks Advisory Board County -wide Recreation and Parks Social Services Social Services Board Work Place Development Board Youth Services Advisory Commission The People of Orange County Boord of County Commissioners Clerk to the Board County Manager Economic Development _ I Ecomunic Development Commission Skills Development Board Visitor's Bureau Industrial Development Review Board Arts Commission Engineer Environmental & Conservation Resource 5haping Orange County's Future Task Force AG District Advisory Board Historic Preservation Commission Water Resources Study Committee Commission on the Environment Jury Commission Justice Facility Study Group Orange /Chatham Criminal Justice Partnership Prooram Advisory Board Personnel Personnel Advisory Board Planning Board Board of Adjustment Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force Purchasing & Central Services Register of Deeds* Sheriff Soil and Water Soil & Water Conservation Board Non - Departmental Outside Agencies (including OPC Mental Health) Orange County Schools Chapel Hill /Carrboro Schools I Assistant County Manaaer I Budget Elections Board of Elections Emergency Management Services Emergency Response Planning Committee EMS Advisory Council Triangle J EMS Committee Finance Information Systems Information Technology Advisory Committ Land Records )range County Fire Commission Public Works Revenue ABC Board Solid Waste Tax Assessor E d R Board Solid Waste/Landfill Solid Waste Advisory Board 2,(24 The People of Orange County Board of County Commissioners* I Clerk to the Board I Assistant County Manager ' Aging I Human Rights & Relations Health Non - Departmental Outside Agencies Recreation '& Parks Child Support Cooperative Extension*' Housing & Community Development Library Social Services OPC Mental Health I County Attorney County Manager I Assistant County Manager IEngineer I E Economic evelopment Visitor's Bureau F_ Personnel Planning PurchasingA Central Services Register of Deeds Sheriff* Soil & Water*" Environment and Resource Conservatio 31 Budget I [Information Systems Emergency Management Services Public Works Finance Central Land Records Elections Tax Assessor IRevenue I Solid Waste .*N ATTACHMENT 5 � ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT & RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Agricultural Preservation Board From: David Stancil, ERC Director Tina Moon, Land Use /Preservation Planner Date: April 10, 2002 Subject: "Straw" Potential Changes to Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program (VFPP) Ordinance Staff has worked to explore potential changes to the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program, originally enacted in 1992, as per APB discussion in March. In recent years many changes have occurred in VFPP's and the status of farming, warranting revisiting the ordinance. We have used the ordinances from other jurisdictions, the new model ordinance, and comments from the APB meeting to develop a "straw" set of initial suggestions for changes to the program. These are presented below, section by section, as a starting point for further discussion. Once the APB has changes made that it feels are sufficient, it would then refer these recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. In some cases, notably Section IV (districts and APB membership), additional research and information is needed before a recommendation can be generated. As such, we recommend deferring this section until new farmland mapping and discussions of potential Agricultural Priority Areas can occur this spring and fall. Section I — ENACTMENT No proposed changes. Section II — PURPOSE Using the State Model and other county ordinances (such as Iredell) as examples, expand the existing purpose statement to be a statement of the importance of farming and to link it to existing County policy documents, Section III - DEFINITIONS No proposed changes. Section IV — AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD It is recommended that this section, which deals with membership (and hence, what constitutes a "district') be deferred for later discussion, The farmland mapping project and 2 the discussion of potential Agricultural Priority Areas could prove helpful in addressing "districts " The ultimate question is whether to continue with farms as individual districts or whether districts are larger areas of the County, within which farms could participate in the program. The following excerpt from subsection B illustrates how the definition of districts affects membership on the Board. B. MEMBERSHIP 1. Requirements b. Each District existing pursuant to this ordinance shall be represented on the board by a person owning farmland in the district. Subject to re vision based on forthcoming ideas for large Agricultural Districts based on agricultural priority areas. D. DUTIES Include a ninth duty, as per the State Model Ordinance, to develop a countywide farmland preservation plan as defined in NCGS § 106- 744(e)(1) for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. Reconsider size requirements for individual farm and two or more farms applying as package. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of establishing large regional districts. Examples of existing North Carolina programs show that urban areas tend to use agricultural priority areas and part of a ranking system, and often have smaller acreage requirements D. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES 6. Change language to say conservation "agreement "not conservation "easement. " Section VI - REVOCATION OF CONSERVATION AGREEMENT No proposed changes. Section VII - PUBLIC HEARINGS No proposed changes. Section VIII - RECORD NOTICE OF PROXIMITY TO FARMLANDS B. PROCEDURE Change from B to C C. Add 1. Install identification signs along right of way 2. Place maps of current VADs and notice of their status and what it means to be a farm, in key offices such as Planning & Inspections, the Register of Deeds, Land Records, Cooperative Extension, Soil & Water Conservation, Rural Farm Services 3. Require written notice on preliminary plans for major subdivisions and planned developments within one mile of an existing VAD L: \Tina \AgPreservation \VFPPO changes -2.doc 3 4. Consider having a statement for signature for building permit applicants and landowners recording plats or deeds at the Register of Deeds alerting them of proximity of farm and what it means to live near a farm. Section IX - WAIVER OF WATER AND SEWER ASSESSMENTS No proposed changes. Section X - LAND -USE INCENTIVES TO VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FORMATION No proposed changes. Section XI - NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY NOTIFICATION No proposed changes. Section XII - PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS No proposed changes. L: \Tina \AgPreservation \VFPPO changes -2.doc 26 ORANGE COUNTY VOLUNTARY FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM ORDINANCE Section I - ENACTMENT 4/18/00 1 Pursuant to the authority conferred by the Farmland Preservation Enabling Act, Article 61 of Chapter 106 of the North Carolina General Statutes, Section 106 -735 et seq., and for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the county, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, hereby adopts this ordinance, which shall be known as the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance of Orange County, North Carolina. Section II - PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to encourage the voluntary preservation and protection of farmland from non -farm development, recognizing the importance of agriculture to the economic and cultural life of the county. Section III - DEFINITIONS (amended 4117100) For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following definitions: Board: Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board Chair: Chair of the Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board District: Voluntary Agricultural District Section IV - AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION BOARD (amended 4117100) A. CREATION An Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board, consisting of seven (7) initial members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, is hereby established. Thereafter, the Agricultural Preservation Board shall consist of up to seven. (7) at -large members plus one member for each District created and existing under this Ordinance, all appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional appointments may be made to satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B.1.b.of this ordinance. B. MEMBERSHIP Requirements a. Each Board member shall be a resident of Orange County. 4/18/00 2 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. 2. Tenure 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. Thereafter, all appointments are to be for terms of three (3) years, with reappointments permitted. 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.1.b of this Ordinance. 3. Vacancies Any vacancy on the Board is to be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term. C. PROCEDURE The Board shall develop procedures for the conduct of its meetings, which procedures shall be consistent with Robert's Rules of Order. D. DUTIES The Board shall have the authority to: 1. Review and approve the form of the agreement to sustain agriculture required in Section V of this ordinance; 2. Review and approve applications for qualifying farmland certification and make recommendations concerning the establishment and modification of agricultural districts; 3. Review and make recommendations concerning proposed amendments to this ordinance; 4. Hold public hearings pursuant to Section VII of this ordinance; 5. Hold joint public hearings with the Orange County Board of Commissioners on public projects likely to have an impact on agricultural operations within Orange County; 6. Advise the Board of County Commissioners on projects, programs or issues affecting the agricultural economy or activities within the county and that will affect agricultural districts; 7. Study additional methods of farmland preservation and make recommendations to the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and 8. Perform other related tasks or duties assigned by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. P� L 4/18/00 3 Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS (amended 4117100) A. PURPOSE The purpose of voluntary agricultural districts is to increase identity and pride in the agricultural community and its way of life, and to increase protection from nuisance suits and other negative impacts on properly- managed farms. B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. An agricultural district shall initially consist of: a. At least 80 contiguous acres (rounded to the nearest whole acre) of certified qualifying farmland; or (Amended 9122192 and 5124193) b. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 80 acres (rounded to the nearest whole acre). (Amended 9122192 and 5124193) In addition, small tracts or lots, when surrounded by or adjacent to certified qualifying farms, may be added to and thereby included in an existing or proposed voluntary agricultural district. (Amended 2122193) 2. The owners of the qualifying farmland must execute an agreement with Orange County to sustain agriculture in the District. 3. Qualifying farmland may be added to existing districts upon execution by the owner of an agreement to sustain agriculture. 4. In the event that one or more participants in the District withdraw and the acreage in the District becomes less than the minimum acreage required or results in the remaining land being non - contiguous, a voluntary agricultural district will continue to exist so long as there is one qualifying farm. C. CERTIFICATION AS QUALIFYING FARMLAND 1. To secure certification as qualifying farmland, a farm must: a. Be participating in the farm present use -value taxation program established by the N.C. 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 N.C. General Statutes, Sections 105 - 277.3. b. Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which at least two - thirds of the land is composed of soils that: (1) Are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, and oil seed crops; (2) Have good soil qualities; 9 9 4/18/00 4 (3) Are favorable for all major crops common to Orange County; (4) Have a favorable growing season; and (5) 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 in agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations as defined in the N.C. General Statutes, 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 question qualifies. C. Be managed, if highly erodible land exists on the farm, in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service defined erosion - control practices as specified in the 1985 Food Security Act. d. Be the subject of a conservation agreement, as provided in Article 4 of Chapter 121 of the N.C. General Statutes, between Orange County and the owner of such land that prohibits non -farm use or development of such land for a period of at least ten (10) years, except for the creation of not more than three (3) lots that meet applicable Orange County zoning and subdivision regulations. D. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES A farmland owner may apply for either certification as qualifying farmland or for qualifying farmland certification and designation as a voluntary agricultural district. For a farmland owner to receive the benefits provided by this ordinance, the farm must be certified as qualifying farmland by the Agricultural Preservation Board and designated as a voluntary agricultural district by the Board of County Commissioners. 1. Applications for qualifying farmland certification and for voluntary agricultural district designation shall be made to the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department on forms provided by that department. 2. The Environment and Resource Conservation Department shall review each application for completeness. When complete, the application shall be forwarded to: a. The Orange County Tax Supervisor's Office; and b. The local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Within 30 days of receiving an application, the above offices shall evaluate the application for compliance with the requirements of Section V.D.2. above and return their findings to the Environment and Resource Conservation Department. The Environment and Resource Conservation Department shall present the application for consideration at the first meeting of the Agricultural Preservation Board, following receipt of the findings of the above offices. 3. Within 60 days of receipt of the findings of the Orange County Tax Supervisor and Natural Resources Conservation Service offices, the Board will render a decision regarding the application of qualifying farmland status, and, if applicable, prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the establishment of a 4/18/00 5 voluntary agricultural district. The Chair will notify the applicant by mail of the Board's decision as to whether the real property for which certification is sought satisfies the criteria established in Section V and has been certified as qualifying farmland. If application was also sought for designation as a voluntary agricultural district, the Chair will notify the applicant of the Board's recommendation concerning such designation. 4. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Board, the Board of County Commissioners may consider an application for establishment of a voluntary agricultural district. In deciding whether to establish a district, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the findings of the Orange County Tax Supervisor and Natural Resources Conservation Service offices as well as the recommendation of the Board. 5. Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the establishment of a voluntary agricultural district shall become effective upon recordation of a conservation agreement, prepared in accordance with Section V.C.(1)(d), executed by the landowner and the County, and recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds as provided in the N.C.. General Statutes, Section 121 -41. 6. Upon recordation of a conservation easement, the Environment and Resource Conservation Department will notify the Orange County Tax Supervisor of the voluntary agricultural district established. The location of said district will be marked on the Orange County tax maps. E. The County may take such action as it deems appropriate through the Agricultural Preservation Board or other body or individual to encourage the formation of voluntary agricultural districts and to further their purposes and objectives, including, at a minimum, a public information program to reasonably inform landowners of the farmland preservation program. Section VI- REVOCATION OF CONSERVATION AGREEMENT By written notice to the Board of County Commissioners, a landowner of qualifying farmland may revoke the conservation agreement formulated pursuant to Section V of this ordinance. Such revocation shall result in loss of qualifying status, and consequently, loss of eligibility to participate in a voluntary agricultural district and benefits thereof. Upon revocation of a conservation agreement, written notice of the revocation shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds as provided in the N.C. General Statutes, Section 121 -41. Section VII - PUBLIC HEARINGS (amended 4117100) A. PURPOSE No state or local public agency or governmental unit may formally initiate any action to condemn any interest in qualifying farmland within a voluntary agricultural district until such agency or unit has requested the Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board to hold a public hearing on the proposed condemnation. B. PROCEDURE 1. Upon receiving a request, the Agricultural Preservation Board shall publish notice describing the proposed action in a newspaper having general circulation in the area within seven (7) days of the request, and will in the same notice notify the public of a public hearing on the proposed condemnation, to be held within 30 days of receipt of the request. 31 4/18/00 6 2. The Board will, in making its findings and recommendations following the public hearing, consider such factors as: a. Whether the need for the project has been satisfactorily established by the agency or unit of government involved, including a review of any fiscal impact analysis conducted by the agency involved; and b. Alternatives to the proposed action that have less impact and are less disruptive to the agricultural activities and farm land base of the voluntary agricultural district within which the proposed action is to take place. 3. The Board will consult with the Orange County Cooperative Extension Service, the local U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service office, and the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department, and may consult with any other individuals, agencies or organizations, public or private, necessary to the Board's review of the proposed action. 4. Within 30 days after the request for public hearing, the Board will make a report to the decision - making body of the proposed condemnor, which report shall contain the Board's findings and recommendations regarding the proposed action. 5. Pursuant to N.C. General Statutes, Section 106 -740, the proposed condemnor shall not formally initiate a condemnation action while the proposed condemnation is properly before the advisory board within these time limitation. Section VIII - RECORD NOTICE OF PROXIMITY TO FARMLANDS A. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to help prevent potential conflicts from occurring between qualifying farms and non -farm landowners regarding acceptable and responsible farming operations and practices, and to minimize the incidence of nuisance suits against owners of qualifying farmland. B. PROCEDURE Upon certification of qualifying farmland and designation of real property as a voluntary agricultural district, the Orange County Land Records System shall be changed to include a notice reasonably calculated to alert a person researching the title of a particular tract that such tract is located within one -half mile of a voluntary agricultural district. C. In no event shall the County or any of its officers, employees, or agents be held liable in damages for any misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance occurring in good faith in connection with the duties or obligations imposed by any ordinance adopted under subsection B above. D. In no event shall any cause of action arise out of the failure of a person researching the title of a particular tract to report to any person the proximity of the tract to a qualifying farm or voluntary agricultural district as defined in this ordinance. Section IX - WAIVER OF WATER AND SEWER ASSESSMENTS A. Landowner(s) belonging to voluntary agricultural districts shall not be assessed for or required to connect to Orange County water and /or sewer systems. 4/18/00 7 B. Water and sewer assessments will be held in abeyance, without interest, for farms, whether inside or outside of a voluntary agricultural district, until improvements on such property are connected to the water or sewer system for which the assessment was made. C. When the period of abeyance ends, the assessment is payable in accordance with the terms set out in the assessment resolution. D. Statutes of limitations are suspended during the time that any assessment is held in abeyance without interest. E. Assessment procedures followed under Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the N.C. General Statutes shall conform to the terms of this ordinance with respect to qualifying farms that entered into conservation agreements while such ordinance was in effect. F. Nothing in this section is intended to diminish the authority of the County to hold assessments in abeyance under N.C. General Statutes, Section 153A -201. Section X - LAND -USE INCENTIVES TO VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FORMATION A. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to help meet the needs of agriculture as an industry in Orange County and prevent conflicts between voluntary agricultural district participants and non -farm landowners in proximity to districts. B. PROCEDURE Land -use planning decisions and ordinances affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district shall take into account the existence of such district and the purpose of this ordinance. Section XI - NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY NOTIFICATION A. The Board may consult with the North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture, the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water, and any other entity the Boards deems necessary to the proper conduct of its business. B. A copy of this ordinance shall be recorded with the North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture's Office after adoption. At least once a year, the County shall submit a written report to the Commissioner of Agriculture including the status, progress, and activities of the County's farmland preservation program, which report may include voluntary agricultural districting information regarding: 1. Number of landowners involved in the program; 2. Number of acres for which qualifying farmland certification has been applied for; 3. Number of acres certified as qualifying farmland; 4. Number of acres denied certification as qualifying farmland; and 5. Number of districts in Orange County. 4/18/00 8 C. Copies of the reports cited in Section XI.B. above may be sent to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and any other entities the Board deems appropriate. Section XII - PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS As provided in the N.C. General Statutes, Section 106 -744, Orange County may, with the voluntary consent of landowners, acquire by purchase agricultural conservation easements over qualifying farmland as defined in Section V.D. of this ordinance and located within a voluntary agricultural district as defined in Section V.C. of this ordinance. This ordinance shall be effective from and after April 1, 1992. Duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, this 24th day of March, 1992. Revised 9122192; 5124193; 4117100. H:adab /vfpp418 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS APB AGENDA August 21, 2002 Date: July 25 2002 North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service College of Agriculture and life Sciences Orange County Center North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service College of Agriculture & Life Sciences 306 -E Revere Road (P.O. Box 8181) Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245 -2050 FAX (919) 644 -3067 To: JohAetc J ount Ma ag From: Dr. er Barber >,r. Courd y .tension De rector Subject: Drought Situation in Orange County This is to update you on the present drought situation in Orange County and the effect it is having on the farming community. Following are bullets that list what has taken place in Orange County as a result of the drought. • Drought situation in Orange County as of July 24, 2002, compiled by Karen McAdams, Agricultural Extension Agent. • On June 25, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. a County Emergency Board Meeting was held in the Foods Lab of the Agricultural and Planning Building. (Attached: Meeting announcement, agenda and minutes of meeting,) • A copy of the USDA Situation Report that was forwarded to the state office of the Farm Service Agency. This report shows the estimated crop loss in Orange County. • A news release which includes Orange County with fifty -eight other counties as primary disaster areas. • A copy of the Disaster Assistance Program and the procedures necessary to apply for Emergency Loan Assistance (EM). • A copy of the Drought Emergency Measures used as a guide for administering the program through the Farm Service Agency. The local Farm Service Agency is working closely with farmers who are interested in applying for emergency assistance. Few farmers are taking advantage of these programs because these are loans that would have to be paid back. One program that would benefit Orange County farmers is the Livestock Assistance Program (LAP) which is not a loan. This money would help to offset the cost of purchasing feed and hay used to feed livestock during the winter months. This program cannot be implemented at this time because it is not yet available to the counties from the State Farm Service Agency. cc: Gwen Harvey Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A &T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments c000eratinn 0 Drought Situation in Orange County — July 24, 2002 By Karen J. McAdams, Agricultural Extension Agent Farmers in Orange County have been severely affected by the drought so far this year. Some localized showers have helped certain areas of the county with certain crops but very significant losses have already occurred even if normal rainfall takes place for the rest of the year. Below is an overall status report: Beef Producers - About 80% of producers have very little grass in their pastures and are feeding hay right now that is meant for winter- feeding. This short supply of forage is further aggravated by the fact that the first cutting of hay was only about 50% or less yield of a normal year. Many beef producers have sold their feeder calves earlier than usual and at lighter weights (for less income). In addition, a large percentage of beef cattle farmers are selling cows to reduce the need for hay. A few producers have already sold 25% of their breeding herd, with a couple selling over 50 %. Beef producers are going to have to buy hay and feed to maintain their breeding herds as well as incur additional expenses in planting some emergency winter small grain crops to try to graze. Dairy Producers — Most dairy farms already have sustained considerable losses on their corn silage crops. Yields will likely be down 50% or more over the entire county on corn silage. Small grain harvested for silage was also affected by the dry winter and spring. Winter feed supplies will be very short and a great deal of additional feed will have to be bought to make up for the low yields. Field Crops — Tobacco crops look pretty good in Cedar Grove and Caldwell on farms who could irrigate. Non - irrigated tobacco is very short and yields could be down considerably depending on further rainfall. The stress- from the heat and drought has brought on some significant disease problems on some farms. Corn to be combined for grain has taken a very hard hit, and the soybean crop is very poor overall. Late soybeans had very poor stands and some died when they were just coming up. Very poor yields are likely on these crops Vegetables, etc. — Fruits and vegetables that have been irrigated have done fairly well, but some people have run out of irrigation water and will have reduced income because of reduced yields and quality. Water - Ponds, creeks and wells for livestock watering are dry on some farms. Several farmers have sold cattle because of lack of water while some are hauling water to their cattle. Irrigation ponds are at low levels for the most part for irrigating crops. Total Losses — Lost income to farmers will not be known until we see how long the drought lasts. Many farmers have already sustained estimated losses of $20,000 - $50,000 on their operations. 37 ILJ 1�6. ]E>k� JUN 1 9 2002 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Orange County Farm Service Agency 306B Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Phone: (919) 732 -4301 Ext, 2 FAX: (919) 732 -7559 June 19, 2002 Dear Committeeperson, As you are well aware of, Orange County has fallen into a period of drought and excessive heat which has affected all crops planted for crop year 2002. Due to this fact, the Orange County FSA Office has scheduled a County Emergency Board Meeting for Tuesday, ,Tune 25, 2002 at 2 :00 pm to' be held at the Orange County Agricultural and Planning Building located at 306 Revere Road in Hillsborough. The meeting will be conducted in the food lab of the Orange County Agricultural Extension Service Office. This Board will consist of representatives from the Orange County FSA Office, Orange County Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Orange County North Carolina Cooperative Extension Office. During the County Emergency Board Meeting, we will be discussing the effects of the long term drought and excessive heat on the producers and crops of Orange County for crop year 2002 in which your input would be greatly appreciated. Therefore, I am inviting all Orange County FSA County Committeepersons along with Orange County FSA Community Committeepersons to attend this meeting to help secure any and all information in regard to drought conditions within Orange County. With this information, we will request any and all assistance that may be available through the United States Department of Agriculture for the farmers and ranchers of Orange County. If you should have any questions regarding this notice, please feel free to contact our office. We look forward to seeing,you at this meeting. A S ce ly, ayne R. " ' Yarbr ugh, Jr. County Execu a Director Orange County FSA Office CC: Bonnie Potts, District Director Brent Bogue, Orange County Natural Resource Conservation Service Fletcher Barber, Orange County North Carolina Cooperative Extension Office The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720 -2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 -W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D. C. 20250 -9410 or call (202) 720 -5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. STATES Farm Orange County Farm Service Agency DEPAR'T'MENT OF Service 306E Revere Road AGRICULTURE Agency HMborough, North Carolina 27278 Orange County Farm Service Agency County Emergency Board Agenda June 25, 2002 L CALL TO ORDER A. Opening Remarks by Wayne R Yarbrough, Jr., County Executive Director, Orange County FSA Office and Chairperson, County Emergency Board. IL DISASTER CONDITIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A Review Of Climate Data for Orange County, North Carolina Obtained from the State Climate Office. IIL CROP CONDITIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A. Review of Crop Conditions within Orange County, North Carolina. IV• WATER SUPPLY CONDITIONS A. Review of Water and Irrigation Supply within Orange County, North Carolina. V. LIVESTOCK CONDITIONS A. Review of Effects of Disaster Conditions on Livestock within Orange County, North Carolina. VL ADJOURNMENT 1 UNITED STATES Farm Orange County Farm Service Agency DEPARTMENT OF Service 306B Revere Road AGRICULTURE Agency 1311sborough, North Carolina 27278 Orange County Farm Service Agency County Emergency Board Minutes June 23, 2002 Time: 2:00 pm Date: June 25, 2002 Place: Orange County Agricultural And Planning Building Present: Wayne R Yarbrough, Jr., Chairperson, CED, Orange County FSA Office E. Brent Bogue, Member, DC, Orange County NRCS Office Dr. Fletcher Barber, Jr., Member, Director, Orange County CREES Office Michael Teer, Community Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office Lewis Cheek, Community Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office Kenneth Kick, Community Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office Clayton Lloyd, Community Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office H. M. Lloyd, Community Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office Vaughn Compton, Community Committee-person, Orange County FSA Office Ted Martin, Community Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office Morris Shambley, County Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office Michael Hall, County Committeeperson, Orange County FSA Office Lary Rogers., Supervisor, Orange County Soil And Water Conservation Roger Tate, Supervisor, Orange County Soil And Water Conservation Robin Watson, Regional Agronomist, NCDA L CALL TO ORDER A- Opening Remarks by Wayne R. Yarbrough, Jr., County Executive Director, Orange County FSA Office and Chairperson, County Emergency Board. Wayne R. Yarbrough, Jr., Chairperson, called the meeting of the Orange County Emergency Board to order, Mr. Yarbrough thanked all of the attendees for their time to appear at this meeting of the County Emergency Board and also inlayed a concern to the attendees as to the drought conditions which has affected Orange County during the past several months. Without any further delay Mr. Yarbrough, proceeded with the meeting. This was done in accordance with Handbook DR 1800 -1, paragraph 3. IL DISASTER CONDITIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A. Review Of Climate Data for Orange County, North Carolina Obtained from the State Climate Office. lift- - - i UNITED STATES Farm Orange County Farm Service Agency DEPARTMENT OF Service 306B Revere Road AGRICULTURE Agency Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Wayne R Yarbrough, Jr,, Chairperson, proceeded to hand out to all attendees a copy of a report obtained form the State Climate Office Of North Carolina which contained the rainfall data for Orange County, North Carolina. Mr. Yarbrough farther explained to all attendees that this report indicated that Orange County, as a whole, had a rainfall deficit of —21.26 inches compared to normal average rainfall levels for the period of September 1, 2001 through June 21, 2002. Mr. Yarbrough explained to all attendees that this was data compiled from the Chapel Hill reporting station for the State Climate Office Of North Carolina. Several attendees to the meeting expressed a concern that some parts of Orange County were even more deficient on rainfall amounts due to the fact that the southern extreme southern part of Orange County where the Chapel EM recording station was located received more occasional showers of rain during this period than did other areas of Orange County. Mr. Yarbrough also further informed the attendees that this deficit in rainfall amounts in conjunction with higher than normal temperatures had caused an even more detrimental effect on crops and livestock within Orange County. D! CROP CONDITIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A. Review of Crop Conditions within Orange County, North Carolina. Wayne R Yarbrough, Jr., Chairperson, asked all attendees for input as to current crop conditions or tosses that may have been already suffered due to the sustained drought conditions within Orange County. After several minutes of discussion, the following crop losses were established due to sustained drought conditions within Orange County; Flue -Cured Tobacco — 20% Wheat — 30% Corn (grain) —100% Corn(silage) — 90% Soybeans — 60% Pasture — 90% Hay(mixed Forage) — 80% Vegetable crops — 30% It was notated by several attendees that Corn(grain and silage) had also been affected by the late spring frost/freeze that had occurred in early May, 2002. It also was the feeling of all attendees that the above crop Iosses were based on assuming that some relief in the form of rain were to be received and it could be worsened if no rain were to be received within the neat week or two. IV. WATER SUPPLY CONDMONS A. Review of Water and Irrigation Supply within Orange County, North Carolina Wayne R. Yarbrough, Jr., Chairperson, requested information from all attendees in regards to the water and irrigation supply within Orange County. After a few minutes of discussion, it was determined that ponds had suffered a 60% loss in keels -of water since September, 200L This would further complicate recovery from the current drought conditions due to the fact that irrigation would not be sustainable for a long period of time before water supplies to irrigate would be exhausted. Also, it was notated by several attendees that water supplies for livestock were beginning to shorten with LTNITM STATES Farm Orange County Farm Service Agency DEPARTMENT OF Service 306B Revere Road AGRICULTURE Agency Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 some producers being forced to move water from farm to farm via any means possible to sustain livestock V. LIVESTOCK CONDITIONS A. Review of Effects of Disaster Conditions on Livestock within Orange County, North Carolina. Wayne R. Yarbrough, Jr., Chairperson, solicited comments on any livestock losses that may be directly related to the current drought conditions within Orange County. At this point, several attendees notated that due to the drought conditions, several producers were being forced to cut back herds'and therefore were beginning to flood local Ivestock markets which had driven prices for livestock down throughout the past several weeks It was notated that livestock market prices were off nearly 30% due the fact that many producers did not have enough feed to sustain all livestock and had opted -to sell now instead of waiting later in the year. Also, it was notated, the dairies located in Orange County were experiencing losses in production due to the excessive heat experienced within the previous month. Due to the fact that dairy cow milk production had fallen off coupled with the recent drop in the price of milk, dairy operations in Orange County were experiencing approximately a 25% loss in production. VL ADJOURNMENT Wayne R. Yarbrough, Jr., Chairperson, informed all attendees that a USDA Flash Situation Report would be prepared for submission to the North Carolina State FSA Office with the crop damage and current situation of the drought effects within Orange County. Mr. Yarbrough further explained to the attendees that all current programs would be requested in order help producers recover from the current emergency conditions due to drought Mr. Yarbrough solicited any and all further comments. There being no further comments or questions by anyone in attendance, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm A 2 Esna F! ARE MENTION DEMMET STA'L'E NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY ORANGE DISASTER DATE: Set 2001 - June. 2002 DISASTER TIME: TYPE OF DISASTER:. Blizzard Drought X Excessive Rain Excessive Snow Flash Flood' F]• Freeze Frost Hail High Winds Hurricane L• Tornado I Other dent' Excessive Heat DESCRU TION OF DISASTER AND AFFECTED AREA: Long Term Drought / Orange County. See attached Climate Data Report and crop pictures taken June 21, 2002 by Wayne R. Yarbrough, Jr., County Executive Director, an oun y Emergency Mard Meeting ing 1 nu es. POTENTIAL USDA. ASSISTANCE: : APHIS, Animal Disease &Plant Pest Control FCS, Disaster Food Assistance CSRE & ES, Technical Advice NRCS, Technical & Financial Assistance FS, Fire Protection FSA, Emergency Conservation Program X FCS Food Stamps x FSA, Livestock Feed Programs FSIS, Meat & Poultry Safety X FSA, Emergency Loans X RUS, Technical & Loans Assistance Number of Farms: FSA, Noninsured Assistance Program (NAP) CSRE & ES, Information Material ESTIMATED CROP LOSSES: � I Total Acres Affected: Crops Affected Acres Planted Prevented Planted Acres Acres Affected Percent of Loss Stage of Growth Flue -Cured Tobacco 1100.0 0 1100.0 20% Harvested Wheat 2900.0 0 2900.0 30% Corn (grain. silage) 2500.0 0 2500.0 90% Soybeans 2080.0 750.0 2080.0 60% Pasture 6000.0 0 5500.0 90% Mixed Forage tiv ) 4000.0 0 3500.0 80% Vegetables 250.0 0 250.0 30% NUM ESTIMATED.: OF LIVESTO - - ; CK AND PE3ULTRY ETC. LOST: Nu>m beI'S OttI -1IE7 ° Ci Hal" Cattle ee Poul ers Swine Cattle Poultry (Broilers) A uaculture Other (Identify) Sheep Turkeys ESTIMATED LOSSES TO-FARM FACILITIES AND'LAND ETC:r Numtie &Acres Oat': = Nb.DnllaF Amount: Farm Dwe ' s & Service Buildings Farm Machinery & Equipment Farm Structures dam silo etc.) Land Damages erosion etc. Other A cultural Losses /or Damages: Irrigation water supply - 60%, Dairy - 25% AFFECTS 0E-' THE'-DM2 ESTER' ON USDA Office Buildin : NONE Office Equipment and Records: NONE Employees, Em to ee Families & Homes: NONE REPORTED BY: County Emergency Board TO: North Carolina State FSA Office DATE: June 26, 2002 F USDA United States Farm Department of Service Agriculture Agency News Release No. 31 July 23, 2002 North Carolina State FSA Office 4407 Bland Road, Suite 175 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 -6296 VENEMAN DESIGNATES 73 NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES AS DISASTER AREAS Decision Allows Farmers and Ranchers to Receive Emergency Farm Loans WASHINGTON, July 23, 2002 -- In continuing efforts to expedite emergency disaster declarations in areas hit hard by adverse weather conditions, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today designated 73 counties in North Carolina as agricultural disaster areas. This designation makes farmers and ranchers with losses immediately eligible for USDA emergency (EM) farm loans. "This assistance will provide much needed relief for North Carolina farmers who have suffered from losses due to these natural disasters," said Veneman. Fifty -eight counties were named as primary disaster areas due to abnormally low temperatures and drought. These counties are Alamance, Alexander, Alleghany, Anson, Ashe, Avery, Burke, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Caswell, Catawba, Chatham, Cleveland, Cumberland, Davidson, Davie, Durham, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Granville, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hoke, Iredell, Johnston, Lee, Lincoln, McDowell, Mecklenburg, Mitchell, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, Northampton, Orange, Person, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Rutherford, Scotland, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Union,Vance, Wake, Warren, Watauga, Wayne, Wilkes, Wilson, Yadkin and Yancey. Also eligible for assistance because they are contiguous are Bertie, Bladen, Buncombe, Columbus, Duplin, Edgecombe, Greene, Henderson, Hertford, Lenoir, Madison, Martin, Pitt, Polk and Sampson counties, This designation makes all qualified farm operators in primary and contiguous disaster counties eligible for low - interest EM loans from the Farm Service Agency, provided eligibility requirements are met. Farmers in eligible counties have eight months from the date of the declaration, July 23, to apply for the loans to help cover part of their actual losses. FSA will consider each loan application on its own merits, taking into account the extent of losses, security available and repayment ability. Other programs are available to assist farmers and ranchers in states and areas declare disaster areas including the Emergency Conservation Program, Federal Crop Insurance and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. On July 11, Veneman approved 18 states, which included North Carolina, for Conservation Reserve Program emergency haying and grazing and waived rental reduction fees to encourage donation of hay to farmers and ranchers in immediate need. FSA has a variety of programs available in addition to the emergency loan program to help eligible farmers recover from adversity. Interested farmers may contact their local FSA offices for further information on eligibility requirements and application procedures. Additional information is also available online at: http : / /www. fsa . usda . gov/pas /disaster/ as si stancel . htm M AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SDA, Farm Service Agency Disaster Assistance Page �Y http:// www .fsa.usda.gov /pas/disaster /cn�oaahtm Emergency Loan Assistance (EM) Home Page> Senices> Disaster Assistance> Emergency Loan Assistance> DISASTER ASSISTANCE Emergency Loan Assistance Sump to Detail ► What is an emergency loan? What can I use emergency loan funds for? What requirements Do I need collateral? must I meet? What are the terms of What is the interest an emergency loan? rate? What do you mean by How do I obtain more temporary information? assistance? What is an emergency loan? Who is eligible for emergency loans? What is the loan limit? What about application deadlines? USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides emergency loans to help producers recover from production and physical losses due to drought, flooding and other natural disasters. What can I use emergency loan funds for? Emergency loan funds may be used to: • restore or replace essential property; • pay all or part of production costs associated with the disaster year; • pay essential family living expenses; • eorganize the farming operation; and • refinance certain debts. (TOP Who is eligible for emergency loans? Emergency loans may be made to farmers and ranchers who: • own or operate land located in a county declared by the President or designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as a disaster area (for physical losses only, the FSA Administrator of 3 7/24/02 4:03 PM FDA, Farm Service Agency Disaster Assistance Page http:// www. fsa .w,da.gov /pas/disaster /emloarLh" may authorize emergency loan assistance); • are established family farm operators and have sufficient farming or ranching experience; • are citizens or permanent residents of the United States; • have suffered at least 30- percent loss in crop production or a physical loss to livestock, livestock products, real estate, or chattel property; • have an acceptable credit history; • can provide collateral to secure the loan; and • have repayment ability. [TOP What requirements must I meet? FSA loan requirements are different from those of other lenders. Some of the more significant differences are the following: • Borrowers must keep acceptable farm records. • Borrowers must operate in accordance with a farm plan they develop and agree to with local FSA staff. • Borrowers may be required to participate in a financial management training program, and obtain crop insurance. [TOPJ Do I need collateral? All emergency loans must be fully collateralized. The specific type of collateral required may vary depending upon the loan purpose, repayment ability, and the individual circumstances of the applicant. If applicants cannot provide adequate collateral, their repayment ability may be considered as collateral to secure the loan. A first lien is required on all property or products acquired, produced, or refinanced with loan funds. [TOP] What is the loan limit? Producers can borrow up to 100 percent of actual production or physical losses, to a maximum amount of $500,000. [TOP] What are the terms of an emergency loan? Loans for crop, livestock, and non real estate losses must normally be repaid within 1 to 7 years depending upon the loan purpose, repayment ability, and collateral available as loan security. In special circumstances, terms of up to 20 years may be authorized. Loans for physical losses to real estate are normally repaid within 30 years. In certain circumstances, repayment may be extended over a maximum of 40 years. [TOP What is the interest rate? The current annual interest rate for emergency loans is 3.75 percent. [TOP] What about application deadlines? of 3 7/24/02 4:03 PM USDA, Farm Service Agency Disaster Assistance Page http : / /www.fsa. usda.gov /pas/disaster /on loa Lhtm 4 Applications for emergency loans must be received within g months of the county's disaster designation date. [TOP] What do you mean by temporary assistance? Borrowers are expected to return to conventional credit sources. Emergency loans are a temporary source of credit, and borrowers are reviewed periodically to determine whether they can return to commercial credit. [TOP How do I obtain more information? Further information on the emergency loan program is available from local USDA service centers. To locate the nearest USDA service center please visit our office locator page. FSA Homepage News Room I About FSA ( Services I Local USDA Offices I Online Forms I Help Of 3 7/24/02 4:03 PM EC6 Drought Emergency Measures A Purpose B Eligibility C Request to Implement ' ° " "' "�"'° �'��" "� ^ "� ^ "� " " "�.- ^ra.. ..wuaun.uua..ua.ur . u. u..•un.v u. u.a.r�u.u.._..Yn4w. uuNlul4� \!1411: \114 / \'�•!�lw•41i:U Y ( ;1 p Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 857 86) The purposes of this practice are to provide water conservation and enhancement measures to: • permit grazing of range, pasture, or forage by livestock • supply emergency water for existing irrigation systems serving orchards and vineyards • provide emergency water for confined livestock operations. Apply this practice to farmland suffering from severe drought because of an extended period of insufficient moisture. For approval to implement the program, submit to STC and to DASCO a copy of the: • written report of current conditions by county • current moisture conditions in inches, by month, and by county for the last 12 consecutive months • STC 1 s request for funds covering the county. Continued on the next page 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Page 17 . ... ..... .. -- - ...- ._..... .. _ ..... ........... _ .... _ • -. -.. ., /�po \.^.: Yti:\•: \lN:'11•.:\': • l\•\! i•••\. u: li\•.,\ 1\,}•, :1i \•i \:•li•Il;.;\•\\:•I,l•::lu \ \,:1\`Il\•li•ll�\ 1111,:\ \: \II\�.l',•!\i.>.ul \,�'.: 5\••1 \•;l \•ll'.•:141L'•1: \•1\ ill•• 1:•! 1l •. \l:\;\l \5:.111'i}'• } }�L }il'; 1U1:. 1i1\:} I]\ ly\ IH:\•,.[ Ii1Hn:\ tl\ il`.: 1U\\ 1. �UN1} isl\}} jiIL1Ll }i \1l \4;;!;lt\nnu\1:1�r,1•,•, d, L� • f, Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 85, 86) EC6 Drought Emergency Measures, Continued D Practice Policies Water conservation and enhancement measures are limited to: • those needed to permit livestock grazing of: • range _ • pasture • forage d • supply emergency water for existing irrigation systems serving orchards and vineyards. • Permanent practices may be installed only if they are determined by COC to be more practicable and cost effective than temporary measures. • Only those farms or ranches that had adequate livestock watering systems or facilities or- adequate irrigation systems for orchards and vineyards before the drought are eligible for C/S assistance. IS A drought - related problem must exist, and the approved practice must be installed primarily to deal with the drought - related problem. • There must be adequate range or pasture residue for livestock in the area to be served by -a proposed water facility at the time of the request. • Livestock water facilities should contribute to better distribution of grazing. • Pump equipment and adequate storage facilities must be provided when wells are installed. Continued on the next page 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Page 18 EC6 Drought Emergency Measures, Continued D Practice Policies, Continued Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 85, 86) • Extensions of expiration dates beyond 120 calendar days from the original expiration date require DASCO 1 s approval. • STC shall monitor the drought situation to determine when severe drought conditions have ended. When it is determined that the program is no longer needed, STC shall direct COC to: • discontinue issuing approvals • return all unobligated funds. • Notify DASCO, Attention: Director, CEPD, through the Area Office when: • the program is terminated in the State • unobligated funds are being returned to DASCO. Continued on the next page 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Page 19 EC6 Drought Emergency Measures, Continued E C/S Policies The following table provides C/S policy. IF component- is... installing pipe to another source of water because the primary source is inadequate Note: One -time connection fees, including charges to public rural water utility lines, must be wholly borne by the producer. storage facilities, including tanks and troughs above ground, if needed to supply water for immediate needs of livestock Lconstructing and deepening wells for livestock water constructing tail water recovery pits for any irrigation system developing springs or seeps for livestock water wells where there is no other source of emergency water available that could be developed at less expense measures to provide emergency water for livestock in confinement operations on the farm that were in confinement before the drought Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 853 86) THEN C/S is... authorized. Continued on the next page 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Page 20 n1 51 Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 853 86) EC6 Drought Emergency Measures, Continued E C/S Policies, The following table provides C/S policy. Continued IF component is... THEN C/S is... constructing pipelines to supply water for vegetable or other not authorized. short -term crops establishing permanent or temporary vegetative cover livestock water facilities primarily for barns, recreation, wildlife, or corrals, except for livestock already in confinement livestock water facilities to make it possible to graze crop residues, field borders, temporary or supplemental pasture crops water facilities primarily for headquarters Note: Incidental use of water at headquarters is permitted if it does not lessen the effectiveness of the emergency water facility in serving its primary purpose. livestock water facilities to provide water on land on which the cover will be used for: • hay • silage • held chopped and hauled to headquarters for feeding measures to provide emergency water for confined poultry operations pipe other than well casing in connection with pumps, pumping equipment, and windmills dry well pumps or motors 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Continued on the next page Page 21 Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 85, 86) EC6 Drought Emergency Measures, Continued F Lifespan Permanently installed measures meeting SCS technical standards and specifications shall be maintained for at least 10 years following the calendar year of installation. Temporary measures must be maintained on the land for a period specified by 1 of the following: • county program • DASCO. J G C/S Rate C/S rate is 50 percent of the actual cost for all permanent practices and 64 percent of the actual cost for all temporary practices. Express the C/S rate as follows: • it percent of the actual cost not to exceed $ per unit of measure il. The limitation shall be based on the average cost of performing the unit of measure. • " percent of the actual cost not to exceed an amount determined by the County Conu-nittee.11 In this case, the limitation is the amount approved on the ACP -245. This method of expressing C/S rates shall be used only where average costs cannot be determined. H Specifications The practice shall provide details of any requirements upon which cost sharing is conditioned. Technical specifications may be included or incorporated by reference. Continued on the next page 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Page 22 EC6 Drought Emergency Measures, Continued I Permanent and Temporary Measures 5ZI 3 Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 85, 86) The following table shows permanent measures and temporary measures. Permanent Measures Temporary Measures buried pipelines temporary pipelines irrigation tailwater recovery systems for orchards and vineyards spring developments construction and deepening of wells earthen tanks where a source of underground water is available dugouts water troughs F development of seeps 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Page 23 Exhibit 8 (Par. 82, 85, 86) EC7 Other Emergency Conservation Measures A Authority Other emergency conservation practices may be approved by DASCO. Submit a copy of practices for approval to DASCO. B General Policies ECP practices must meet the requirements in this handbook. ` I C C/S Policies The following table provides C/S policy. IF component is... THEN C/S is... replacing or restoring a conservation or pollution authorized. abatement practice damaged by the natural disaster restoring the land to its normal production capacity returning the land to productive agricultural use as a result of damage directly related to a natural disaster conserving or enhancing water resources for the solution of conservation or environmental not authorized. problems existing before the disaster Continued on the next page 11 -26 -93 1 -ECP (Rev. 2) Amend. 1 Page 24 AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST 6� FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTEP V t1l � Qk FAM�IAND INFORMATION CENTER ,I lklb;, FACT SHEET WHY SAVE FARMLAND? Amazcan Famdand Trust TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE One Short Street, Suite 2 Northampton, MA 01060 Tel: (413) 586 -4593 Fax: (413) 586-9332 Web: www.farmiandinfo.org NATIONAL OFFICE 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 331 -7300 Fax: (202) 659 -8339 Web: www.farmiand.org AMERICA'S AGRICULTURAL LAND IS AT RISK Fertile soils take thousands of years to devel- op. Creating them takes a combination of climate, geology, biology and good luck. So far, no one has found a way to manufacture them. Thus, productive agricultural land is a finite and irreplaceable natural resource. America's agricultural land provides the nation —and world —with an unparalleled abundance of food and fiber products. The dominant role of U.S. agriculture in the global economy has been likened to OPEC's in the field of energy. The food and farming system is important to the balance of trade and the employment of nearly 23 million people. Across the country, farmland supports the economic base of many rural and suburban communities. Agricultural land also supplies products with little market value, but enormous cultural and ecological importance. Some are more immedi- ate, such as social heritage, scenic views, open space and community character. Long -range environmental benefits include wildlife habitat, clean air and water, flood control, ground- water recharge and carbon sequestration. Yet despite its importance to individual com- munities, the nation and the world, American farmland is at risk. It is imperiled by poorly planned development, especially in urban - influenced areas, and by the complex forces driving conversion. USDA's Economic Research Service reported that about 1,800 of the nation's 3,141 counties and county equiva- lents are "urban- influenced." 1 Many of these are important links in the American food chain. In 1997, farms in these urban -influ- enced counties produced 79 percent of dairy products, 90 percent of fruit, and 83 percent of vegetables. According to USDA's National Resources Inventory (NRI), from 1992 to 1997 more than 11 million acres of rural land were con- verted to developed use —and more than half of that conversion was agricultural land. In that period, an average of more than 1 million agricultural acres were developed each year. And the rate is increasing —up S1 percent from the rate reported in the previous decade Agricultural land is desirable for building because it tends to be flat, well drained and generally is more affordable to developers than to farmers and ranchers. Far more farm- land is being converted than is necessary to provide housing for a growing population. Over the past 20 years, the acreage per per- son for new housing almost doubled! Most of this land is outside of existing urban areas. Since 1994, lots of 10 to 22 acres accounted for SS percent of the growth in housing area.: The NRI shows that the best agricultural soil: are being developed fastest. THE FOOD AND FARMING SYSTEM The U.S, food and farming system contribute: nearly $1 trillion to the national economy — or more than 13 percent of the gross domes- tic product —and employs 17 percent of the labor force.' With a rapidly increasing world population and expanding global markets, saving American farmland is a prudent investment in world food supply and eco- nomic opportunity. Asian and Latin American countries are the most significant consumers of U.S. agricultur- al exports. Latin America, including Mexico, purchases an average of about $10.6 billion of U.S. agricultural exports each year. Asian countries purchase an average of $23.6 bil- lion/year, with Japan alone accounting for about $10 billion/year.' Even as worldwide demand for a more diverse diet increases, many countries are paving their arable land to support rapidly expanding economies. Important customers today, they are expected to purchase more agricultural products in the future. While domestic food shortages are unlikely in the short term, the U.S. Census predicts the population will grow by 42 percent in the next SO years. Many developing nations already are concerned about food security. May 2002 The Farmland Information Center zc a huhlirJhrivato hart",Prc4 h hotte , " A X7..»..1.. «,4 'r—.,* ,..-,J sL.. T WnA 56 AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST - FARMLAND' INFORMATION CENTE7K WHY SAVE FARMLAND? The Farmland Information Center offers publications, an on -line library and techni- cal assistance. For additional information on farmland protection, Call (800) 370- 4879. Or visit us on the web at www.farmlandinfo.org Of the 78 million people currently added to the world each year, 95 percent live in less developed regions.' The productivity and diversity of American agriculture can ensure food supplies and continuing preeminence in world markets. But this depends upon an investment strategy that preserves valuable assets, including agricultural land, to supply rapidly changing global demand. FISCAL AND ECONOMIC STABILITY Saving farmland is an investment in communi- ty infrastructure and economic development. It supports local government budgets and the ability to create wealth locally. In addition, distinctive agricultural landscapes are often magnets for tourism. People vacation in the state of Vermont or Steamboat Springs, Colo., because they enjoy the scenery created by rural meadows and grazing livestock. In Lancaster, Pa., agriculture is still the leading industry, but with Amish and Mennonites working in the fields, tourism is not far behind. Napa Valley, Calif., is anoth- er place known as a destination for "agro tourism." Tourists have become such a large part of most Napa Valley wineries that many vintners have hired hospitality staff. Both the valley and the wines have gained name recog- nition, and the economy is thriving. Agriculture contributes to local economies directly through sales, job creation, support services and businesses, and also by supplying lucrative secondary markets such as food processing. Planning for agriculture and pro- tecting farmland provide flexibility for growth and development, offering a hedge against fragmented suburban development while supporting a diversified economic base. Development imposes direct costs to commu- nities, as well as indirect costs associated with the loss of rural lands and open space.' Privately owned and managed agricultural land generates more in local tax revenues than it costs in services. Carefully examining local budgets in cost of community services (COCS) studies shows that nationwide farm, forest and open lands more than pay for the munic- ipal services they require, while taxes on residential uses consistently fail to cover costs.' (See COCS fact sheet.) Related studies measuring the effect of all types of develop- ment on municipal tax bills find that tax bills generally go up as communities become more developed. Even those communities with the most taxable commercial and industrial prop- erties have higher- than - average taxes.' Local governments are discovering that they cannot afford to pay the price of unplanned development. Converting productive agricul- tural land to developed uses creates negative economic and environmental impacts. For example, from the mid -1980s to the mid - 1990s, the population of Atlanta, Ga., grew at about the same rate as that of Portland, Ore. Due to its strong growth management law, the size of Portland increased by only 2 percent while Atlanta doubled in size. To accommodate its sprawling growth, Atlanta raised property taxes 22 percent while Portland lowered property taxes by 29 per- cent. Vehicle miles traveled (and related impacts) increased 17 percent in Atlanta but only 2 percent in Portland.10 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Well- managed agricultural land supplies important non - market goods and services. Farm and ranch lands provide food and cover for wildlife, help control flooding, protect wetlands and watersheds, and maintain air quality. They can absorb and filter waste- water and provide groundwater recharge. New energy crops even have the potential to replace fossil fuels. The federal government owns 402 million acres of forests, parks and wildlife refuges that provide substantial habitat for wildlife.. Most of this land is located in 11 western states. States, municipalities and other non- federal units of government also own land. Yet public agencies alone cannot sustain wildlife populations. Well- managed, privately AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST owned agricultural land is a critical resource for wildlife habitat. With nearly 1 billion acres of land in farms, agriculture is America's dominant land use. So it is not surprising that farming has a sig- nificant ecological impact. Ever since the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, environmentalists have called attention to the negative impacts of industrial agricultural practices. However, converting farmland to development has detrimental long -term impacts on environmental quality. Water pollution from urban development is well documented.' Development increases pollution of rivers and streams, as well as the risk of flooding. Paved roads and roofs col- lect and pass storm water directly into drains instead of filtering it naturally through the soil." Septic systems for low- density subdivi- sions can add untreated wastes to surface water and groundwater — potentially yielding higher nutrient loads than livestock opera - tions.12 Development often produces more sediment and heavy metal contamination than farming does and increases pollutants — such as road salt, oil leaks from automobiles and runoff from lawn chemicals —that lead to groundwater contamination." It also decreases recharge of aquifers, lowers drink- ing -water quality and reduces biodiversity in streams. Urban development is a significant cause of wetland loss." Between 1992 and 1997, NRI showed that development was responsible for 49 percent of the total loss. Increased use of automobiles leads to traffic congestion and air pollution. Development fragments and often destroys wildlife habitat, and fragmen- tation is considered a principal threat to biodiversity.ts Keeping land available for agriculture while improving farm management practices offers the greatest potential to produce or regain environmental and social benefits while mini- mizing negative impacts. From wetland management to on -farm composting for -c.... FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER municipalities, farmers are finding ways to improve environmental quality. HERITAGE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER To many people, the most compelling reasons for saving farmland are local and personal, and much of the political support for farmland pro- tection is driven by grassroots community efforts. Sometimes the most important qualities are the hardest to quantify —such as local her- itage and sense of place. Farm and ranch land maintain scenic, cultural and historic land- scapes. Their managed open spaces provide beautiful views and opportunities for hunting and fishing, horseback riding, skiing, dirt -bik- ing and other recreational activities. Farms and ranches create identifiable and unique commu- nity character and add to the quality of life. Perhaps it is for these reasons that the contin- gent valuation studies typically find that people are willing to pay to protect agricultural land from development. Finally, farming is an integral part of our her- itage and our identity as a people. American democracy is rooted in an agricultural past and founded on the principle that all people can own property and earn a living from the land. The ongoing relationship with the agricultural landscape connects Americans to history and to the natural world. Our land is our legacy, both as we look back to the past and as we consider what we have of value to pass on to future generations. Public awareness of the multiple benefits of working lands has led to greater community appreciation of the importance of keeping land open for fiscal, economic and environmental reasons. As a result, people increasingly are challenging the perspective that new develop- ment is necessarily the most desirable use of agricultural land— especially in rural communi- ties and communities undergoing transition from rural to suburban. ENDNOTES ' Agriculture and the Rural Economy: Urbanization Affects a Large Share of Farmland. Rural Conditions and Trends, Vol. 10, Number 2, July 200C http:/www.ers.usda-gov/epubs/pdf/rcai /rcat102/rcat102k.pdf. ' U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities 2000, Fourth Annual, June 2000 . h tt p:/ /w ww. h u d.gov/l i b ra ryfb o o k- shelf18 /pressrel/socrpt.pdf; Internet. ' Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. Ralph E. Heimlich and William D. Anderson. Economic Research Service, USDA. Agricultural Economic Report No. 803. p.14. ` The Food and Fiber System: Contributing to U.S. and World Economics. Kathryn Lipton, William Edmondson and Alden Manchester. ERS, USDA. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 742. July 1998. ' U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001. p.S3S. ` The World at Six Billion; United Nations Population Division; p.3. ' Heimlich, op cit. ' Making the Case for Land Conservation: Fifteen Years of Cost of Community Services Studies. Freedgood, Julia. American Farmland Trust. Northampton, Mass., 2002. ' Community Choices: Thinking Through Land Conservation, Development, and Property Taxes in Massachusetts. Deb Brighton. Boston, Mass.: The Trust for Public Land, 1999. 10 New Research on Population, Suburban Sprawl and Smart Growth. sierraclub.org/sprawl. "The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental and Economic Costs of Alternative Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe. Real Estate Research Corporation. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. 1974. Development on the Urban Fringe and Beyond, op cit. Impact Assessment of New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Report 11. Robert W. Burchell. N.J. Office of State Planning. Trenton, N.J. 1992. "Septic Tanks, Lot Size and Pollution of Water Table Aquifers. R.J. Perkins. Journal of Environmental Health 46 (6).1984. "Nitrate- Nitrogcn Losses to Ground Water from Rural and Suburban Land Uses. A. J. Gold, et al. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. March April 1990. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume 1 - Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 1983. " Development on the Urban Fringe and Beyond, op cit. The Costs of Sprawl. Maine State Planning Office. 1997. " Development on the Urban Fringe and Beyond, op cit. Preserving Communities and Corridors. G. Mackintosh, ed. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington, D.C. 1989. Saving Nature's Legacy. R.F. Noss and A.Y. Cooperrider. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 1994. American Farmland Trust works to stop the loss of productive farmland and promote farming practices that lead to a Am=r=Fatm&ndTrua healthy environment. PLANNING A FUTURE FOR AGRICULTURE: Why County Farmland Protection Plans Matter New York's undisputed economic hub — Manhattan —is changing the lay of the land in picturesque Rensselaer County. The agricultural community near Albany now sees growth it never expected from its perch high up the Hudson, as New Yorkers seeking a more rural setting commute 120 miles each way to the Big Apple from new homes in Rensselaer. "It's very pretty, and a lot of people move out of the cities to live here," says Linda von der Heide, the county's principal planner. "There is quite a bit of sprawl in agricultural areas because they are open and easier to develop." Rensselaer officials decided to take a stand. County planners teamed up with Cornell Cooperative Extension, members of the county Farm Bureau, county legislators and economic development specialists to create a comprehensive plan to protect agriculture and the rural nature of their community. Today, county officials combat farmland loss with an arsenal of strategies. Rensselaer County's successful planning experience demon- strates how comprehensive local efforts can protect farmers, farming and farmland. New York offers local planning grants for this purpose, as do other states like Ohio, Wisconsin and California. "Having a local land protection plan is the only way to ensure that your resources —both financial and political — are used as effectively as possible," says Jill Schwartz, AFT's marketing director. "If you protect your best farmland, you are one step closer to making sure your local agricultural industry remains strong." ow Volume V, Issue 2 Spring 2002 In This ISS[!e: 1: PLANNING A FUTURE FOR AGRICULTURE:. Why County Farmland .: Protection Plans Matter 1.. KEEPING FARMLAND ACCESSIBLE St. AFFORDABLE: A Conversation with Equity Trust's Chuck. Matthei*.. 3 POLICY REPORT WHAT'S. IN THAT SILO? Farms bt Cell Phone Infrastructure, 4'*`WHEN IS A HORSE FARM REALLY A FARM?: 7 . LAY OF THE LAND Effective local plans usually hinge upon: • A broad base of support and a consensus- building process; • Compatibility with, or inclusion in, a larger county land use plan; - A focus on the most strategic land; • A mix of incentive -based and regulatory land use techniques; • Techniques for agricultural economic development; and • Policy and /or funding support from the state. continued on page 6 KEEPING FARMLAND ACCESSIBLE & AFFORDABLE: A Conversation with Equity Trust's Chuck Matthei Like a Johnny Appleseed for land conservation, Equity Trust Executive Director Chuck Matthei has spread innovative models of land ownership and tenure. From Connecticut to California, Matthei has helped sprout a new generation of protected farms whose ownership structure is designed to keep the land accessible and affordable to farmers. "We see our role as a catalyst," Matthei says of Equity Trust's operations. "We're trying to call attention to some of these issues that might have been overlooked and to help develop the tools individuals, organizations and others can use to address those issues." Throughout his career, Matthei, 54, has helped community land trusts provide and maintain affordable housing through alternative ownership structures. With the founding of Equity Trust in 1991, Matthei expanded his focus to address critical land tenure issues faced by farmers. y�y LAND"6RKS Serving the people who conserve the land Securing the long -term affordability to farmers of easement - protected land is an emerg- a, - ., m - ing issue. Affluent people seeking second or retirement homes are willing to buy farms American Farmland Trust continued on Dace 2 LAt t�RlG is: aservice'ofAmerican Farmland Trust. Subscriptions are $125 per year and include quarterly issues of American Farmland.. magazine and bt RPM Connection,`free:research assistance;: e- mail'delivery of news briefs and .action. alerts; access :.to•:an. exclusive Web site: reports and''discounts on :AFT publication& and conferences.'. Julia Ar edgood Managing Editors,. -`A Beth Holt' f. . zm Writer /Editor -`' :.Yalerie`Berton 'Coritn ting _rites t � fenriifer Dem,�se j► - LandV�orks`'MaaAager:'::' Doris Mttas_eh`. 'LandWork's..�.. Seryices Coordinator. Tor 'subscription`irformation and'';.,=' �ublicatioi`orders�: �oiitact: .; <. : r::':;;= yAND.Tf . •t.'A.irierican,Farmland:Trust . One Short Street; Suite 2.:`: Northam' p�on:MA'01060�� (800) 370= 487�. - :4;: :�� •; . LandWorksC farnlad:org - � �Ame'ritaii �Farinl... : ;. :;: ;; ;,' �,, ..: ; -• ;:'. . and.'Trust,s a'private';:, . . nonprofif'eoriservation: grgaiizauon;:::`..` ;'dedicated to:protectng the nation's = ,. strategic:'agricultural` resoi tcds ,pounded m I980, AFT works to stop the loss of :.. ., productive fairilland and o promote :£azming:piacuces..�l at leadjq,, -J lh .. thy enviro. nment. asic.memberslrip'`is :; For rn'embership or general uiformaaon . bout AFT ,.conrace.zhe`N.;L uonal ` fJffice at 12Q0 18th Street; W; vti Washirigton, DC, 20036; (202) -:331 7300, or connect to our Web page'at "wwwfarmland org © 2002-'Am gicaq, armlarld Trust r All rights reserved: Printed' on recycled paper For more Information: Equity Trust, Inc, Info @equitytrusLarg Gloria and Stephen Decater livepower@ige.org Keeping Farmland Accessible & Affordable continued from page 1 with conservation restrictions at prices far greater than what agricultural income can support. Farms on which significant public investment has been made through the purchase of development rights are in danger of being removed from agricultural production. "If we are interested in there being another generation of farmers in this country and a supply of wholesome, nutritious, locally grown food, then we have to make a commitment, not only to take care of the land, but that it has to be available to farmers at a price they can afford." Matthei maintains that traditional land protection tools used by conservation land trusts are effective at protecting the environmental resource but don't address the social and economic dimensions of farming as a land use. "if the goal is simply open space, then the traditional conservation tools are adequate. But if our goal is the preservation of agriculture as responsible land use, as a way of life and as a sector of the economy, then the traditional tools, while useful and important, are not adequate by themselves. They need to be augmented." Equity Trust helps farmers, community organi- zations, land trusts and others structure the eq ui ty. legal framework that balances the interests of all parties. In some cases, the farmer owns the land, and the land trust owns an easement I., a financial interest that includes an option to purchase the land at agricultural value. In others, the land trust . in property, 2. a moral retains ownership and offers the farmer a life- time, inheritable lease (the farmer would also ' principle of own the farm business and any improvements he or she makes). "We work to 9 ive individuals the essential benefits of ownership — lifetime use, fair equity on investment and a legacy for their heirs," Matthei says. "At the same time, we want to guarantee that the farm will remain available and affordable to other farmers." With a slender annual operating budget and a staff of eight, the Connecticut -based Equity Trust works on both affordability issues in housing and agriculture. It offers educational services, information,. .advice and technical assistance (including sample legal documents and other publications) to individuals, community organizations and government agencies. Its Equity Trust Fund, now at about $8 million, provides financ- ing for land acquisition, capital improvements, equipment purchases and other needs, particularly for farms where there are mechanisms already in place to preserve the land as active farmland. In a few cases, when no local land trust was available, Equity Trust has played that role, holding property interests in partnership with a farmer. On average, says Matthei, Equity Trust receives a call a day from a farm or community group seeking help acquiring or protecting farmland. In the early 1990s, one of those calls came from Gloria and Stephen Decater, operators of the California's oldest community supported agriculture (CSA) farm located in Covelo. After farming as "caretakers" for nearly 20 years, the Decaters felt it was time to purchase the land. Like many small farmers, the Decaters could not afford to pay the full market value of the property with only farm income. Their CSA members were willing to raise the money to purchase a conservation easement to be held by a land trust. But the Decaters wanted two provisions that the local land trust was reluctant to accept: that the land would be continually farmed by resident farmers using organic or biodynamic methods, and that all future purchase prices would be limited to the agricultural value of the land to ensure that the land would be perpetually affordable and available to farmers. The, project had come to a standstill when they called Equity Trust. "When we talked with Chuck it was like coming home," Stephen Decater recalls of that first, hour -plus telephone conversation. "He said, 'Send us a copy of what you've got and a brief description of your goals and we'll have the board look at it.' It was a tremendous support and relief." Adds Gloria: "He really understood what we were trying to do, and believed it should be done and wanted to work with us to find ways to do it." Ultimately, Equity Trust agreed to play the "land banking" role by holding the easement until local stewardship becomes available. ................... . The Decaters' efforts have served as a model for similar initia- tives across the country: CSA farms elsewhere in California, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts have pursued shared equity ownership approaches with varying degrees of support from Equity Trust. Matthei believes the issue is relevant to all types of farmers. "Competition from other market forces for farmland affects all farmers and would -be farmers," he says. "We're past the point where a farmer can count on his or her children to take over the farm. The transfer of farmland from one family to another is and will be commonplace. We need to be prepared for those transfers." 104 B.H. Partners & Friends: (from left) The Decoteri (Stephen, Alexander, Christopher, Nicholas and Gloria) .celebrate the .transition from caretakers to , farm owners along with rancher Richard Wilson, from whom they purchased the land, and Chuck Matthe!, .executive director of Equity Trust. POLICY REPORT: WHAT'S IN THAT SILO? Farms & Cell Phone Infrastructure Rolling hills surrounded by water. give'Peninsula Township, Michigan, an ideal and unique "The public good is climate— moderate temperatures 'and good air drainage —for growing fruit. In fact, Peninsula served by keeping towers Township, not far from Traverse City, is one of the leading producers of tart cherries in the nation. off ridgenes and fields, The same geographic characteristics that,make forrgood fruit have also made its hillside farms attractive places for wireless telecommunications. facilities.::: keeping agricultural land in active agricultural use." The town now allows telecommunications towers..in its :agricultural and conservation zone through a "special -use permit process, ". reports.Gordon Hayward, Peninsula Township planner. — Leslie Batley- Beach, However, zoning restrictions require that proposals to erect new telecommunications towers must demonstrate that the.equipment cannot be' located on existing facilities. Moreover Director of Stewardship regulations prohibit towers on scenic views: for Vermont Land Trust Communities around the cop .. ry.are grappling with requests for cell phone towers and communi- ty objections to them, most*often' because of aesthetic concerns, although environmental and health concerns sometimes come*into play. "It's affecting everybody. To(get a seamless national network you need to be everywhere," says Meg Maguire, president of Scenic America, a national organization that helps communities develop regulations that minimize the aesthetic impact of telecommunications equipment while allowing the industry to expand. "Local governments need to do all they can to mitigate the visual impacts of cell towers, and there's really quite a lot they can do," she continues. "Federal law requires that every community must host these things. But with that comes pretty broad powers to regulate." Albemarle County in Virginia, Silver City in New Mexico and the Adirondack Park Agency in New York are among a growing number of communities that have enacted local policies and /or ordinances to limit the visual impact of towers. Some strategies they rely on include co- location of towers on'existing structures such as pre- existing towers, buildings, water towers, street lights or utility poles, and "stealth technologies" that disguise wireless facilities as landscape features such as trees or flagpoles, or place them inside structures such as silos or church steeples. On working lands, suggests Maguire, it's important that farmers and ranchers "call the shots" about where telecommunications facilities are going to be placed and whether they're going to be screened. "There's a lot landowners can do to mitigate the impact on the land they love and care for." When requests come for telecommunications facilities on easement - protected farmland, program administrators face the added challenge of balancing their program's goals with community concerns and farmer interest in the rental income. . "For those focused on conserving open space and views, in addition to farmland preservation, aesthetic issues are more important. For us it's less of an issue," says Rich Harlow, manager of Michigan's farmland protection program, through which 4.3 million acres of farmland are protect- ed through 50,000 restrictive covenants. "Our statute permits cell towers but leaves regulation of aesthetic impacts to local governments. There are some economic benefits associated with the towers and, in most cases, a very limited impact on the farming operation. For us part of farmland preservation is preserving the farming operation. If it helps the operation to be more economically viable and is of limited impact on the farmland, then we see it as a positive." Continued on page 4 W� a iv °u L sa ANTENNA LOCATED BEHIND FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC STEALTH SILO PROPOSED 10' FIBERGLASS . STEALTH EXTENSION WITH DOME \ CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED PANEL ANTENNAS @ 8S' AGL Policy Report: What's in that Silo? continued from page 3 In Vermont, where topography poses challenges to cell phone technology, the state's land use law, Act 250, restricts ridgeline development. As a result, cell phone companies have targeted farms as locations for their antennas. Agricultural resources are also protected under the law, "It can be a challenge to regulate towers in a way that [allows wireless service to expand] but ensures that the values under Act 250 are protected," says Michael Zahner, executive director of the Vermont Environmental Board. Objections to telecommunications facilities are largely aesthetic, but issues related to roadway access, wetlands and deer yards have also arisen, he says. Recently, the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) received a number of requests to site telecommunications equipment on protected farms. The land trust's policies and easement language prohibit stand -alone towers on its protected farms. "The mission of the Vermont Land Trust is to support the rural character of Vermont, and stand -alone towers do not support any aesthetic element of rural character," says Kathleen O'Dell, VLT's communications director. However, following a lengthy policy review process, VLT and its easement co- holders decided to allow telecommunications equipment to be mounted in or on silos and other farm structures, providing that the antennas do not affect the farm operation or adversely affect the aesthetic int f th f egnty o e arm. For more information: "It's taken us a while to figure out all the policy aspects with co- holders and the technology TOP OF EXISTING issues with carriers: We worked with everybody to try to find a way to say yes and still protect the integrity of the easement and help'farmers with extra income," says Leslie Ratley- Beach, SILO @ 80' AGL director of stewardship for VLT. "It's a' standard [cell phone companies] haven't had to meet Albemarle County in other states," she says. In response, Verizon has developed a fiberglass cap that holds the 'of Telecommunications Ordinance CABLES FOR ANTENNA PROPOSED.' ACCESS www.Albemarle.org /planning/ LOCATED IN REAR OF SILO Ratley -Beach says rental fees on these facilities will be between $15,000 and $38,000 a year, DOOR IN depending on the particulars of the contract.: ?his is a revenue stream we really would like Telecommunications Policy the farmers to have." However, because these properties were protected using easements paid http: //humber.northnet.org/ . STEALTH adirondackparkagency /towers_ may have to share the revenue with VLT. The 'noriprofit is .seeking a ruling from the IRS on the pollcy.htm matter and will argue that the public benefits that accrue from having the antennas on farms EXTENSION far outweigh the private benefits that will flow to the farmers. Vermont Land Trust: EXISTING BARN: www.vit.org by keeping towers off ridgelines and fields, keeping agricultural land in active agricultural use," Visit LandWorks at Ratley -Beach says, noting that farmers intend to use the income stream to make improvements www.farmiand.org /htm on their farms, and in one case, expand. B.H. to access links to Vermont's Act 250. WHEN IS A HORSE FARM REALLY A FARM? `- 80' 85': rising land values and low commodity prices are squeezing traditional agricultural enterprises, horse operations are emerging as a significant part of the working landscape. But are horses agriculture? Furthermore, should horse operations be treated like farms with respect to agricultural tax assessments, exemptions from regulation and land conservation? The answers depend on how you define agriculture and whether you're looking at breeding - :.30''- 4" GROUND. ELEV Q 0' AGL' At one end of the spectrum are horse breeding operations where sales of horses (and semen) 'PROPOSED 7'X 24' EQUIPMENT':*. mean those facilities typically fall within the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) SHELTER.FINISH TO MATCH BARN ' Policy Report: What's in that Silo? continued from page 3 In Vermont, where topography poses challenges to cell phone technology, the state's land use law, Act 250, restricts ridgeline development. As a result, cell phone companies have targeted farms as locations for their antennas. Agricultural resources are also protected under the law, "It can be a challenge to regulate towers in a way that [allows wireless service to expand] but ensures that the values under Act 250 are protected," says Michael Zahner, executive director of the Vermont Environmental Board. Objections to telecommunications facilities are largely aesthetic, but issues related to roadway access, wetlands and deer yards have also arisen, he says. Recently, the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) received a number of requests to site telecommunications equipment on protected farms. The land trust's policies and easement language prohibit stand -alone towers on its protected farms. "The mission of the Vermont Land Trust is to support the rural character of Vermont, and stand -alone towers do not support any aesthetic element of rural character," says Kathleen O'Dell, VLT's communications director. However, following a lengthy policy review process, VLT and its easement co- holders decided to allow telecommunications equipment to be mounted in or on silos and other farm structures, providing that the antennas do not affect the farm operation or adversely affect the aesthetic int f th f egnty o e arm. For more information: "It's taken us a while to figure out all the policy aspects with co- holders and the technology Scenic America issues with carriers: We worked with everybody to try to find a way to say yes and still protect the integrity of the easement and help'farmers with extra income," says Leslie Ratley- Beach, www.scenic.org director of stewardship for VLT. "It's a' standard [cell phone companies] haven't had to meet Albemarle County in other states," she says. In response, Verizon has developed a fiberglass cap that holds the 'of Telecommunications Ordinance antenna and looks like two sections Harvestore Silos. Another company will use panels that are installed flush to the side of a silo and painted to conceal them. www.Albemarle.org /planning/ Ratley -Beach says rental fees on these facilities will be between $15,000 and $38,000 a year, Adirondack Park Agency depending on the particulars of the contract.: ?his is a revenue stream we really would like Telecommunications Policy the farmers to have." However, because these properties were protected using easements paid http: //humber.northnet.org/ through tax dollars, under the legal tax'doctrine.of "private benefit" it appears that the farmers adirondackparkagency /towers_ may have to share the revenue with VLT. The 'noriprofit is .seeking a ruling from the IRS on the pollcy.htm matter and will argue that the public benefits that accrue from having the antennas on farms far outweigh the private benefits that will flow to the farmers. Vermont Land Trust: In addition to allowing cell phone service to Vermont residents; . "the public good is served www.vit.org by keeping towers off ridgelines and fields, keeping agricultural land in active agricultural use," Visit LandWorks at Ratley -Beach says, noting that farmers intend to use the income stream to make improvements www.farmiand.org /htm on their farms, and in one case, expand. B.H. to access links to Vermont's Act 250. WHEN IS A HORSE FARM REALLY A FARM? `- To many people, equine operations look, smell and feel like farms. In urbanizing.areas where rising land values and low commodity prices are squeezing traditional agricultural enterprises, horse operations are emerging as a significant part of the working landscape. But are horses agriculture? Furthermore, should horse operations be treated like farms with respect to agricultural tax assessments, exemptions from regulation and land conservation? The answers depend on how you define agriculture and whether you're looking at breeding operations or recreational facilities. At one end of the spectrum are horse breeding operations where sales of horses (and semen) mean those facilities typically fall within the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) definition of a farm —a place producing farm commodities having a market value of $1,000 or more annually. At the other end of the spectrum are small stables that board horses and offer riding Iessons..Most agricultural officials consider these operations "recreational," and some have vigorously opposed efforts to extend agricultural status to them or allow them on easement -. protected land. The way federal agricultural statistics are compiled reflects traditional agriculture's ambivalent rela- tionship with the equine industry, says Nelson Bills, professor of Agricultural Economics at Cornell University. "There is a real disconnect between what we see in the working landscape and what's T. in [the Census of Agriculture] statistics," Bills says. "In many locales, equine operations are a key Services Rather Than Products Because equine operations, such as riding stables, typically provide services rather than sell products, many aren't counted in the USDA Census of Agriculture. Recognizing that gap, the USDA conducted a special equine survey, the first of its kind, in 1999. The survey reported 5,32 million horses, ponies, don- keys and burros in the United States but did not collect information about how much land is involved in equine operations. On the other hand, acreage involved in equine operations is included in the USDA National Resources Inventory (NRI), which looks at land cover /use, regardless of whether or not the operation meets the USDA definition of a farm. Some states also conduct periodic surveys to assess equine contributions to the working landscape, including land use, associated assets and equine - related employment along with the equine inventory. New York's special 2000 equine survey, released in November 2001, found 168,000 equines in the Empire State, raised at 30,000 locations. Nearly half of the horse owners described their operations 'as non - commercial /non -farm, accounting for more than 3 million acres of which 920,000 were classified as "fenced equine pasture." The issue can be illustrated by comparing state -level data from the NRI and the Census of Agriculture. In New York, for example, the 1997 NRI pegged cropland and pasture acreage at 5.4 million and,,. 2.6 million acres respectively, about 70 percent higher than *the acreage estimated by the same year's, agricultural census. Bills says that the New York'data suggest that equine operations. may account for a significant portion of the difference in acreage counted by the Census of, Agriculture_and the NRI. In Kentucky, where $1 billion in sales make equine the state's..top cash crop,`horses. are generally con- sidered an agricultural enterprise. Under Fayette County's new purchase of. development rights (PDR) program, equine operations, regardless of whether they involve breeding and training of thoroughbreds or boarding pleasure horses, fall under the same"eligibility guidelines as other farms: They must be at least 20 acres in size and located outside the Lexington %Fayette urban service boundary. Linking Suburbs and Rural Communities. People who lean toward considering horse operations as farms-also look at the contributions equine facilities make to the local agricultural infrastructure and the ways that "ancillary" recreational horse operations can help sustain the more traditional, production- oriented operation. Rich Harlow, program manager for Michigan Farmland and Open Space Preservation, says while many in Michigan's traditional agricultural community don't consider horse operations "real farms," a growing number recognize that horses can provide important links.between the suburbs and traditionally rural communities. 'The barley, oat and hay growers benefit:by;:getting a premium price.for their products," he says. Similarly, several New York.Farm: Bureau Chapters arguing for bridle paths to be included in the state's open space plan, wrote: "Horse people buy.oats, hay, corn, beet pulp and wheat straw grown by local farmers, usually within a: 30 -mile radius oftheir stables. An estimated low -end cost to'feed one horse per month is $65. Multiplythat:by. Erie County's 7,200 horses over a year's time and the contribution to the agricultural community in the purchase of horse feed alone is a staggering $5.6 million." in the Rocky Mountains, cattle and sheep operations have turned to guest ranch- ing as one way to diversify farm income in the face of low commodity prices. 'What we think is happening is that what it means 'to ranch' is changing right now," says Ben Alexander of the Sonoran Institute. "People who will succeed are those who diversify their livestock operations and find ways to participate in more lucrative aspects of the national economy." Historically, horses provided critical transportation for Western ranchers. But today's ranchers are as likely to cover their range using dirt bikes or all terrain vehicles, unless they have particularly difficult topography. Instead, equestrian activities play a critical role in a new generation of guest ranches, where urban dwellers come to participate in traditional ranch activities. 'To me, that's the most exciting form of guest ranching. There's an opportunity for people who are removed from the land— pavement people Ito reconnect with the land. Ranchers who put people on a horse and put them to work on the range have an opportunity to educate urban people about the difficulties, constraints and opportunities in agriculture today," Alexander says. "Ynere is a real disconnect.... in many iocaies, equine operations are a key part of the rural and Yarm lanrviscape, but remain iargely unrecu9nizediin farm statistics." Nelson bills, .,Cornell university ' bepariment of agricultural Economics "is guest ranching agriculture? Strictly speaking, it's not the production of food and fiber. But if guest `,ranching is viable from a cash flow standpoint, then guest services, including horse riding, become integral to the viability of that agricultural operation," he says. Defining Agriculture People who argue against treating recreational horse operations as farms generally start from a produc- tion- oriented definition of agriculture similar to the USDA's. They also question whether recreational facilities are really depending on agricultural resources and point to the substantial site modifications and development (stables, arenas, parking areas) that accompany horse facilities. "All those things usually involve taking away the topsoil and puttinq down drier materials. There's no reason for those &a L—Ti.. Planning a Future for Agriculture continued from page 1 "You need a plan that In developing its plan, Rensselaer took advantage of the state's Agricultural and Farmland won't hinge on just one or Protection Program, which since 1992 has offered matching grants. Planners wrote a blueprint two things falling into place, both to protect farmland and expand the economic opportunities for farmers. The comprehen- and if they don't happen, sive planning effort took almost two years. the whole plan becomes The matching grant was part of the ambitious 1992 legislation that also created county farmland a paper weight" protection boards. The boards, which advise county officials about agricultural districts and appli- cations for purchase of development rights (PDR) funds, chiefly prepare county land protection der Heide I plans. Under the act, county plans must locate important farmland, analyze its agricultural and Linda von environmental value, and identify threats to continued agricultural use. Planning grants are County Planner, capped at $50,000 and cannot exceed half of the -cost of the plan. The county supplied $10,000 Rensselaer, New York in matching funds and a little more than $40,000 with in -kind services. Rensselaer got on board with the state grant in 1999, then hired AFT to help facilitate the plan - f Wing and implementation process. Early on, the county surveyed residents to gain support and :.;also built public awareness with a series of events —a booth at the county fair, a series of meet- " ings, a farm tour for communi leaders. ty 'Twenty years ago, it was next to impossible to discuss these issues in most communities," says Teri Ptacek, AFT's New York field project specialist, who worked closely with Rensselaer officials. 'The planning grants really helped:turn this around, and the state's focus on economic viability as well as farmland protection was* a.key ingredient." The Rensselaer plan works':on: many fronts. A top action item was development of a "neighbor relations packet for. farmers to give to their non - farming neighbors in hopes of improving the lines of communication'and reducing. so-called ".nuisance" suits filed by non - farmers. In the policy arena, the plan calls for.the county to urge towns to strengthen or pass right -to -farm laws. linked initiatives to boost agricultural economic development, includ The plan also provides for - ing new marketing efforts ::to promote Rensselaer County farm products through niche markets, agritourism and cooperative ventures: -.. Other Rensselaer strategies include'explorng funding sources for a PDR program and urging towns to consider funding mechanisms for local farmland protection efforts; developing a direc- tory of technical assistance sources for farmers; promoting and/or providing tax relief incentives through towns, such as using agricultural assessment values when taxing farmland for services; expanding a farmer -to- farmer network and exploring shared farm labor arrangements. Along the,way to `a comprehensive plan, Rensselaer hit obstacles, such as needing to for9e consensus among disparate groups and finding staff time to work on the project:,'Ve..have a lot of good ideas, but it's tough getting time for everyone to sit around the table," von der Heide says. 'The grant allowed 'us to get, services from AFT, which did a lot of the footwork." "You need a plan that won't hinge on just one or two things falling into place, and if they don't happen; the whole plan becomes a paper weight," von der Heide continues. "We constructed a plan that has some elements we can achieve easily, then get momentum." Other communities also have adopted comprehensive farmland protection approaches supported by diverse interests. Recently, Dakota County, Minnesota, near the Twin Cities, h.as seen about 3,000 new homes built annually in existing and planned urban communities that are advancing into agricultural are as"In addition, about 200 homes each year are built on large rural residential lots mixed in with agricultural land uses. "It is something that,concerns our citizens," says Kurt Chatfield, Dakota County's principal planner. Dakota County officials know what citizens think. Every two years since the early 1990s;, they have surveyed their 355,000 residents about a variety of local issues. The rate and manner of 91 percent expressed a growth they see in the county rank as a top concern. In a 2001 survey, p desire for the county to "pursue an active role in protecting farmland from development• ", They indicated a similar wish for natural areas. County planners started by forming a diverse group: environmentalists, representatives ves rom he tY P protection farmers union and farmland protection advocates. The collaborative recommend strategies that were approved by the county commissioners in January 2002, setting the stage for a possible referendum. if posted on the ballot, the referendum would raise $20 million over 20 years through an annual property tax levy. The new fund would bankroll the PDR program __A in e„mc Dnepr, land acouisition. Photo courtesy of Rensselaer County f�► ........ .... ...... ... ..._•_ ....... ....................... _.:.......,......:,_..,.... The planning effort was funded primarily by two state grants. In 1999, the county received $200,000 to increase public awareness about farmland and natural area protection, conduct a countywide inventory of farmland and natural areas, and prepare a protection plan. The county provided about $50,000 of in -kind services to carry out those tasks. A second grant of $93,500 in 2001 allowed county planners to reach out to landowners, investigate funding options and provide assistance to Dakota County cities and townships to protect priority farmland and natural areas. For more information: Jill Schwartz, AFT's director of marketing, (202) 331 -7300 ischwartz@farmland.org The county hopes to implement key strategies such as PDR to protect productive farmland in Linda von der Heide, Rensselaer County contiguous blocks next to natural areas and promote the use of existing metropolitan'. "agricul - tural preserves" that offer farmers tax credits in exchange for eight years of continued farming, principal planner, Tools for cities and townships might include 1/40 acre agricultural zoning, - exclusive agricultural (518) 270 -2921 zoning and special building restrictions for the most productive soils. The county commis_ signers.,.:, �� .. `Kurt approved the strategies in January but have not yet begun implementing them..;::;? Chatfield, Dakota .County "We tried to balance farmland protection with a need for the county to grow,'. Chatfield says ` :. Principal planner, By protecting farmland near natural areas, "the two gals can'com complement each other..iri a "r [9 , p (.952) 891 -7022 symbiotic relationship." KURT.CHATFIELD@co.dakota.mn.us At least a decade before Rensselaer and Dakota counties embarked :u on 16 ca ":'r p p . tion plans, Yolo County, California, officials adopted a precedent -sgWng blueprint to guide the John Bencomo, area's growth. Yolo planners wanted to ensure that the California: growth 'machine didn't swallow their county, tucked between the San Francisco Bay region and-Sacramento :.:County Yolo County's director for planning and public works, officials approved a general comprehensive' plan, including an, optional '.'agriculturai. °element':' that (530) 666 -8045 provides guidance on all land use decisioris that impact,agricultu,ral resources.- In Yolo County, approximately 90 percent of the land covered by its general: plan -is designated as agricultural. "We're heavily invested in agr1iculture;' that's.'our base,. ,says-, ohn:. Bencomo; rYolo's director for y.,,J•... ; . planning and public works. "My mantra is that it. happened:in Ventura County, San Jose County and Monterey, and it's not going to.happen here., The county's plan calls for agricultural zoning�ninimurn acreage requirements of 80 acres in "agricultural preserve" zoned land: Yolo also approved, county /city tax- sharing agreements that make it possible to direct .growth toward the. county's cities: A farmland mitigation ordinance, an unusual rule, requires.developers'who win a: zoning change from agriculture to "mitigate" for each acre of farmland :..they.build,upon by permanently protecting one acre of equal or better quality land someplace; else.;in.:the county. Typically, the new land is put under conserva- tion easement. Today, Yolo officials are poised.to update their general plan. High on the list is the agricultural element, something not required under state law but a continued high priority for Yolo County commissioners as they-,* a'tc'h growth drive, literally, along the 1 -80 and 1 -5 corridors that angle through the county..:'.VVe're trying to get in a 'ready' position and to direct growth to those areas where there are less p rime soils and fewer agricultural resources," Bencomo says. V.B. Total mandatory spending in Farm Bill* ....................................... ............................... $457.8 billion Ratio of commodity to conservation spending (Total 10 yrs.) .............. 3.S: 1 Far mland: Protection Pro • `���•� � � �``` `..� . ..:.. .. ......:. ... ram.. FPP :fur>Idin million 5pendin 1996= 200.7`•' r '. ,.::;: �.!......,.... ..,:: $52 million.' Autftorized• 2002 -2007 ;' ........... , ; °,'$597:.million Pirojecto 008 ��,:.1 Pik.. twr \,Yn. " `Y(''�'��.J�c^r-.rta�- r^nx�'r'n� •. �• :. ;... ,. .,. _:r i .. .,•r+ .,—..K ,.,.- -...�. n. : .. ...... ... f% � ('N!'wr'1F1?:ti1:t4!T�fCfl•..'M m!llTiYaGR.:M1nvRlawu.�llk ..++wr'^.M:•. �r:+n�it _ ..n-r.+r`•. :. .�..��.s :w ..-.. ...r- .._.�_ ,.... . - I•. - ��_,:c��t71:,a':l.•'',w r�...a��. S' .. 'r..6 ::.4.F j.J. rn't±•.h -- �. `•��^:- L %''Ii hf vL x .i�v 1 "u111:Lai•..':Fa� r 4.+'s �.•.•. tr1: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 I Source: Congressional Budget Once H.R. 2646 Estimate of Budget Authority, 05103102 •_..ft &A Lr Mp- IS71J,l PUVJWJ J UVrIWWV ZOOZ Gupft Z anssl 'n awnloA u0g3QUU0:) 090 10 VIII `uoidurepioN 3XVIS aiw4s Quo asnil pueluu -e3 u1;o1Jaur`j c v1-If—AA ter ►'" r When 1s a Horse Farm Really a Farm? continued from page S For more information: facilities to need prime agricultural soils," says Rich Hubbard, assistant commissioner of the 2001 New York York Department of Food and Agriculture. Equine Survey "Our biggest problem is keeping land available and affordable to production farmers," says uuvMw. eass,us�da.ynv /nyl Hubbard. "We've resisted opening up the definition of agriculture to include recreational riding and boarding because it introduces another buyer into the market for [protected] land, one Equ1ne2000/hnrse.htm who generally has more resources to bring to bear than someone who is engaged in production 1999 National agriculture." Agricultural Statistics Currently, Massachusetts considers equine breeding operations agricultural and allows ancillary Service Equine Suruep boarding, riding and training facilities provided they aren't the primary activity. Like Hubbard, w vu�ru .usd�.tr�an��iih.carneii.edu/ Massachusetts' assessors also are opposed to opening the definition of agriculture to recreational horse facilities because of the impact on agricultural property tax assessments. repartS/nassr /IiuostQek/equine Forty -nine states offer differential property tax assessments to agricultural land; all SO offer property Sonoran Institute tax relief. Under New York's agricultural districts law, commercial horse boarding operations are eli- w�vu.sannran.or� gible, subject to county approval, for agricultural assessments providing they have at least 10 acres, 10 horses and gross revenue of at least $10,000. In many states, agriculture is also often exempted National Equestrian Land from some local and state land use regulations that affect commercial enterprises. Delaware farms, Conservation Resource for example, are exempted from county regulations such as zoning ordinances and are eligible for tM+�ivu.eirrorq the state's PDR program. Under Delaware's commodity- oriented definition of farms — similar to the USDA's —horse breeding operations qualify as farms, while recreational facilities do not. Mike McGrath, chief planner for the Delaware Department of Agriculture, is concerned that open- ing the definition of agriculture to include recreational riding and boarding facilities could jeopard- ize those programs. "We're going to jealously guard the requirements [for designation as a farm] because we know if the benefits start going to people who aren't readily identified as farmers, then we're going to lose the whole ball of wax," he says. "These are not simple issues. But here's the question you've got to ask yourself: Are you really trying to structure programs that try to protect and preserve commercial agriculture, or are you trying to structure programs that deal with open space ?" McGrath says. "Everybody's got a foot in each camp. But Delaware, I think, has come down on the side of commercial, industrial agricul- ture. Along the way, we've saved a bunch of critters and trees, and protected natural resources and open space." D'i B.H. IS71J,l PUVJWJ J UVrIWWV ZOOZ Gupft Z anssl 'n awnloA u0g3QUU0:) 090 10 VIII `uoidurepioN 3XVIS aiw4s Quo asnil pueluu -e3 u1;o1Jaur`j c v1-If—AA ter ►'" r open spaces, and by support- ing people and organizations that are making that happen." - Jessica Lone and Martha Sullins To read about AFT's work in the Rocky Mountain region, go to www.farmland. org/regions/ index. htm. New Chair and Two Additions to AFT Board A M E R I C A N FARMLAND S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 Douglas P. Wheeler American Farmland Trust's new chairman of the board has a long history with the organi- zation. Doug Wheeler was a co- founder of AFT and served as its president from 1980 to 1985. Over the years he has watched the organization grow from a small staff to its current number of 100. And now he is Conservation Foundation, and most recently, as Secretary for Resources in California. He received his law degree from Duke University and is a part- ner in the environmental prac- tice of Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. in Washington, D.C. Wheeler is a visiting lecturer at the Duke University School of Law and serves on advisory committees for the World Wildlife Fund and the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Wheeler and his wife, Heather, make their home in Washington, D.C. Julia H. Widdowson One of AFT's newest board members, Julia Harte Widdowson, has a relationship with American Farmland Trust through someone she knows very well: her father, Ed Harte, a life director and the Peggy Rockefeller chair on AFT's board. Widdowson says that her main interests are pretty well reflected in her volunteer work, and can be summed up by the following two words: conserva- tion and preservation. Her heart lies in land conservation, farm protection and environ- mental issues in general, as well prepared to lead AFT at a time as architectural preservation when the organization is posi- tioned as the premier national farmland protection entity in the country. In his career, Wheeler has served as deputy assistant sec- retary of the Interior, executive vice president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, executive director of the Sierra Club, vice president of the World Wildlife Fund and and decorative arts and the old houses that hold them. On her own time she is restoring a Greek revival house in Dutchess County, New York, and preparing to farm there this spring. Widdowson sits on several boards, including The Nature Conservancy of Eastern New York, Friends of the Upper East Side, the Trust for Public LO-1 Wells go deep for- drought's eiiects ` While those using well water are not subject to water restrictions, excessive use now may cause the well to run dry months later. ! BY DAVE HART Staff Writer HILLSBOROUGH — The mandatory water conservation measures that all the local gov- ernments have implemented in recent weeks apply only to those properties that draw their water from public systems such as Orange Water and Sewer Authority. If you get your water from a well, rather than from a public supply, you're free to use your water however and whenever you wish. While washing the car or irrigating the lawn on Sunday can result in a fine for The Chapel Hill News anyone on OWASA water, it's perfectly lawful for people on well water to crank up the sprinkler, if they wish, and let it run all day. Lawful but unwise, local water resource officials say. "I expect to see some wells in Orange County go dry this fall," said Ron Holdway, the county's environmental health director, "We haven't had a rash of them yet; so far, it's been no worse than any other summer. But drought effects on wells don't usually show up for weeks or months. So, if the drought con- tinues, the real problems will come later in the year and beyond." Orange County Environmen- tal Health Services issued an advisory last week urging well owners to begin water conserva- tion steps immediately. Well owners, county officials said, should refrain from water- "—A�. E°e,, e-7 9_t%et, Photo courtesy of OWASA Low water levels at OWASKs Cane Creek Reservior are visible sign that water tables also are falling. ing lawns and washing cars, take shorter showers and repair any leaks in their plumbing sys- tems. "Water conservation is always a good measure, but it's especially important now," Holdway said. "Because the effects are delayed with wells, See DROUGHT, Page A3 4 J� Drought continued from page Al even though you might not detect any problem now, you could have a real problem later in the year. It's much better to take steps now to reduce that risk." Air gurgling from the faucet, s] ower flow, or no water are signs the well may be going dry, he said. Wells work by pumping water to the surface from aquifers, which are layers -of fractured rock, sand or gravel, usually deep underground, that are per- meated by water. Rainwater fil- ters down through the soil to the aquifer — a process that can take anywhere from days to mil- lennia, depending on geologic conditions— and fills in the cracks and spaces between the rock and soil particles. When rainfall decreases for long periods, as it has during the current drought, the water table — the upper limit of the saturated layer — begins to.fall. "The water table is drop- ping," said Nat Wilson, a hydro - geologist with the N.C. Division of Water Resources. "It's look- ing for recharge, which comes from rainfall, and it isn't getting any That's why stream flow is so reduced; streams get most of their water from groundwater discharge, and when the water table drops too low you don't get that." . In periods of prolonged drought, the water table can drop below the intake of shal- low wells. When that happens, the tap runs dry. As a general rule, the deeper the well, the less susceptible it is to drought. Like a straw in a drinking glass, the amount of water a well can draw depends on how deeply it reaches down into the aquifer. Most newly drilled wells are some 200 feet deep, Holdway said. Older bored wells — or lower, and therefore more prob- lematic. "If you have a relatively recent drilled well, you're prob- ably going to be in good shape," Wilson said. "The caveat to that, of course, is that we don't know how much longer this drought will go on. It could be years. But what we're seeing so far are problems with old bored wells, of which there are still a lot around. "In those few cases where we do have problems with drilled wells, it's usually because there's. some specific circum- stance, like several wells com- peting for limited water in a localized area." Homeowners should be able to tell what type well they have by a simple examination, Wil- son said. Drilled wells typically have a 6 -inch diameter pipe with a steel casing, he said, while bored wells are often two to three feet in diameter with a concrete casing. In Orange County, the effect of the drought on wells depends on depth, age, location and other variables, Holdway said. The aquifer is not uniform. throughout the county, and dif- ferent . tracts; even adjacent ones, may have very different levels of access to groundwater. "There are places where you can have two wells 40 or 50 feet apart, and you have completely different flows," Holdway said. "It's extremely variable. But the bottom line is that the shallower the well, the more impact the drought is going to have." Holdway said the county is in the process of implementing a new computer program that will track wells throughout the county, identify those that go dry and look for patterns in the groundwater supply. Residents with concerns or questions about their well sys- tems, Holdway said, should call Orange County Environmental Health Services at 245 -2360. even, .in some cases, hand -dug Dave Hart can be reached at wells — are considerably shal- 932 -8744 or dhart @nando.com M County prepares to celebrate 250 years of cultural diversity On Sept. 9,1752, a new county was orn in the North Carolina back country — a county )RANGE that spanned the area ULTURAL from present -day RTS Greensboro to present- day Durham, from the Virginia line to the Uwharrie mountains. On that day, Orange County became reality as its first colonial court of )mmon pleas and quarter sessions as held at Grayfields along the Eno iver. Originally inhabited by the ccaneechi/Saponi nation and other ative American tribes, the new aunty encompassed a land area of 500 square miles (versus 400 today) at included all of present day Alamance, Caswell, Person, Durham and Chatham counties as well as parts of Wake, Lee, Randolph, Guilford and Rockingham counties. Mindful of our heritage, the mission of the Orange County 250 celebration is to bring together citizens to celebrate and educate themselves about the people past and present who have called Orange County home. As citizens in one of the oldest Piedmont counties, Orange County's 120,000 residents — up from 4,000 when the county -was formed — have a lot to celebrate: a Our commitment to education, from the founding of the University of North Carolina, the nation's first state university when it opened in 1795, through early advocacy for universal public education, the development of six freedmen's schools by 1868, a district tax enacted in the 1940s to boost local school funding in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, to today's changing UNC- Chapel Hill and local school systems. rated among the best in the Southeastern United States. a Our will to preserve cultural resources such as our tapestry of distinctive buildings and neighborhoods, as well as our farmland and natural treasures like Occoneechee Mountain and the Eno River corridor. a Our growing diversity, beginning with Indian nations, recast by the arrival of people from Europe and Africa, and shaped recently by the addition of persons from Asia, Latm America and other parts of the globe. a Our ongoing love of independence, whether reflected in the actions of the Regulators or the patriots of the American Revolution, by women fighting for equality, African - Americans struggling to secure' their civil rights; " sharecroppers and mill workers :. striving for dignity,' orfre&speech advocates protecting free expression . in the mid- 20th-century In all of these struggles, important battles were fought and won in Orange County. The anniversary of the county's founding provides an opportunity and need to celebrate its 250 rich years. Social and political issues may sometimes divide us, yet there is County county's heritage and diversity, encouraging local residents continued from page C1 and visitors to explore'brange County. from several county a Close the year -long dignitaries and a ringing of celebrations by hosting an church and courthouse bells event saluting the county's across the county. past, present and future in n Post highway signs and. September 2003. banners that advertise. and Help us set the stage for a celebrate our anniversary, year o:,unity and celebration featuring a juried logo -by volunteering to work with commissioned for the Orange County. 250, by making occasion. a contributiori.:by identifying a Encourage the county's existing evenis'that*might r numerous and varied civic and share the anniversary theme, service organizations to or by participating in related incorporate programs with an events throughout the year. Orange County 250 theme For information on how to during the semi- help, call 245 -2325 or send quincentennial year beginning e-mail to Sept. 9. edcmail @coorange.nc.us. Develop driving tours and Provid& event information by other activities related to the July 31. . muc a gues for recogn izing our common ground. Knowing that a diversity of interests, cultures and ideas have been a mainstay of the past 250 years makes it easier for us to welcome the diversity that the future will surely bring. The Orange County 250 committee seeks your help in celebrating our common heritage. There are plans to: *Hold a kick -off event commemorating the county's origin beginning on Sept. 8 with a several - mile walk from Moorefields to Hillsborough bearing artifacts from the 1750s, followed on Sept. 9 by a re- enactment of the first county court in the 1840 courthouse, brief remarks See COUNTY, Page C6 P� S�� July 2002 A monthly newsletter promoting awareness, understanding and practice of sustainable agriculture North Carolina Cooperative Extension Chatham County Center North Carolina Cooperative Extension College of Agriculture and Life Sciences 45 South Street Post Office Box 279 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Telephone: 919.542.8202 Fax: 919.542.8246 %;\ *•�4�11RRIp���'�- 0}��T, Y,•.. "r "' s` ' ))��I[['• t ,� 'i *•Rt��fese rx:a =�� 4V 1q_ Inside This Issue July CSA Workshop ...................1 Upcoming Workshops ................ 2 NCA &TSU Field Day ................ 2 Intern Demos at CEFS ........ ......... 2 Calendar of Events ...................... 3 I hope you find this newsletter helpful and informative. If you have ideas or suggestions for fu- ture issues, call or stop by the of- fice. I always welcome your feed- back! Debbie Roos Agricultural Extension Agent 919 -542 -8202 debbie_roos @ncsu.edu July Enhancing Sustainability Workshop: Marketing Through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) According to ATTRA's Lane Greer, CSA is quickly becoming a direct marketing al- ternative for small -scale growers. The CSA movement began in Europe and Japan over 30 years ago. The first CSAs in the U.S. were created in the mid -1980s in New England. Today there are over 1000 CSAs in the U.S. and Canada. In a CSA system, a farmer grows food for a group of shareholders who pledge to buy a portion of the farm's crop for that season. This arrangement gives growers up -front cash to finance their operation. Besides receiving a weekly box or bag of fresh, high - quality produce, shareholders also know that they are directly supporting a local farm. CSAs also allow shareholders tore- establish a connection with the land that many people feel they have lost. The Chatham County Center of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service will offer a marketing workshop as part of its Enhancing Sustainability Series on Monday, July 15, from 7:00 -9:00 p.m. in the auditorium of the Agricultural Building in Pittsboro. "Marketing Through Community Supported Agriculture" will be presented by me and UNC- Greensboro Professor Dr. Susan Andreatta. A panel of local farmers who operate CSAs —Elise Margoles from Elysian Fields Farm, Fred Mifler from Hilltop Farm, and Steve Moize from Shady Grove Farm —will describe their operations and answer questions. Presenters will discuss the history and philoso- phy of the CSA movement, present strategies for designing and establishing a CSA and recruiting and retaining members, discuss the pros and cons of CSAs, and share information on resources. I am personally very excited about this workshop (even though it doesn't involve BUGS!) because of my very positive experience as a core group member of a success- ful CSA in north Florida in the late 1990s. I was actually a bit surprised upon moving to North Carolina in 1999 that I could count the number of CSAs in the area on one hand, but I attributed this dearth to the fact that we were blessed with viable farmers' markets in the area. However, I have seen interest in CSAs grow over the past couple of years, and enough people have asked me about it that I figured it warranted a work- shop. CSA is not for everyone. But whether you are a consumer or a farmer looking for alternatives, consider attending this workshop to see if CSA is right for you. The cost of the workshop is $10.00 to cover materials. The deadline for registration is July 12. Email or call me at 919 -542 -8202 for more information.. Enrploynrent and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Flaw Shari, Other Upcoming Enhancing Sustainability Workshops August 12: Cover Crop Field Day —learn which sum- mer and winter cover crops are best suited to our region, and view demonstration plots of over 15 summer leg- umes and grasses September 16: Hands -on Crop Pest Identification, Part 1* —view slides and actual specimens of important crop pests October 21: Hands -on Crop Pest Identification, Part 2* —view slides and actual specimens of important crop pests * the September and October workshops will offer 2 hours of Continuing Certification Credits for commercial pesticide applicators Golden Leaf Field Day July 18 NC A &T State University Farm Greensboro, NC `��,.SV ;tom �'a�, � -: f �.5• _� � %v �•_ -. s`- ", ti NCA &TSU will host a field day dedicated to the Golden LEAF projects on Thursday, July 18, from 9:00 to noon at the A &T farm to showcase A &T's Research and Cooperative Extension activities in support of the current Golden LEAF projects. Highlighted activities include: • Specialty Fruits, Mulches for Tomatoes, and Extend- ing Growing Seasons for Melons and Tomatoes — evaluating organic pears, frost -hardy peaches, and paw- paws for uses as alternative crops for small -scale farmers in North Carolina. Baldwin also has 40 varieties of toma- toes (mostly heirloom types) planted on black, red, green, and blue plastic mulch, paper, and landscape fab- ric. The muskmelons and watermelons were planted in early June for a late season harvest. Tomatoes will be planted in mid -July for a fall harvest. Different types of plastic and paper mulches also are being evaluated. Page 2 Edible and Medicinal Mushroom Farming— researchers are helping farmers with inoculation and cultivation of ex- otic mushrooms which have edible and medicinal proper- ties. Researchers are also studying a variety of mushroom substrates and environments to determine which will be the most practical. • Tilapia Production — researchers are studying which spe- cies of tilapia and which production methods are best suited to North Carolina • Meat Goat Health Monitoring —new methods for herd health monitoring and the management of internal parasites in meat goats. Demonstrations and educational materials to assist in improving herd health will be provided. Medicinal Herbs from the Greenhouse to the Field — demonstration featur- ing 9 medicinal herbs: Aztec Sweet Herb, Black Cohosh, Catnip, Echinacea, Gotu Kola, Peppermint, Stevia, St. John's Wort, and Vicks Plant. Extractions from some of these herbs will be compared to assays from commer- cial herbs. Upscale Pork for Small - Scale Hog Producers — methods to produce profit- able pork with a small -scale farm application. Research fo- cuses on alternative management systems, diets, and genet- ics to enhance flavor. For more information about this field day, contact Keith Bald- win at 336 - 334 -7956 or email kbaldwin@ncat.edu. Center for Environmental Farming Systems: Intern Demonstrations July 22, 2002 Goldsboro, NC • Composting and vermicomposting • Creating beneficial insect habitat and buffers • Nitrogen availability and growth rate using whole soy beans and soy meal as a fertilizer for popcorn • Controlled rotational grazing management • Landscape ecological principles and permaculture integra- tion into farm landscapes • Grazing behavior of goats • Specialty Melon Production -12 varieties of specialty For more information, contact Robert McGuinn at 919 - 515 -1199 melons, including Spanish, French/c hare n tai s, musk- or email robert_mcguinn @ncsu.edu. melon, honeydew, galia, and yellow canary type varie- ties. 7 6 iP" Sh.a rc`w Calendar of Events (Updated weekly on the Web!) Page 3 July 11: NC Cooperative Extension's Specialty Crops Field Day at the Cunningham Research Station in Kinston, NC. Research high- lighted includes: Specialty melons, red kernel sweet corn, grape tomatoes, Boniato -type sweetpotatoes, borage, evening primrose, yel- low and orange flesh seedless watermelons, super hot peppers, pyrethrum, medicinal herbs, and a variety garden with squash, edamame, long beans, hot peppers, and many.other unusual vegetables. Contact Jeanine Davis at 828 - 684 -3562 for more information. July 11:Virginia Bramble & Blueberry Day at the Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center near Blackstone, VA. Updates on pest management, breeding, "high tunnels" for organic bramble production, marketing, and more. Contact H.D. Stiles at 434 - 292 -5331 for more information. July 15: Enhancing Sustainability Series presents Community Supported Agriculture Workshop in Pittsboro, NC. Conducted by the Chatham County Center of North Carolina Cooperative Extension. For more information contact Debbie Roos at 919 -542 -8202. July 18: North Carolina A &T State University Field Day at the A &T University Farm in Greensboro, NC. Highlights include season extension for vegetables, specialty melon research, medicinal herb research, tank aquaculture, hoop houses for swine, organic pear pro- duction, meat goat research, and heirloom tomatoes on assorted mulches. Contact Keith Baldwin at 336 - 334 -7957 for more informa- tion. July 22: Intern Demonstrations at NCSU's Center for Environmental Farming Systems in Goldsboro, NC. For more information con- tact Robert McGuinn at 919 -515 -1199. July 26: Annual Meeting of the NC Muscadine Grape Growers at Bennett Vineyards in Edward, NC. Call .919- 322 -7154 for more information. August 8: North Carolina Cooperative Extension's Tomato and Vegetable Field Day at the Mountain Horticultural Crops Research Station in Fletcher, NC. Contact Jeanine Davis at 828 - 684 -3562 for more information. August 12: Enhancing Sustainability Series presents Cover Crop Field Day in Pittsboro, NC. View demonstration plots of over 15 different summer legumes and grasses, and learn about appropriate winter cover crop species. Conducted by the Chatham County Cen- ter of North Carolina Cooperative Extension. For more information contact Debbie Roos at 919 -542 -8202. September 9: Working Forest Conservation Easement Workshop in Pittsboro, NC. Conducted by the Chatham County Center of North Carolina Cooperative Extension. For more information contact Glenn Woolard at 919 -542 -8202. September 16: Enhancing Sustainability Series presents Hands -on Crop Pest Identification Workshop, Part 1 in Pittsboro, NC. Conducted by the Chatham County Center of North Carolina Cooperative Extension. For more information contact Debbie Roos at 919 -542 -8202. September 20: Forestry Tour starting from Pittsboro, NC. Tour stops will include the 2,000+ acre Occoneechee Boy Scout Camp in Moore County, adjoining Jordan Lumber forestlands and the NCSU Goodwin Forest. For more information contact Glenn Woolard at 919 -542 -8202. September 20 -22: American Livestock Breeds Conservancy's 25th Anniversary Annual Conference and Members' Meeting in Pittsfield, MA. Held in conjunction with the New England Heritage Breeds Conservancy's annual Exhibition and Sale of Rare and His- toric Livestock. Contact Don Bixby or Marjorie Bender at 919 -542 -5704 for more information. October 21: Enhancing Sustainability Series presents Hands -on Crop Pest Identification Workshop, Part 2 in Pittsboro, NC. Con- ducted by the Chatham County Center of North Carolina Cooperative Extension. For more information contact Debbie Roos at 919- 542 -8202. October 23 -26: National SARE Conference: On the Road to Sustainable Agriculture in and around Raleigh, NC. For more informa- tion visit the conference website or contact the Southern Region SARE office at 770 - 412 -4787. November 15 -17: Carolina Farm Stewardship Association's 17th Annual Sustainable Agriculture Conference in Boone, NC. Contact CFSA at 919 -542 -2402 for more information. December 2 -3: 17th Annual Southeastern Vegetable and Fruit Expo in Greensboro, NC. Contact the North Carolina Vegetable Growers' Association at 919- 334 -0099 or email info @ncvga.com for more information. 77 �;' :i ;' +' a - 'r.. 'N' *6 pireservati'00 �; :t` '+3 S ►. r� �t @' r� i6 'f ��.. ,�>- � �• _ .,r� r ve "F o, r t Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space Since 1990 a Deborah Bowers Editor 8TH ANNUAL SURVEY Lancaster moves to top slot in ranking Montgomery County, Md. has relinquished its long -held status as the nation's leader in local farm- land preservation, passing that title to Lancaster County, Pa. Funding and supply of farmland were cited as factors that over the past few years have given Lancaster County a green light for surpassing all otl7%-rs ranked in the Farmland Preservation Report annual "Top 12" survey conducted in July. ".It's the law of diminishing returns," said Mid - Atlantic Land Trust Conference Montgomery's John Zawitoski about the county's new position as number two. "We're not surprised or upset," he said. Nation's Top 12 local programs table, p. 4 -5 During the past year, Lancaster has had $28 million to Montgomery's $6.5 million, and, Lancaster's land in farms, derived by the USDA, is Continued on page 3 Tackle land use, LTA president-says GETTYSBURG, PA — Speaking before about 165 people involved in land conservation, Land Trust Alliance president Rand Wentworth urged his audi- ence to "engage, collaborate and advocate" and to "stretch the limits of what land trusts do and can be." That includes, he said, "doing work in land planning for a future that includes land conservation." The conference gathered together land trust administrators and volunteers from the mid - Atlantic states to Gettysburg College June 21 -22. The spon- sor, the Land Trust Alliance, is a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C. Wentworth, president since March, said land trusts should work with county governments on land use plans. "Think about the muscle we have if we engage collaborately." Looking to the future, Wentworth warned land trust administrators that a "potential catastrophy is on the horizon" unless they practice due diligence by using baseline surveys and assure regular monitoring of easements. "it doesn't matter if your easements are well monitored if your neighbor in the land trust commu- nity goes down, they may take you down with them," Wentworth said, because news media can report stories in a way that make land trust work seem Continued on page 2 Volume 12, Number 6 July - Aug. 2002 Nation's Top 12 local programs ... ............................... 4 -5 Pa. could lower required acres from 50 to 25 .................. 5 Newsbriefs .................................... ............................... 6 Jobpostings .................................... ............................... 8 Farmland Preservation Report is published by Bowers Publishing, Inc. 10 times per year. Subscription rate of $205 includes index and hotline services. Editorial and circulation offices: 900 .La Grange Rd., Street, Maryland 21154 • (410) 692 -2708 • ISSN: 1050 - 6373. © 2002 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form, or electronic forwarding of this material without permission from the publisher is prohibited. iS � J s�, Page 2 Continued from page 1 farmland preservation report scandalous. He warned that it can be expected that easement violations will increase over time, causing landowners to lose faith in land trusts. Wentworth said a Pennsylvania land trust had recently had legal fees of over $100,000 in an en- forcement case. Wentworth proposed creating a "collective legal defense pool," that would garner annual contributions and pro bono work. "If we get bad case law in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, it will hurt every land trust in the region," he warned. Wentworth said that stewardship "goes beyond enforcing a document, to engaging in a relationship long - term." Ecological restoration will-evolve as the focus of stewardship, he said. In addition, Wentworth urged land trusts to consider projects in cities, to "work to bring minori- ties" into their efforts, and to envision the land trust movement in a way that is "wildly ambitious... that every child in Americawill grow up within 10 minutes of a green*space." July -Aug. 2002 Shore quality of life," and "focuses on one of the greatest landscape protection tools available: strong, proactive planning and zoning," the plan states. The ESLC has put the initiative forward to the six counties in the form of a resolution for county elected officials to sign by July 25. The resolution, if signed, would have counties work together to achieve land use and design standards as well as a transporta- Land trusts and land use About 40 people attended a workshop titled "Land Use Planning: Roles for Land Trusts" moder- ated by Robert Etgen of the Eastern Shore (Md.) Land Conservancy. Of those attending, only four indicated they had been involved in land use planning in their localities. "Our mission is to preserve land - we have to be true to our mission. It's much broader than conserva- tion easements," Etgen said. Easements, "are just a program under the mission." Etgen said his organization, which operates in a six - county region where close to 30,000 acres are under easements, understood that involvement in planning was imperative as development began moving into Maryland's rural Eastern Shore from neighboring Delaware, and that "planning and zoning systems on the Eastern Shore were not ready." The Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC) approached the need by creating its "Regional Landscape Initiative," which asserts in its mission statement, "There is simply too. much valuable land, and not enough time or money to protect it all through conservation easements alone." The program "pro- vides tools to curb sprawl and protect the Eastern Eastern Shore (MD) Land Conservancy Six - County Anti - Sprawl Plan 4 Protect 50 percent of Eastern Shore land by 2010; . 4 Put agriculture into local economic development plans; 4 Channel at least 50 percent of new development into locally designated growth areas by 2005; 4 Enact design standards that make new development complement local architecture by 2005; 4 Assure diverse, affordable housing is available by 2010; 4 Develop a regional transportation plan that includes public transit between towns by 2010. Adapted from "Eastern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision", a resolution drafted by the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and sent to six county governments. For more information see tivww. eslc. org. tion plan that includes public transportation. Etgen said he didn't know whether all six coun- ties would sign on to the resolution, or whether any of them would. "Land protection is our bread and butter, but it's not enough," said Amy Owsley, director of commu- nity planning for ESLC. She said the ESLC feels that involvement inland use, and advocacy, is a proper function for her organization. "We don't think it's a choice." Asked if involvement wards off easement donors or sellers, Rob Etgen said the opposite seemed true. "Involvement usually bumps our land protection numbers up." Dexter Mead'of the Piedmont Environmental Council, a member of the panel, agreed with Etgen that involvement, and its attending publicity "brings at least as much support as flack - people who oppose our policies and actions wouldn't give us an'easement anyway." The Piedmont Environmental Council works in Continued on page 6 July -Aug. 2002 farmland preservation report Lancaster nation's toplarm program Continued from page 1 391,836 acres, compared to Montgomery's 77,266, producing a much higher pool of applicants, particu- larly considering differences in land markets, Zawitoski said. That difference is evident in average per -acre costs for the two programs - Lancaster's at $1809, and Montgomery's at $3565 per acre. The Iast available farms are the hardest to get, Zawitoski said. The two counties are on a par when it comes to zoning, however, with development rights in agricultural areas restricted to one unit per 25 acres. The Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board, established in 1980 - nine years before the Pennsylvania state program - logged a whopping 9,944 acres since last July. It is the largest single -year gain of any county in the ranking since 1996 when Sonoma County placed more than 10,000 acres under easement in one year. Lancaster's acreage total is helped significantly by the work of the Lancaster Farmland Trust, which has preserved 9,584 acres, many under a cooperative agreement with the Lancaster County program. "We've had a record year," said executive direc- tor Heidi Schellenger. The organization logged 1,364 acres since last July. Lancaster County has an agricultural identity that makes its new number -one status in preservation more than due. It is the nation's leading non - irrigated local farm economy. It is the top - producing farm county in the northeast, and contains some of the most produc- tive soils in the United States. Even though just 60 miles from Philadelphia, the nation's fourth - largest city, all Lancaster townships have followed the recommendation of county planning - as well as the Agricultural Preserve Board - and established effective agricultural zoning at a 1:25 density. Urban growth boundaries, backed by rings of preserved farms strategically placed by the Preserve Board, are in place around some municipalities. The county's population has edged upward from 450,000, yet Lancaster's farm support businesses thrive, and draw business from 100 miles away. June Mengel, director of the Agricultural Preserve Board, said the county has come a long way, but still Page 3 has a long way to go, with a large and growing backlog of farmers' eager to preserve their land. Other counties that have made substantial gains are Baltimore County, Berks County, Pa. and Burlington County,*NJ. Land trust activity boosts Baltimore County Land.trusts focusing their efforts in Baltimore County resulted in four of the county's five Rural Legacy Areas between 1997 and 2000. Land trust implementation of Rural Legacy Program grants in those areas accounts for most of the county's increase in preserved acres this year, from 31,438 acres in July 2001 to 38,183 acres, an increase of 6,745 acres from all programs. That jump moves the county from 7th into 6th place in the ranking. It is the county's first move up since 1999 when survey methodology allowed inclusion of agricultural acres from other entities and programs. In the 1999 survey the county reported 24,399 acres in all programs. Baltimore County's success in easement pur- chases and donations is supported by its restrictive agricultural zoning, which allows, overall, a density of one unit per 50 acres (1:50). It is the most restric- tive zoning among farmland programs in.the eastern, United States. The next strongest protection is 1:25. During the past year, Baltimore County has put forth additional county funds to boost Rural Legacy grants, and has added an "imminent threat" provision to its local program that allows the county board to channel funds to a farm not next in line for easement purchase, but in imminent danger of development. Berks County added 6,779 acres since last August, and moves up in the ranking from 1 Ith to 10th place. Sliding scale zoning of varying protection has been adopted by nearly half of all townships, and bond funding of $30 million in 2000 put the county in the ranking for the first time. Working with a pool of more than 200 applicants, the program has logged 12,455 acres since it entered the ranking. What is at stake is substantial - along with Lancaster and Chester Counties, Berks ranks in the nation's top 100 counties for production. While its ranking didn't change, Burlington County got a boost of 4,741 acres in the past year, many of those from the Pinelands transfer of develop- ment credits program, which has increased in activity due to development in Atlantic City, according to John Ross of the Pinelands Development Credit Bank. The price of credits increased dramatically in recent years. 7 f,.' Page 4 Brandywine Conservancy, Natural Lands Trust farmland preservation report Sonoma County Land Trust . July -Aug. 2002 Nation's Top 12 Local Farmland Preservation Programs Rural Legacy, MET, The Manor Conservancy Marin Marin Open Space District Harford Rural Legacy, MET Berks Berks County Conservancy Current Market Burlington Pinelands Development Credit Bank Total Ag Ag Other Funding Value of Preserved Program Program Program Available Ag Products Rank County Acres Acres Gain Ag Acres" (millions)2 (millions) 1 Lancaster (PA) 557009 457425 9,944 9,584 7.5 766.7 2 Montgomery (MD) 54,871 50,498 n/a 49373 9 28.5 3 Chester (PA) 44,452 167541 2,241 27,911 6.2 342.8 4 Sonoma (CA) . 4108 377873 n/a 3,815 49 463.6 5 Carroll (MD) 39,668 36,506 1,830 3,162 5.4 71.2 6 Baltimore (MD) 38,183 20,523 17995 16,370 7.7 51.1 7 Marin (CA) 34,092 31,967 1,629 2,125 7 53.8 8 Harford (MD) 33,006 29,631 1,788 31P375 9 38.8 9 Burlington (NJ) 31,289 157375 n/a 15,914 7.75 87.5 10 Berks (PA) 30,873 281000 6,779 2,873 30 247.7 11 York (PA) 28,667 24,664 3,740 47003 2.2 128.6 12 Howard (MD) 24,253 18,838 n/a 5,415 13.3 19.6 TOTALS: 456,051 355,841 98,920 155 15.3 billion Notes 1 Other programs include the Maryland Rural Legacy Program, local land trusts that protect farmlands, TDR programs not operated by the county, and other local programs that permanently set aside agricultural land and allow agricul- tural use. z Current funds available for one or more years. Sources: Interviews with county personnel and private organizations, July 2002'. Other sources of preserved acres, by county (all easements protect agricultural use) Lancaster Lancaster Farmland Trust Montgomery Rural Legacy, MET Chester Brandywine Conservancy, Natural Lands Trust Sonoma Sonoma County Land Trust . Carroll Rural Legacy, MET, Carroll County Land Trust Baltimore Rural Legacy, MET, The Manor Conservancy Marin Marin Open Space District Harford Rural Legacy, MET Berks Berks County Conservancy York Farm and Natural Lands Trust of York County Burlington Pinelands Development Credit Bank Howard MET, local regulatory set asides 01 July -Aug. 2002 farmland preservation report Page 5 Agricultural Zoning 1 :25, all townships. Urban growth boundaries in use. Transfer of development rights (TDR). 1:25 residual. Of 73 twps, 5 have 1:10; 7 have TDR; two have 1:25 Three ag zones: 1:10 -1:60; 1:20 - 1:100; 1:60 -1:320 1:20, with allowances resulting in 1:15 Ag protection zone 1:50; other rural zone of 1:25 1:60 1:10, with allowances resulting in 1:5 - 1:7 Pinelands transfer of development credits. Twenty of 44 twps with 1:10 - 1:50 sliding scales 1:20 in most townships ' No ag zoning Source of Funds State prog; local gen. fund Md. Rural Legacy Program (RLP) Local bond issue; state ag prog Dedicated 1/4 percent sales tax State ag prog.; local gen. fund State ag & RLP; BC gen fund Foundation grant; private match State ag prg; local real estate tx; RLP Dedicated property tax Local bond issue State ag prg; local match County bond issue; state ag & RLP About the FPR Annual Survey of Local Programs How localities qualify for the survey This survey looks at a locality's progress in farmland preservation in terms of 1) number of acres permanently preserved; 2) political leadership and administrative skill; and, 3) significant commitment of funds. While the ranking itself considers only number of acres preserved, to be included in the survey all localities must meet the other criteria. At least 200 localities in the United States are using, or have used, agricultural conserva- tion easements and many more qualify for assistance to do so under state and federal programs. How counties are ranked The ranking considers a locality's total farmland preservation effort, including the activities of other entities and programs, such as land trusts, open space districts that use easements, other state programs that hold easements on agricultural land, and easements assisted with a combination of funding sources. All acres used in the survey are farmland acres, which generally include woodland and riparian areas that are part of a property under agricultural use. Lands that are preserved primarily for environmental protection or habitat restoration are excluded. COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Reproduction of this table for use outside of a subscriber's agency is prohibited. It should not be reproduced or transferred to another location or agency. If you have a request or questions, call the publisher at 410 692 -2708 or email: bowerspub @hotmail.com. C tiA Page 6 farmland preservation report. July -Aug. 2002 Land trusts, land use briefs... planning together, (News panelsa ists In California... Two bills have been 1 introduced by.the California Farm Continued from page 2 Bureau Federation: AB 3057 would amend the Planning and Zoning nine counties in Northern Virginia's Piedmont region east of, and includ- Law to rename the "Open Space ing much of the Shenandoah National Park. PEC has been involved in _ Element" as the "Agricultural and anti - development battles that attracted national news media, including a Open Space Element" in county tangle with The Disney Company when it sought to develop hundreds of general plans. The bill would also require counties to adopt policies acres adjacent to the Manassas Civil War battlefield (Disney lost). and implementation measures that The PEC, which has 35 employees, is a powerhouse of activity, seek to avoid or minimize conflicts fighting new highway construction, power plants and other threats to between urban, open- space, and scenic, agricultural and historic resources. It lobbies for land conservation agricultural uses. Updated plans would also be required to contain and smart growth policies and programs. Not just mounting a defense of an inventory of the agricultural and the Piedmont, the organization actively promotes mixed -use development open -space resources in the at the Washington region's transit stations, and a smart growth plan for county, including all land in or Loudoun County that includes "reduction of development potential by suitable for agricultural production, and other land necessary for down - planning, re- zoning and conservation programs." It also promotes, aviable agricultural economy, and delivers easements to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, which holds including, but not limited to more than 100,000 acres under easement in the nine - county region. watersheds and drainage areas, Allison Mitchell of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation said it is according to CFBF policy specialist impossible for land trusts to stay completely out of local land use policy if John Gamper. AB 2630 could enhance land conservation is the goal. "Advocacy work has a nigher risk, but it interest in easement donation by also has a higher reward," she said. offering the benefit of an unlimited The NJCF is one of the nation's oldest conservation lobbies, beginning carry- forward period for qualified in 1960 when it succeeded in stopping a plan to build a major airport in contributions. AB 1997 would prohibit the the Great Swamp near historic Morristown. The effort resulted in the subdivision of agricultural and open state's first national wildlife refuge and the nation's first federally desig- space lands subject to easements nated wilderness area east of the Mississippi. It was instrumental in into small parcels. See the legisla- protecting the Pine Barrens through an act of Congress. tive website at leginfo.ca.gov. In New Jersey ...Burlington County Land trusts urged to lobby for tax incentive bills recently closed on its 100th farm with a ceremony in Medford. Days before the conference, the Senate Finance Committee approved Purchased jointly by Medford and increased tax incentives for land conservation. the county, the 98 -acre produce Russ Shay, public policy director for the Land Trust Alliance, updated farm cost $23,000 per acre. The county has now preserved 14,125 attendees at a lunchtime session on several provisions in the tax package acres. that could substantially increase easement donations. The new provisions In Maryland ... Gubernatorial would increase deductions allowed for donation and allow a 25 percent candidate Lieutenant Gov. Kathleen exclusion from capital gains tax for the sale of land to a land trust or Kennedy Townsend said in her public agency. recently released budgetary plan that she would deemphasize land Currently, a landowner can deduct the value of a donated easement preservation in favor of urban only up to 30 percent of adjusted gross income and carry forward unused revitalization as she continues Gov. deductions for five years. The Finance Committee package would allow Parris Glendening's smart growth programs. "Frankly, we are still deductions of 50 percent of adjusted gross income, and allow carryover going to sprawl unless we make for 15 years. It would allow taxpayers whose income was primarily from sure our existing neighborhoods farming and ranching to deduct up to 100 percent of income. are places people want to live," she Contacts: Russ Shay, 202 638 -4725; Allison Mitchell, 908 234 -1225; said. Meanwhile, the governor, June 26, awarded $21.8 million in Rob Etgen, 410 827 -9756; Dexter Mead, 540 347 -2334. July -Aug. 2002 farmland preservation report Page 7 his last round of Rural Legacy PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATION grants. The MALPF task force, Farms of 25 acres could although not officially reappointed by the governor, has already ann f y for easements gotten to work in a first meeting July18. "We'll get a consensus on a plan, then break up into HARRISBURG, PA - A bill pending in the Pennsylvania legislature would groups," said Joe Tassone of the reduce the number of acres required for easement sale from 50 to 25, a Maryland Department of Plan- move some say will dilute the program's focus on production agriculture. ning. In Michigan ... Gubernatorial Some veteran administrators claim HB 2588 would waste state funds candidate Attorney General on small, isolated parcels that will likely become nonproductive estates or Jennifer M. Granholm said her expensive open spaces in urbanizing counties. environmental plan includes They claim, also, that reducing acres needed will allow urban coun- expansion of farmland and open ties, where large parcels are rare, to get a larger share of state dollars. space preservation programs. We will create comprehensive But the bill's primary. sponsor, Rep. Raymond Bunt of Montgomery water protection laws, and we will County, said the bill is not the threat these administrators fear it to be. implement innovative land use "It doesn't hurt any county's participation or the amount of money strategies that preserve wood- they will get," Bunt said. County boards will have "the same ability to lands and farmlands for future generations to enjoy," Granholm deny farms of less than 50 acres." said in a press release. According to Bunt, the operative word is "may." County boards would In North Carolina... Orange be allowed, not required, to accept farms as small as 25 acres. County has $1.5 million to spend Bunt, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee and sits on the on conservation easements in the state farmland protection board, said agriculture in southeastern Pennsyl- current year and has applied for FPP funds to assist in preserving vania is taking place on increasingly smaller parcels, and the state pro - 550 acres on four farms. gram needs to respond to changes in metropolitan -area agriculture. In Rhode Island :..'A new "We do'have a great deal of niche farming. Right now we have farms allocation of $1 million effective making money on blueberries, strawberries ... I don't agree that every farm July 1 puts several projects under negotiation, said program director less than 50 acres can't be a farm. It may not be a farm to Perry County, Ken Ayers. A "phenomenal but it's still a farm to us down here." increase in local efforts" is Program veterans see a transition taking place, with HB 2588 follow - helping state goals, he said. ing the lifting of a $10,000 per -acre cap last year, also promoted by In Kentucky ... Lexington- Fayette Co, which downzoned large areas Montgomery County, along with a proposal to add horse boarding to the from 1:10 to 1:40 a few years definition of agriculture. ago, has nearly completed its first "It's important we maintain the focus on farmland preservation," said round of PDR applications, 12 Lancaster County program director June Mengel. "When you remove a farms so far completed, compris- cap, add horse boarding, and lower the acreage, that package could have ing 2300 acres and averaging $2800 per acre, according to an impact on the long -term goals of the program." administrator Doug Greene. The Elizabeth Emlen, administrator for Montgomery, said her board didn't program has $13 million on hand ask for the bill, but did present the program's challenge to Rep. Bunts. She for a second round of 105 said the county "still has a lot of farms greater than 50 acres," but also has applicants comprising 11,000 `many farms smaller that should qualify." acres. About 30 to 40 of those will be selected, Greene said. The Russell Redding, assistant secretary of agriculture, said his depart- county has had one lawsuit filed ment would not take a position on the bill, and although the acreage over the downzoning. requirement could be changed in the regulations, "the department is not FEDERAL: Tallies of applicants interested" in doing that, he said. for the $50 million in the Farm- land Protection Program were not "Given the implications, our belief is the department of agriculture complete at press time. Another should not preempt the counties, and i7r- " counties feel strongly they should RFP for the next appropriation of voice their concerns," he said. $100 million could be out in Nov., The legislature reconvenes Sept. 23. HB 2588 has 57 co- sponsors according to Douglas Lawrence. from both rural and urban counties. Contact: Bender, 717 783 -3167; Mengel, 717 299 -8355; Bunt, 717 787 -6937; Emlen, 610 278 -3722. 8`1»' Page 8 farmland preservation report Professional resources JOB POSTINGS The Michigan Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (MI), Protection and Planning Manager- For our West Michigan (Grand Rapids) Office. This position is responsible for implementation of land protection program in West Michigan and, in specified landscapes, responsible for developing a comprehensive program to protect natural communities and species and address critical threats to natural systems. May include contacting and negotiating with property owners to apply a full range of conservation tools; ensuring completion of project packages, hazardous waste assessments and other tasks necessary to finalize projects; developing community partnerships; assisting in fund raising efforts; and various types of conservation planning. Work collaboratively with other conservation staff, chapter leadership, landowners, other land trusts, corporations, donors, and government agencies and coordinate implementation of conservation practices. May supervise interns or volunteers. See our Web site at nature.org /careers for the complete job description and application information or call 517 - 316 -0300. (posted V 12/02) The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (NH), Land Protection Specialist for Southeast NH- Seeking an experienced individual to fill a new, grant funded, land protection specialist position based in southeastern New Hampshire. Responsibilities will include working with landowners, Society staff, and legal counsel to complete land purchases, donations and conservation easements. Additional activities may include educational presentations, donor relations, grant writing and technical assistance to municipalities and land trusts. Demonstrated knowledge of real estate transactions and natural resource and conservation issues required. Submit letter and resumd x for full position description FAX request to: Sr. Director for Land Conservation, 54 Portsmouth St., Concord, NH 03301, Fax number: 603 - 228 -0423. Deadline is July 22. No phone calls please. (posted 7112102) New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Assistant Director, Land Acquisition and Stewardship - One of the nation's most effective land conservation organizations seeks a dynamic individual to help direct its statewide land acquisition and stewardship efforts. The applicant should have five -plus years of hands -on experience with landowner outreach, real estate transactions, public funding, and land stewardship; excellent management, organizational, communication, negotiation, supervisory and people skills; a BS in environmental science, natural resource management or a related field, and a passion for the environment. Please send a resume and salary requirements to Maria Hauser: NJCF, 170 Longview Rd., Far Hills, NJ 07931; e-mail to mania @njconservation.org; or fax to (908) 234 -1189. For more information about the land trust, go to www.njconservation.org. (posted 713102) New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Highlands Acquisition Specialist- Seeks a land acquisition specialist to assist with land preservation efforts in the Highlands. Experience in landowner, outreach, negotiation, Green Acres /public financing and land stewardship preferred. Competitive salary and benefits and great work environment. If you have a BA/BS in environmental science, policy or related field; land conservation/ acquisition experience; communication, computer, org and time management skills; and a commitment to NJ's precious open space please send a resume and salary requirements to Maria Hauser, NJCF, 170 Longview Rd., Far Hills, NJ 07931; e-mail to maria@njconservation.org or fax to 908- 234 -1189. For more information about the land trust, go to www.njconservation.org. (posted 7002) CONFERENCES Oct. 26 -29, Austin TX: Land Trust Rally 2002, the 15th annual national land trust conference, the largest gathering of land conservation professionals, 2,000 attendees expected. Multiple sessions offered in working lands, conservation easements, stewardship, legal issues, etc. See Ita.org or call 202 638 -4725 for rally booklet. Oct. 8 -13, Cleveland OH: National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Preservation Conference, "Cities, Suburbs & Countryside." Focus areas include Rural and Landscape Preservation, Real Estate and Financing, Neighborhood Revitalization. See nthpconference.org. or call 800 944 -6847. July -Aug. 2002 COPYRIGHT NOTICE It is unlawful to reproduce this publication and distrib- ute it to other locations or agencies. If you have a spe- cial need, please contact the publisher. Faster, Friendlier, Smarter! Can't find it on the web? Need a quick answer for an update? Want to get smart for that up- coming presentation? Call or email us. We're faster, friend- lier and smarter than the web! When you have news — or views — give us a call. We're always eager to hear from you and to provide additional in- formation to help you get up to speed with the nation's best- informed farmland preservation professionals ... FPR subscribersl Welcome! Phone 410 692 -2708 Fax - 410 692 -9741 E -Mail bowerspub @hotmail.com Address Bowers Publishing, Inc. 900 LaGrange Rd. Street, MD 21154 i 17 1: { 3: i i i { FRUITS AND VEGETABLES CULTIVATED, SOLD, AND CONSUMED IN CITIES GIVE A NEW MEANING 1� 15 1 NE MORNING LATE LAST AUGUST, I WAS CRUISING ACROSS the south side of Detroit in the Veggie Rover, the mobile head- quarters of Brother Rick Samyn's city farming venture. Samyn, a Capuchin friar, was wearing overalls, a baseball cap, and a long ponytail; the Rover was really nothing more than a glorified, beat- up Ford pickup with a cargo bay filled with a makeshift wooden stand and chard, tomatoes, garlic, and lettuce. Samyn grew the . vegetables in three gardens on unused land. Our destination was a clinic for young mothers and pregnant women in an Arab neigh- borhood in the struggling suburb of Dearborn. The sky gradually darkened and turned to rain, and the view out the windshield was an interminable sequence of vacant lots, oil refineries, gas stations, abandoned houses, trailer parks, and convenience stores. We got lost twice. Of all the things that Rick Samyn intended to be, an urban farmer was not one of them. But after enduring a painful divorce and losing confidence in the drug- interdiction work he did dur- ing the Reagan era, " I changed politically, I changed socially. I realized that for me'the American Dream was dead. We live on the backs of poor people and the environment, and we are exploit- ing that partnership." As his way of responding, Samyn joined Detroit's Capuchin religious order in 1988 to work on behalf of needy people. He remembered with fondness that when he was a boy, his father had started a garden on a vacant lot across from their grocery on Detroit's east side, so he decided to start a similar vegetable garden. He soon expanded the project to encompass sites on three unused Detroit lots covering two thirds of an acre. These Earthworks Gardens, tended by Samyn's group of volunteers, now produce food that is distributed at a Capuchin soup kitchen, a local community food bank, and clinics for low - income clients like the one we were visiting. Two thirds of an acre is hardly a farm in the conventional sense. Samyn's enterprise is only a few steps above a private garden; it's agriculture at an elementary level. But for an increasing W number of people who advocate eating food produced locally, pretty much the opposite of how Z American agriculture has worked in recent decades, Samyn's project hints at how fruits and veg- o ---------- ol 1k F TO Al� I J. I'm 0 M M�z I'm etables might be grown more extensively in urban spaces. In recent years, a new "urban agriculture" movement has taken root. There have been scattered efforts to use farming to revitalize the vast vacant properties in former industrial zones, knit together broken communities, slow suburban sprawl, and provide people with fresh food. Some people have begun to look beyond traditional community gardens to wonder whether urban farming could sustain economic redevelopment. While suburban encroachment has long eroded the rural way of life, a trend may also be working in the reverse direction, with agri- culture creeping slowly into places where conventional wisdom says fruits and vegetables do not belong. HL THE LAST CENTURY, AMERICA'S .-ban areas were closely tied geo- uphically to their sources of food. griculture was by necessity a local iterprise before the advent of canals, frigeration systems, railroads, air - ies, and Eisenhower's interstate high- way system —all of which made it progressively easier to transport perishables long distances. In 1850, a large majority of Americans had a hand in agriculture. Today, only R F� two percent of the population farm'`��_'i, =-x or fish for a living, despite the fact':, t. that 100 percent of us eat.:" Marc Linder and Lawrence;, Zacharias point out in their book Of Cabbages and Kings County that Kings County (largely Brooklyn) and Queens, N.Y., were until 1879 ' ranked the nation's second and first counties in vegetable production. The produce went directly across the East River to Manhattan. Even- tually displacing these small, peri-�' f urban farms was a " rocess "rigged P gg in favor of congested land devel- opment and its quasi - universal ��s effects, the authors write. New . York and other cities thus forfeited numerous other possibilities for balanced population growth, more diverse and integrated- self -suffi- cient urban economies, interurban public transportation and less costly ' environmental pollution controls." Our way of producing food subsequently centralized to such a degree that a single Lamb Weston French-fry plant in American Falls, Idaho, processes as much as three million pounds of potatoes a day, and Florida has turned the orange into a $1.2 billion -a -year industry. To those who wonder if farming could be brought exten- sively into a former urban environment, Detroit presents an awe- some opportunity and challenge. The city has 40,000 vacant lots. Its population dropped below a million in the 2000 US. Census, to half of what it was 50 years ago. Detroit's undoing can be read from the air, as you descend into Metro Airport. Woodward Avenue, I -94, and I -75 run through it like giant surgical scars. People say that Detroit is a divided city, one black, one white, but from a few thousand feet up, I saw a lot of green downtown. Interrupted by the street grid, large empty spaces bled into each other, broken only here and there by buildings. "In Detroit, about 40 percent of the city territory is vacant," says Jac Smit, who runs a national organization called the Urban Agriculture Network, which lobbies local governments for local food systems. "Detroit has sufficient space to provide all the food necessary for the people living there. What you need 4 Q * JERRY KAUFMAN, MADISON, WIS.: Vt,. HAVE, -: ­_3 :, "A'N'), JPJN P .rf';';" AREAS INi Trl f., _AIIT t._Ai• D.' Charles Wilson, who writes frequently about ecology and history, lives in New York City. 60 PRESERVATION o-i J 8 t -: - • y n .K any is a plan, and there is no question it could go forward." This idea, that agriculture should have a place in the urban planning process, particularly in cities that, like Detroit, have lost a great deal of their population, may be more than just a social 0 0 f+ JASON FLIGGER, DETROIT: "All UPrUAP+ f;'i,t;:!!LPI V110 ,11�c, r UR N01 HEF C,: 1`0*11P RCC tEs t: fq bC :!_ :,; i :`J;.S ' idealist's pipe dream. "Look at the metropolitan areas in the United States, particularly in the Midwest and the Northeast," says Jerry Kaufman, an emeritus professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. "The central city is the poorer part of the metropolitan area. We have so many inner -city areas with vacant land, and the richer people have fled to the suburbs. The question is, What are you going to do with that land? Most city officials would say they want to build housing.... But what if you began to see that you have a built -in market for food pro- duction and that you could break into the market in the subur- ban ring by growing food downtown ?" A foundation for that market might be living next door to the vacant land. Many residents in low- income neighborhoods worry about having enough to eat, but, Kaufman says, urban planners completely overlook the problem. A recent survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that 31 million Americans, 10.1 percent of households, were "food insecure," meaning that at some time during the previous year they weren't certain of having, or were unable to acquire, enough - food to meet basic needs. Jason Fligger, who heads the Detroit Agriculture Net- work, an organization trying to connect the city's disparate farming projects, introduced me to several rugged individu- L�i_i _ ) ar' alists who grow produce in neighborhoods where food inse- curity is an issue. A 70- year -old man named Johnnie McGhee grows everything from corn to the pealike Mississippi silver skin on three vacant lots and keeps egg - laying quail and a wine press in his basement. Maxine Elam, 69, grows enough on a vacant lot to feed herself and her family. "I don't buy anything but meat," she told me. Another man in his fifties, Paul Weertz, used an entire city block to grow hay and alfalfa for the animals he reared at a nearby school for pregnant and par- enting teens. None of these projects makes money or feeds people outside the grower's immediate circle of friends and family, but each has helped some Detroiters achieve a degree of self - sufficiency. Kaufman, who admits his ideas about urban farming are fairly novel among his colleagues, offers the Troy Drive Gardens in Madison as a model for integrating dense housing and agri- culture. Rising gently from a winding road on the edge of town, the gardens fill five acres of an empty 31 -acre plot flanked by subsidized, low - income rental housing to the east and upper - class lakefront properties to the south. For years, the land served as an unplanned park, as well as a place where members of the local Hmong community and many others planted crops. Six years ago, with Madison's population booming, the MAY (JUNE 2002 61 A., <<_Y � i' ♦ '�" -T-lt �cL Vii. ,." R° �.�� q- _.•gym. ,}, A1A1.'%'y m �y - •i : ; � � • ;tom -. � ;'� =� _ _ ", alists who grow produce in neighborhoods where food inse- curity is an issue. A 70- year -old man named Johnnie McGhee grows everything from corn to the pealike Mississippi silver skin on three vacant lots and keeps egg - laying quail and a wine press in his basement. Maxine Elam, 69, grows enough on a vacant lot to feed herself and her family. "I don't buy anything but meat," she told me. Another man in his fifties, Paul Weertz, used an entire city block to grow hay and alfalfa for the animals he reared at a nearby school for pregnant and par- enting teens. None of these projects makes money or feeds people outside the grower's immediate circle of friends and family, but each has helped some Detroiters achieve a degree of self - sufficiency. Kaufman, who admits his ideas about urban farming are fairly novel among his colleagues, offers the Troy Drive Gardens in Madison as a model for integrating dense housing and agri- culture. Rising gently from a winding road on the edge of town, the gardens fill five acres of an empty 31 -acre plot flanked by subsidized, low - income rental housing to the east and upper - class lakefront properties to the south. For years, the land served as an unplanned park, as well as a place where members of the local Hmong community and many others planted crops. Six years ago, with Madison's population booming, the MAY (JUNE 2002 61 A., I I i state was eager to sell the property for upscale housing. A grassroots community effort, in which Kaufman participated, recently persuaded the state to maintain a significant portion of the site for gardening while allowing a dense cluster of cottages for mixed- income owners. In the summer of 2000, Kaufman and his colleague Martin Bailkey released a report called Farming Inside Cities: Entrepre- neurial Urban Agriculture in the United States. Funded by the Lin- coln Institute of Land Policy, the report expresses a vision "where many of the vacant lots in lower - income neighborhoods are transformed into working farms —where inner -city residents grow food in the soil, in raised planting beds, or in green- houses, then market their produce at farmers' markets, to local restaurants, or to city and suburban residents eager for fresh, locally grown food." Kaufman sees American cities of the future where inner -city youth, who might otherwise have felt disaffected, can work intimately with the soil and nature. "This is my vision, based on my optimism," he said. "But at this point, realism would say, `Show me.' ' S ITS TRUE COSTS HAVE BECOME evident, the culture of the post -World War II era that brought suburban development patterns to rural areas — and gave us fast food, strip malls; pop - up residential communities, and six- lane highways —has come under question. In Fast Food Nation, writer Eric Schlosser shows how juggernauts like McDonald's have often been the "shock troops of sprawl, landing early and pointing the way." McDonald's and similar multinational corporations have also caught increasing flak from the antiglobalization movement in recent years. Young people in particular have resisted the disconnection of a world in which one generally has no idea where, and under what conditions, one's shoes and food are produced. "Communities should increase their self - reliance on local resources, workers, and capital," says activist Michael Shuman in his book Going Local, "fully appreciating that they cannot unplug from the global economy altogether." The impulse that drives the localization movement underlies the aspirations of socially conscious urban farming enterprises known as "community- supported agriculture" projects, in which farming operations and local consumers pledge mutual help and share the risks and fruits of food production. "Most people think that rural areas are there to produce the food while urban areas are there to consume it," says Will Allen, who with Hope Finkelstein runs a Milwaukee organization called Growing Power. "We're trying to demonstrate that on a community level you can control the production, marketing, and distribution of food while also strengthening your community." Allen stands at a hulking six feet seven inches but emanates preternatural gentleness. He played professional basketball in 62 PRESERVATION Belgium as a young man, then worked as a corporate manager for Kentucky Fried Chicken and a salesman for Procter & Gam- ble before returning to his parents' occupation of farming. He became dismayed by the rise of such agricultural conglom- erates as ConAgra, Iowa Beef Packers, and J.R. Simplot, which he thinks increasingly neglect environmental concerns while placing significant financial pressures on the farmers who serve them —even as corporate coffers grow. In 1993, he bought a two -acre plot with five greenhouses in a working - class neighborhood that used to be part of the flower - growing district in northwest Milwaukee. He has since renovated four of the greenhouses and turned them and a back lot into the last farm within the city. Fish, worms, chickens, and scores of crops all have taken up residence. Some of the food grown here is sold at a stand out front. A massive composting operation uses food waste from local supermarkets. At afterschool and summer programs, children learn horticulture skills they can use to establish com- munity gardens in their own neighborhoods. Each week, Allen and Finkelstein also sell boxes of seasonal local produce priced at $10 to sub- scribers in central -city neighborhoods. 0 O WILL ALLEN, MILWAUKEE Growing Power, a nonprofit umbrella _ organization, is funded partially from the farm's sales and mostly from grants and contributions, though the group is working toward self - sufficiency. Finkel- stein sees such local food systems as a x s= " - k.. _ .��. ° _A�.J yam.' t �' > . 2i. �. x . i � , v� A�l - _; , �...'..�...�.��./�_ -`� ;t._�,�. CYO �:1,.1.h _,ji., o:✓ x s= " - k.. _ .��. ° _A�.J yam.' t �' > . 2i. �. x . i � , v� M way to circumvent grocery and fast -food empires that siphon away money from the community and keep consumers in the dark about the food sources. "Our mantra is, Know your pro- ducer," Finkelstein says. Community building aside, the public appetite for locally grown food is voracious. The number of farmers' markets in the United States has more than doubled since 1980. Many high -end restaurants, from Alice Waters' Chez Panisse in Berkeley to Chicago's Topolobampo, thrive by touting close relationships with nearby organic farmers. The weekend prix fixe dinner at Chez Panisse costs $75 a plate, and the five- course tasting menu at Topolobampo runs $65, yet both restaurants stay booked solid. "When people eat food that has been refrigerated, sprayed, and shipped, they may not be able to articulate what they are missing," says Rick Bayless, the chef and an owner of Topolobampo. "But the surging popularity of farmers' markets and the success of my restaurant demonstrates a hunger in peo- ple for something they don't currently have." Though Bayless purchases a small amount of California produce every year from November to May, he has become less and less dependent on it. He froze 18,000 pounds of locally grown organic tomatoes for last winter, and he financed the expansion of a Chicago opera- tion that grows spinach in a small, unheated building during even the coldest months. The few entrepreneurial urban farms that have achieved a degree of solvency in the United States have done so primarily by selling to buyers like Bayless, who can pay more than standard rates because of a demand for fresh, local food from well-off restaurant patrons. Michael Ableman wrote On Good Land: The Autobiography of an Urban Farm, which tells of his decade -long struggle to pre- serve a 12.5 -acre farm from encroaching development in Goleta, Calif. Now edged on all sides by McMansions with swimming pools, his land might be better called a suburban farm, but any successful entrepreneurial urban farm is likely to have a lot in common with it. Ableman estimates that small specialty farms can be 15 times as productive and prof- itable per acre as large farms that grow staple crops compet- ing on the world market. Though Ableman has a small local subscription list, his farm can survive only by selling vegetables like white asparagus and baby artichokes to upscale restau- rants. He employs 25 people year -round and has a profit - sharing program. "The farm has had years where it has grossed $700,000," he told me. "By the time we pay expenses, it is kind of a wash. But we are in the black." - Eli Zabar, a purveyor of specialty foods in Manhattan's ritzy Upper East Side, has a similar business plan for his six rooftop greenhouses on East 91st Street. Discouraged by his inability to find good tomatoes off - season, Zabar decided to build the greenhouses five years ago. Three sit above one of his stores, and the other three are across the street. He now pro- duces more than 20 varieties of tomatoes as well as rare baby greens. A quick glance at price tags in the 91st Street store dis- pels hope that the produce's proximity to its growing site might hold down prices: One pound of Zabar's rooftop mesclun greens, for example, would set me back $11.96. Zabar's andAbleman's enterprises illuminate a split already predominant in the food system between lower - income pro- ducers and more affluent consumers. Their projects also show the difficulty of wedding the purpose of community develop- ment and environmental enhancement with job and revenue creation. Yet it became clear as I heard the plans of Rick Samyn —and watched him count federal food coupons gathered from women at the Arab clinic —that there wasn't a great deal of money to be made in his particular enterprise, and that anything he took in would barely cover his expenses, if that. `An urban farmer works for nothing and relies on volunteers," says Jason Fligger in Detroit. Fligger's organization tries to build coop- erative links between urban farms and connect them to buyers. This task has often been overshadowed by the larger challenge of keeping existing volunteer -run farms operating at all. "The reality is that the success of many of these urban agriculture projects hinges on one person, and if that person disappears, the MAY IJUNE 2002 63 .i r �t ir �a a 5 <i s � t1 1.,. IL y _y a project fails," he says. "We need to discover how to overcome that." "I think it would be self- defeat- ing to insist on the economic stabil- ity of these enterprises, but urban agriculture is still a very viable revi- talization strategy for neighbor- hoods," says Kami Pothukuchi, an MARY SETON CORBOY, PHILADELPHIA: T'_? urban planner at Detroit's Wayne State University, who started her own city garden in a vacant lot two years ago. "It is better when you don't insist the food be sold." Pothukuchi says that a city garden cultivated by residents can generate economic advantages for its neighborhood that might not be evident in a narrow cost - benefit analysis. At her grant - supported "youth nutrition" garden in a poor Latino neighbor- hood, kids from ages 5 to 13 tend the plots. The children are taught the nutritional value of broccoli or green peppers as they plant them, and residents increasingly see their neighborhood as "a destination, rather than as a pass - through on the way to the high- way," she says. Ever since the garden replaced a trash- strewn lot, residents say, traffic has slowed down and more people walk to the edge of the neighborhood near the freeway, where the garden lies. Two neighbors have also started their own gardens. Pothukuchi hopes that these signs of community attach- ment will prompt a chain of events that can lead to increased investment, and "that people will begin to say, `Hey, I might fix my stoop,' or `I might paint my house. "' Yet it is difficult to find an urban farm like Pothukuchi's that incorporates many members of the surrounding community and also generatesjobs. In North Philadelphia, Mary Seton Corboy is trying to 64 PRESERVATION bridge this gap with her four - year -old hydroponics farm, which is sandwiched between row houses in a struggling neighborhood on the site of a former galvanized -steel factory. Her hydroponic system circumvents the problem of planting in contaminated land by cultivating lettuce, sprouts, herbs, and other plants in liquid- nutrient solutions rather than in the soil. She has deco- rated the fenced perimeter of her farm with flowers, and the neighbors passing by show affection for her. Like Ableman, she has built relationships with restaurants in the city and pro- duces crops specifically for them. Tempered by her experience, Corboy has grown skeptical of people like Jac Smit who think you can create cities that almost entirely feed themselves. "Unfortunately, most of the people who are drawn to urban farming are white, college- educated, Preservation- magazine - subscription - holding people, not those who live around here," she says. In her view, Detroit and Philadel- phia won't have much farming as long as cheap processed food like Twinkies and 99 -cent hamburgers are sold on nearly every block. People won't generally turn to farming unless they must, she says, and few see it as an upwardly mobile profession. Corboy conceived her hydroponics project with the pri- mary motive of helping the impoverished neighborhood around it. In 1999, she hired three local welfare-to -work mothers who had 17 children among them. "None of them are still here," she says. "There was always a kid sick, always a hospital visit." Currently she has two young women working with her, one a Mexican immigrant and another a college- educated Long Islander who cares about sustainability issues. Corboy breaks even only by not paying herself any salary. Despite the challenges she's faced, Con boy still dreams of starting 10 similar farms in the city and thinks she can eventually employ more people and make her approach work financially by honing her market and teaming with other area farmers to create a community- supported agri- culture program, as Allen and Finkelstein have done. "I think part of the perception problem for urban farms is that city leaders think they will be laughed at when they go to the annual Conference of Mayors," Corboy says. "'Oh, here's Mayor Street, with his farms and pigs he's got now in the city of Philadelphia.' But I say look at Philadelphia. This place is a sham- bles; it's a wreck You have 30,000 vacant lots in this city, and you have no plan." OTHING I SAW CONVINCED ME THAT urban agriculture is a great success, nor is it widespread. Its best achieve- ments have come in cities abroad that have embraced it out of necessity. After the breakup of the Soviet bloc, Havana could no longer draw from foreign imports, and some 8,000 city farms have subsequently emerged. Dar es Salaam in Tanzania produces within its city lim- its 90 percent of the green vegetables consumed there; the country has never invested in refrigeration systems to transport vegetables. Among Western cities, the movement is perhaps strongest in Vancouver, British Columbia, which is geograph- ically isolated and endowed with a progressive population. More than 80 percent of the produce consumed in Vancouver is produced in the city or its surrounding areas, and the munic- ipal government recently approved the development of a "sus- tainable urban neighborhood" in a former industrial area known as Southeast False Creek. The development will likely incor- porate buildings that consume little energy amid several small farms and man-made creeks. Urban agriculture may achieve only limited success in the United States. Urban theorists I spoke to met Kaufman's ideas for widespread inner -city farms with respectful skepticism. "On the one hand, urban farming could help bring about the true mixed -use city," says Alex Marshall, author of the recently published book How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken. "But older cities have a web of infrastructure that is dense and can support large numbers of people. Is farming the best use for that? If it can be profitable, then it's a good thing. If not, it's a feel -good project that is only a stopgap until we figure out what else to do instead." The day I felt most hopeful about urban farming's future came late last summer in the neighborhood of East New York, .a poverty- stricken section on the outer edge of Brooklyn. A recently established farmers' market, set on a large rubble - strewn vacant lot, was teeming with life. Organized in part by the Cornell Cooperative Extension, the market is staffed pri- marily by a couple of dozen kids from ages 11 to 14, paid $5 an hour. The young people also help senior citizens tend their com- munity gardens on vacant lots, and they cultivate their own gar- den. The farmers' market is anchored by a few large farms from upstate New York but supplemented by the produce from the children's garden and the local community gardens. There is a waiting list of 40 kids who want to join the program. "I like it here," Tymarria Kendall, 13, told me. "You have the experience of selling. When I go and sign up for a job, I can say I worked in the farmers' market." The kids' salaries are partially supported by grants, but the community center that organizes the program with Cornell is hoping to expand its garden and find ways for the program to become more self - supporting in the coming years. I had little doubt that this farmers' market and its small peripheral industries were reaping benefits that would in time outweigh the small investment they require —by giving young people their first jobs, providing a common interest for the young and the old, and ensuring that existing community gardens don't return to junkyards through neglect. Community gar- deners generally make $50 to $200 a week from their small stands, a significant sum for retirees in this neighborhood. Our current supply of "cheap food" has many hidden costs: the pollution created by transporting food great dis- tances, the degradation of large swaths of land in the Ameri- can West and Midwest by overuse and pesticides, the repairs to highways that support the trucks carrying the food, and the pressures exerted on independent farmers by megaproces- sors. Those people who argue that small periurban and urban farms are rarely viable without grant support are right, of course, but they might also consider the dependence of large - scale agriculture on the government. The opening of the and regions in the West to farming was made possible only by fed- erally subsidized irrigation systems. Last year, President George W. Bush signed into law a $5.5 billion bailout for the nation's farmers, even as the profits of the multinational food proces- sor ConAgra reached $630 million. Brother Rick Samyn in Detroit compares food to sex: It's bet- ter, he says, when you know your partner. Samyn and Corboy and Kaufman and Allen have a world view that recalls Jefferson's desire that the country be populated with yeoman farmers. Their movement's limited successes and struggles to this point remind us that the way we currently grow and consume our food is by no means inevitable. "Every time you produce food in an urban .environment, you save something in the nonurban environ- ment," says Jac Smit. "It has an immediate effect. A multicrop farmer who is farming part -time in an urban area or on the edge of an urban area: That is an American ideal." n MAY (JUNE 2002 65