Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE 081301 County of orange Environment and ' R. esource Conservation Department P . O . Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: (919) 245-2597 AN Fax : (919) 644-3351 Brnaal : ccrawford@co . oran e . nc . us Y , Memorandum To : Commission for the Environment From : Julie Tucker , Chair Date : August 3 , 2001 Re : August 13 , 2001 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda and materials for the next meeting of the Commission for the Environment on Monday, August 13, 2001 7 : 30 p . m . - Regular Meeting Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC If you have questions , or will be unable to attend , please contact Carol Melton ( 245 - 2597 , cmeltonCa) co . orange . nc . us ) by the Friday before the meeting . AUG - 7 �0! ' t ^.Y f, Tjl . MM 4 AGENDA Orange County Commission for the Environment August 13 , 2001 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road , Chapel Hill , NC 7 : 30 I . Call to Order 7 : 31 1 II . Approval of Minutes (June 11 , 2001 ) 7 : 32 4 III . Light Pollution Ordinance follow- up The Commission will follow- up on the June meeting discussion and consider whether to pursue such an ordinance for Orange County . See attached draft ordinance for the City of Raleigh . 7 : 55 13 IV. State of the Environment Progress Report The Commission will discuss report format and process needed to complete by Nov . mtg . in time for the BOCC December retreat . Should report include new section on forest lands and forest management? Use environmental indicator approach ? 8 : 15 52 V. Natural Areas Element Rich Shaw will update the CFE on progress made by staff and the Biological Resources Committee in developing this new element of the Comprehensive Plan . 8 : 20 60 VI . Cost of Community Services Study ( COCS ) The Commission will discuss studies conducted for other Triangle counties and whether one would be useful for Orange County . 8 : 35 116 VII . Updates - Lands Legacy Action Plan 2002 -03 (CFE recs . due by October ) - Cooperative Forestry Project 8 : 45 VIII . Agenda Items for Next Meeting ( Sept . 10 ) ILL Action Plan , SOE Progress Report, and other items 8 : 50 Ix . Committee Assignments & Breakout Following the new assignments, committees will be asked to discuss their input to the SOE Progress Report and to identify committee objectives for the coming months . 9 : 30 x . Adjournment COUNTY OF ORANGE COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT DRAFT Summary of Meeting June 11, 2001 Held at Orange County Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill , NC Members Present : Julie Tucker ( Chair ) , Laura Cotterman , Loraine Kohorn , Richard Pratt, Mark Smith . Excused Absences : Cara Crisler, Roy Fortmann , Annette Jurgefski , Hervey McIver, Dan Okun , Lee Rafalow Visitor : Bill Walser Staff Present : David Stancil , ERCD Director ; Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager ; Amy Bleckinger, ERCD Intern ; Carol Melton ERCD staff I . Call to Order . Tucker called meeting to order at 7 % 40 p . m . and welcomed Bill Walser ( guest speaker ) . She noted that there was not a quorum because only five CFE members were present . II . Light Pollution Issues Smith reported on some of the issues of " light pollution " and the idea of working towards an ordinance and / or targeting specific county activities that could be effective toward reducing unnecessary lighting in Orange County . Smith described light pollution as " man made light that falls outside the areas of intended illumination . " He noted that light pollution causes energy waste of $ 1 . 5 billion / year in the U . S . and impacts negatively on energy consumption , human health , nocturnal animal habits . Improper lighting can also create a false sense of security for people and causes dangerous blinding optical effects . Smith challenged everyone to look at lighting in their environment to become aware of these types of situations . He also noted that the solutions are not difficult and will pay for themselves . Smith then introduced Bill Walser , local photographer and a member of the International Dark - Sky Association ( IDA ) . Smith and Walser showed slides with some examples of proper and inappropriate lighting fixtures . Issued that were discussed included highway lighting , examples of good and bad lighting for parking lots , athletic fields , other outside facility lighting , and installing " sky caps " on lights to cut down on unnecessary light that goes up into the sky . Walser noted that the Milky Way is no longer visible to eye without telescope . We are losing our heritage of a dark starry nighttime sky A discussion on possible actions included ideas about ordinances , motivating state enabling legislation , and mandating use of state - of- the - art fixtures for county facilities and schools . Staff was asked to investigate who pays for roadway lighting and to obtain county electric bills for CFE review . Walser showed photographs that he has taken from his home telescope and referred CFE members to both the IDA website and his own website for more information ( www . astroimager . com ) . CFE 6/ 11 /01 Draft Summary Page 1 of 3 Smith shared a copy of a draft City of Raleigh lighting ordinance . The proposed Raleigh ordinance was discussed and the Air Quality Committee was asked to work on drafting an Orange County ordinance for possible recommendation to the BOCC . III . Forest- Related Issues a . Recalculation of Prime Forest Ratings Bleckinger reported on her recalculation of the prime forest/ wildlife ratings coverage from the 1999 " A Landscape with Wildlife " Report . [ See memo from Bleckinger included in the agenda packet . ] This work was in response to a CFE request to eliminate some bias given to the identified natural areas . Staff was asked to recalculate the ratings without the " I variable . " Bleckinger pointed out the small differences between this analysis and the one conducted in 1999 . Some forest patches classified in 1999 as " low " and " medium " ratings of the best quality forest were eliminated . Some of the highest quality forest areas were downgraded to " low " and " medium " classes in the 2001 analysis . In the northern part of the county ( particularly Cedar Grove Township ) the amount of prime . forest stayed about the same . A forested area located near the county 's northern boundary was added to the best quality forest class . Though the overall numbers remained about the same , some areas were upgraded from low to medium ratings of the best quality forest . b . Status of Cooperative Forestry Project Stancil reviewed information regarding the previous legislation 's failure to make it to the floor and that a joint meeting with the Soil & Water Board and Agricultural Preservation Board would be scheduled in the fall . Information on the Smart Wood Program was distributed . Due to the unusual circumstances of the evening , a change of the agenda was noted . Tucker announced Loraine Kohorn 's resignation from the CFE due to her upcoming relocation to Maine . The CFE recognized Loraine Kohorn for her outstanding service on the Commission . Congratulations and appreciation were expressed to Kohorn for her years of service to the CFE . Stancil presented the following resolution of appreciation on behalf of the CFE : Whereas Loraine Kohorn has served as a member of the CFE since its formation in 1997, and Whereas Loraine Kohorn served as the initial chair of the CFE providing team leadership for the newly formed group, and Whereas, Loraine Kohorn provided invaluable technical expertise in the area of biological resources during her term, and Whereas Loraine Kohorn is exemplary from many citizens who volunteered time in Orange County for advisory boards; Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the CFE adopts this resolution of appreciation for Loraine Kohorn and thanks her for her years of voluntary service to this CFE this 11 day of June, 2001 , CFE 6/ 11 /01 Draft Summary Page 2 of 3 Next , Stancil presented CFE members with a gift from the BOCC ( soup/ coffee mug ) and expressed of appreciation for members ' volunteer service to the Commission for the Environment . IV. Updates Stancil and Shaw provided brief updates on the following issues . a . Capital Needs Task Force/ November Bond - Final Report An $ 85 million bond proposal was developed by the Capital Needs Task Force , a copy of which was provided in the agenda packet . The proposal will be presented to the BOCC in late June for its consideration and approval . b . Natural Areas Element/ NA Inventory Update Biological Resource Committee working with ERCD staff on developing a new Natural Areas Element to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan . Progress has been slow , but staff expects to complete a draft for CFE review in August or September . Orange County has contracted with biologist Bruce Sorrie to oversee an update to the 1988 inventory of county natural areas and wildlife habitat . The project is expected to last one year . c . Lands Legacy — Acquisitions Update - Hunter property acquisition ( proposed school site ) Cate property acquisition ( proposed district park ) Mayes property acquisition ( Seven Mile Creek Preserve ) Walters farmland conservation easement V. Brainstorming / Plans for Fall This session was postponed due to the lack of members present . VI . Committee Breakout Sessions Breakout sessions were canceled due to the lack of members present . VII . Adjournment Tucker adjourned the meeting at 101. 00 p . m . CFE 6/ 11 /01 Draft Summary Page 3 of 3 \ T 5 ORDINANCE NO. ORD (2001) TC TC-3- Il"TANCE TO ESTABI,IS$ of A NEW O� CITYOF RALEIG INANCE g LIG$TING Section I . That section written, and re -enacted to read as 1 _2089 of the Raleigh.g Ci follows ; tY Code is hereby repealed, re_ Sec. 10-2089. 111111111111111111111111111 LIGHTING, (a) Intent and purpose. Outdoor lighting shall be designed adequate safety, nightbe to provide the In lightin adjacent properties -visionb ] and comfort, and not create 0z c g necessary and public street rightscause excessive glare ont re of way, o (b) Definitions . Cut off Fixture — An outdoor light more than two and one half (2 / rCxture shielded or constructed ' n above the horizontalplaneP ent of the total li fit e in such a of the fixture, g miffed b manner that no Flood La xture. y the fixture is projected reflector fop _ A form of lighting the rmed from the glass designed to direct its output manufacturers envelope of the lam m a specific direction with a and are typically used in resid P itself. Such tarn Flood Li residential outdoor area lighting . so designated by Light — A form g . s rm of lightin g pecific direction, with flag . g designed to direct its output tang or refracting elements located ea diffuse' more or lessIF Footcandle (FC) — A u external to the q antitative lamp , Point, measured as one lumen per square measuring nng the amount of light cast onto a given Full Cutoff Fixture _ o P Quare foot. g n it emits no li fit utdoor li ht fixture ` g above g xture shielded or constructed the horizontal plane of the in such Glare — The e fixture. h a manner that effect produce righter than the level to whi h th Light source with in the visa of visual perform e eyes are adapted, to caus al field that is suffice IES performance and ability, e annoyance, discomfo y NA — The Illumi rt, or loss organization of lighting EngineerinIF F g ng specialists t g Society of North America various lightinghat has established reco a, a non -profit profession appIications . al Lumen — nunendeI design standards for A quantitative unit measI IF IF urin ' ' Maintained Foo g the amount of light emitte factor tcandles — Illumd by a fight source . Finance ccounting for dirt build-up a.nd Tarn Of lighting fig,-tares adjusted for aIF Outdoor Sports Field P utput depreciation . maintenance :: ':;; Privately d — An area des ' Y owned, rncludin geed for active recreation football fields g but not Is to basebalUsof}bal , . . . . golf courses and r ) Whether publicly or 1 diamonds , soccer fields ranges tennis courts , racetracksI IF Outdoor Performance and swi ' Area — An area permanent) coming Pools . y dedicated to the re public p sentation of ORDINANCE NO . (2001 ) TC TC-3 - 01 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A NEW CITYOF R.ALEIGH LIGHTING ORDINANCE Section 1 . That section 10-2089 of the Raleigh City Code is hereby repealed , re- written, and re- enacted to read as follows . Sec . 10-2089. LIGHTING. (a) Intent and purpose. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to provide the minimum lighting necessary to ensure adequate safety, night vision, and comfort, and not create or cause excessive glare onto adjacent properties and public street rights of way . (b ) Definitions . Cut off Fixture — An outdoor light fixture shielded or constructed in such a manner that no more than two and one half (2 %) percent of the total light emitted by the fixture is projected above the horizontal plane of the fixture . Flood Lamp — A form of lighting designed to direct its output in a specific direction with a reflector formed from the glass envelope of the lamp itself. Such lamps are so designated by the manufacturers and are typically used in residential outdoor area lighting . Flood Light — A form of lighting designed to direct its output in a diffuse , more or less specific direction, with reflecting or refracting elements located external to the lamp . Footcandle (FC) — A quantitative unit measuring the amount of light cast onto a given point, measured as one lumen per square foot . Full Cutoff Fixture — An outdoor light fixture shielded or constructed in such a manner that it emits no light above the horizontal plane of the fixture . Glare — The effect produced by a light source within the visual field that is sufficiently brighter than the level to which the eyes are adapted , to cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss of visual performance and ability . IESNA — The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, a non-profit professional organization of lighting specialists that has established recommended design standards for various lighting applications . Lumen — A quantitative unit measuring the amount of light emitted by a light source . Maintained Footcandles — Illuminance of lighting fixtures adjusted for a maintenance factor accounting for dirt build -up and lamp output depreciation . Outdoor Sports Field — An area designed for active recreation, whether publicly or privately owned, including but not limited to baseball/softball diamonds , soccer fields , football fields , golf courses and ranges , tennis courts , racetracks , and swimming pools . Outdoor Performance Area — An area permanently dedicated to the public presentation of 67 music, dance, theater, media arts , storytelling, oratory, or other performing arts , whether publicly or privately owned, including but not limited to amphitheaters and similar open or semi -enclosed structures . Period Lighting Fixture — Decorative lighting fixture that by its design displays an identifiable historical character, era, or architectural style . Right- of--Way — An interest in land to the City which provides for the perpetual right and privilege of the City, its agents , franchise holders , successors , and assigns to construct, install , improve, reconstruct, remove, replace, inspect, repair, maintain, and use a public street, including related and customary uses of street rights -of--way such as sidewalks , bike paths , landscaping , mass transit facilities , traffic control, traffic control devices and signage, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, water supply, cable television, electric power, gas , and telephone transmission and related purposes in, upon, over, below, and across the rights -of- way . Semi- Cutoff Fixture — An outdoor light fixture shielded or constructed in such a manner that it emits no more than five (5 ) percent of its light above the horizontal plane of the fixture, and no more than twenty (20) percent of its light ten ( 10 ) degrees below the horizontal plane of the fixture . Vehicular Canopy — A roofed, open, drive -through structure designed to provide temporary shelter for vehicles and their occupants while making use of a business ' services . Wall Pack — A type of light fixture typically flush -mounted on a vertical wall surface . (c) Light Measurement Technique. Light level measurements shall be made at the property line of the property upon which the light to be measured is being generated . If measurement on private property is not possible or practical , light level measurements may be made at the boundary of the public street right=of-way that adjoins the property of the complainant or at any other location on the property of the complainant . Measurements shall be made at finished grade (ground level) , with the light-registering portion of the meter held parallel to the ground pointing up . The meter shall have cosine and color correction and have an accuracy tolerance of no greater than plus or minus five (5 ) percent. Measurements shall be taken with a light meter that has been calibrated within the year . Light levels are specified, calculated and measured in footcandles (FC) . All FC values below are maintained footcandles . ( d) General Standards for Outdoor Lighting . ( 1 ) Unless otherwise specified in subsections (e) through 0 ) below, the maximum light level shall be 0 . 5 maintained footcandle at any property line in a residential district, or on a lot occupied by a dwelling, congregate care or congregate living structure , and 2 . 0 maintained footcandles at any public street right-of-way, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission . (2) All flood lights shall be installed such that the fixture shall be aimed down at least forty-five (45 ) degrees from vertical, or the front of the fixture is shielded such that no portion of the light bulb extends below the bottom edge of an external shield . Flood lights and display lights shall be positioned such that any such fixture located within fifty feet ( 50 ) of a public street right-of-way is mounted and aimed perpendicular to the right-of-way, with a side -to -side horizontal aiming tolerance not to exceed fifteen ( 15 ) degrees from perpendicular to the right-of-way . (3 ) All flood lamps emitting 1 , 000 or more lumens shall be aimed or shielded such that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties or the public street right-of-way, or the fixture is designed to operate only temporarily after automatically triggered by a motion-detecting sensor . (4) All wall pack fixtures shall be cutoff fixtures. (5 ) Service connections for all freestanding fixtures installed after application * of this ordinance shall be installed underground . * Editor ' s note : This provision first became applicable on , 2001 ; Ord. No . (2001 ) JC - (6 ) Within Thoroughfare and Special Highway Overlay Districts , all outdoor lighting fixtures shall be at minimum semi-cutoff fixtures . (7) All light fixtures installed by public agencies , their agents , or contractors for the purpose of illuminating public streets are otherwise exempt from this regulation . (e) Lighting in Parking Lots and Outdoor Areas . ( 1 ) Other than flood lights and flood lamps, all outdoor area and parking lot lighting fixtures of more than 27000 lumens shall be cutoff fixtures. (2) The mounting height of all outdoor lighting, except outdoor sports field lighting and outdoor performance area lighting, shall not exceed forty-one (4 1 ) feet above finished grade, unless approved by the Planning Commission as having no adverse effect . (3 ) Exceptions : (a) Period lighting fixtures may be used on any historic landmark or in an area comprising at minimum two and one-half (2 . 5 ) acres , either as alternatives or supplements to area lighting . If such lighting fixtures are not cut-off fixtures , the maximum initial lumens generated by each fixture shall not exceed 9500 initial lamp lumens per fixture . (b ) All non-cutoff fixture open-bottom lights allowed by subsection (d) ( 3 ) shall be equipped with full cutoff fixture shields that reduce glare and limit uplight . (f) Lighting for Vehicular Canopies . Areas under a vehicular canopy shall have a maximum horizontal illuminance of twenty - four (24) maintained footcandles (FC) . Areas outside the vehicular canopy shall be regulated by the standards of subsection (d) above . Lighting under vehicular canopies shall be designed so as not to create glare off-s ite . Acceptable methods include one or more of the following : ( 1 ) Recessed fixture incorporating a lens cover that is either recessed or flush with the bottom surface (ceiling) of the vehicular canopy . (2) Light fixture incorporating shields , or shielded by the edge of the vehicular canopy itself, so that light is restrained to five degrees or more below the horizontal plane . (3 ) Surface mounted fixture incorporating a flat glass that provides a cutofffixture or shielded light distribution . (4) Surface mounted fixture, typically measuring two feet by two feet, with a lens cover that contains at least two (2) percent white fill diffusion material . (5 ) Indirect lighting where light is beamed upward and then reflected down from the underside of the vehicular canopy . Such fixtures shall be shielded such that direct illumination is focused exclusively on the underside of the vehicular canopy . ( 6) Other method approved by the Planning Commission . (g) Outdoor Sports Field / Outdoor Performance Area Lighting. ( 1 ) The mounting height of outdoor sports field and outdoor performance area lighting fixtures shall not exceed eighty ( 80) feet from finished grade unless approved by the Planning Commission as having no adverse effect or approved by the City Council as part of a Special Use Permit . (2) All outdoor sports field and outdoor performance area lighting fixtures shall be equipped with a glare control package (louvers , shields , or similar devices ) . The fixtures must be aimed so that their beams are directed and fall within the primary playing or performance area . (3 ) The hours of operation for the lighting system for any game or event shall not exceed one hour after the end of the event . Cross reference: Outdoor stadium/theater/racetrack § § 10-2072 and 10-2145 . (h) Lighting of Outdoor Display Areas . ( 1 ) Parking lot outdoor areas shall be illuminated in accordance with the requirements for subsection (e) , above . Outdoor display areas shall have a maximum maintained illuminance of twenty-four (24) footcandles (FC) . (2) All light fixtures shall meet the IESNA definition of cutoff fixtures. Forward throw fixtures (type IV light distribution, as defined by the IESNA ) are required within twenty-five (25 ) feet of any public street right-of-way . (3 ) The mounting height of outdoor display area fixtures shall not exceed forty-one (41 ) feet above, finished grade, unless approved by the Planning Commission as having no adverse effect. (i) Sign Lighting. Lighting fixtures illuminating signs shall be aimed and shielded so that direct illumination is focused exclusively on the sign . Cross Reference : Illumination of Signs § 10-2083 . 1 ( g) . (j ) Lighting of Buildings and Landscaping . Lighting fixtures shall be selected, located, aimed, and shielded so that direct illumination is focused exclusively on the building , fagade, plantings , and other intended site feature and away from adjoining properties and the public street right-of4ay. ( k) Permits . The applicant for any permit required for work involving outdoor lighting shall submit documentation at time of site plan or plot plan approval that the proposed lighting plan complies with the provisions of this Code . The submission shall contain, but not be limited to the following, all or part of which may be part of or in addition to the information required elsewhere in this Code : ( 1 ) A point-by-point footcandle array in a printout format indicating the location, aiming and type of illuminating devices , fixtures , lamps , supports, reflectors , poles , raised foundations and other devices . The printout shall indicate compliance with the maximum and minimum maintained footcandles required by this Code . (2) Description of the illuminating devices , fixtures ; lamps , supports , reflectors , poles , raised foundations and other devices (including but not limited to manufacturers or electric utility catalog specification sheets and/or drawings ) . (3 ) A photometric report for the fixture(s) showing the classification (i . e . , cutofffixture, full cutoff fixture, flood light, wall pack, period lighting fixture , etc . ) of the light fixture . (4) The permit applicant is required to sign a statement certifying to the City of Raleigh that said project meets all requirements set forth in this Code . If said prof ect is found to be in violation of this Code, corrections will be made to bring the project to into compliance by the owner, at the owner ' s expense . (5 ) The installer of the outdoor lights shall certify that the lights are installed in compliance with the City approved lighting plan . The Inspections Director or his/her designee (s ) may waive any or all of the above requirements ; provided ; the applicant can otherwise demonstrate compliance with this Code . (1 ) Nonconformities , ( 1 ) Following application * of this regulation, the installation of outdoor lighting, replacement of outdoor lighting, and changes to existing light fixture wattage, type of fixture, mounting, or fixture location shall be made in strict compliance with this Code . Routine maintenance, including changing the lamp , ballast, starter, photo control , fixture housing, lens and other required components , is permitted for all existing fixtures not subject to subsection (2) below . " Editor ' s note : This provision first became applicable on , 2001 ; Ord. No . ( 2001 ) -TC = (2) All outdoor lighting that fails to conform with subsection (d) above which is either located in a residential zoning district or which affects a lot occupied by a dwelling, congregate care, or congregate living structure located in a residential zoning district shall be discontinued, removed, or made to conform with subsection (d) within five and one-half (5 %) years from the effective date of this provision . All such lights which are made nonconforming by a subsequent amendment to this chapter or extension of areas in which this section is applicable shall be discontinued, removed, or made to conform within five and one-half (5 %Z) years after the date of such amendment or extension . Cross references : Residential Institutions § 10.20020 Thoroughfare District § 10 -2045 (eX4); Airport Overlay District § 10-2050(e)( 3 ) ; Metro Park Protection Overlay District § 10-2053 (eX3 ); Special Highway Overlay District- 1 § 10-2058(e)(4), -II § 10-2059 ( e)(4 ), -III § 10 -2060( e)(4 ), and -N § 10-2061 (eX4 ); Signs § 10.2083 . l (g) and 10 -2083 . 3 (2 ); Underground Utilities § 10 - 3059 . Section 2 . That Section 10 -2146 . 1 , Roman numeral III, of the City Code is amended to insert between the words " surfaces " and "and" appearing in the first paragraph the language : "outdoor lighting . " Roman numeral III is further amended to insert a last entry , which shall read as follows : " Outdoor lighting, § 10 -2089 " . Section 3 . That Section 10 -2146 . 5 (a) of the City Code is amended to insert a last entry, which shall appear before subsection ( 1 ) . Said entry shall read as follows : Outdoor lighting § 10 -2089 Section 4 . All laws and clauses of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict . Section 5 . If this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance that can be given separate effect and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable . Section 6 . This ordinance has been adopted following a duly advertised joint public hearing of the Raleigh City Council and the City Planning Commission following a recommendation of the Planning Commission, Section 7. This ordinance has been provided to the North Carolina Capital Commission as required by law . Section 8 . This ordinance shall be enforced as provided in N . C . G . S . 160A475 or as provided in the Raleigh City Code . All criminal sanctions shall be the maximum allowed by law notwithstanding the fifty- dollar limit in G. S . 144 (a) or similar limitations . Section 9 . This ordinance shall become effective five days following its adoption . ADOPTED : EFFECTIVE : DISTRIBUTION : . �_ 4 :1. 3 Ist Annual State of the Environment Re ort P February 18 , 2000 Prepared by the Orange County 11 Commission for the Environment Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Departrnent P . O . Box 8181 Hills horaoii (h, NC 27278 Phone : (919) 2455 -2L) Fax : (919) 644- 3002 1 Email : tlstandl@co . oran0e . nc . us Dear Reader , Orange County ' s environment is Orange County , and to the extent that we maintain its integrity is the extent to which we maintain our quality of life . To be successful , the county ' s environmental policies must safeguard the quality of its air , the quality and quantity of its water , the integrity of its forests and farmland , and its rural character , open space and recreational opportunities . In today ' s climate of rapid development , escalating costs for services and competing interests from both within and outside the county , environmental policies must be more specific than ever before . These environmental policies must also work with , rather than at cross - purposes to , each other and other county policies . And finally , environmental policies today must also address a longer term horizon than ever before , yet remain flexible enough to be adjusted according to new scientific understandings and technologies . The Commission for the Environment has taken these needs into its consideration of matters affecting Orange County ' s environment . The attached State of the Environment report assesses the county ' s status in three focus areas : • air quality • biological resources • environmental indicators and education We look forward to the discussion of the materials herein and hope that they will inspire frank and vigorous dialogue about the many issues that affect Orange County as we work together to ensure a sustainable future . Sincerely , Kris Price , Chair Commission for the Environment F : \USERS \DSTANCIL\CFE\soecov . doc 15 Orange County State of the Environment Report —2000 Executive Summary February Z 2000 The 1 st annual State of the Environment report was developed by the Orange County Commission for the Environment, which advises the Orange County Commissioners on matters related to the County ' s natural environment . The Commission is comprised of 14 members and operates both as a committee - of the -whole and in three committees that examine key components of the County ' s environment . The report is based on the work of these three committees sin ➢ 0 Air Quality ➢ Biological Resources ➢ Environmental Indicators and Education - and is organized in this fashion, as three separate reports from the committees . The Commission adopted the three reports as its first State of the Environment report on December 6 , 1999 . In developing the reports , each committee spent time in Commission meetings and in special sessions exploring existing data and trends , evaluating and discussing ideas and issues , and developing goals and recommendations for the Board ' s consideration . As a result of a growing population, Orange County faces significant challenges to maintain its environmental quality . The Commission for the Environment is attempting to identify the status and trends of environmental quality in the County and to develop goals and recommendations to address environmental quality issues . The following sections briefly highlight issues , goals and recommendations from each report . Note : this document is not intended to summarize all of the substantial findings and trend analysis contained in the reports . Part I : Air Quality 7777777 StatusAssues • Mobile sources (motor vehicles) are the dominant source of air pollutants in the County • Orange County may not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone ( i . e . , be designated non- attainment) in the future if trends continue • Quantitative measurements of air quality are lacking in the County Goals • Greater awareness of transportation and air pollution issues in the County • Need for a regional view of air quality issues • Reduction in of County fleet on air quality RecommendataQns.: • Attempt to increase amount of information available about County air quality (need for ozone monitoring in Orange County) • County should assume a stronger role and be more proactive in addressing air pollution (such as recent actions taken to purchase low- emission vehicles for County vehicle fleet and institute ozone action plan) • Greater support for alternative modes of transportation • County should pursue Mobile Source Emission Reduction Grant in December 2000 for alternative - fueled vehicle pilot project Part II : Biological Diversity IF St hisillss ues ■ Forest loss and fragmentation from residential construction ( 10 % over the last decade) Goal • Slow, halt or reverse natural area and resource losses (goal of 10 % of County lands protected in some fashion by the year 2010) R IF I ecommendationsMr • Direct more county and matching funds toward acquiring critical natural resource lands (planned Lands Legacy program ) _ • County codes , ordinances , and regulations should better promote protection of biologically- significant sites • Greater coordination of regional conservation across County boundaries • Develop better monitoring/assessment programs for biological diversity and forest loss , such as review and update of the 1988 Inventory ofNaturalAreas and Wildlife Habitat Part III : Environmental Indicators/Education Statusllssues • Parkland deficit of 645 acres in 2000 , based on population standards • Farmland has declined by 76 % from 1967- 1996 , and 10% of hardwood forests have been lost in the last decade • Increased vehicle miles traveled (up 43 % from 1987- 1997) ; limited bicycle- friendly infrastructure Mr Goals: IN • Need more precise planning to avoid loss of future losses of key resources • Need method of assessing sustainability levels via indicators that can be measured and evaluated annually • Coordinate with environmental recommendations identified by other committees RecomNL mendationsFI+L MI IF I IF • Adopt and implement a farmland preservation plan including transfer of development rights (TDR) and purchase of development rights (PDR) . Preservation of farmland will help the County ' s overall environment . • Commit funds to developing bikeways according to the Bicycle Plan • Update the natural areas inventory • Use the Shaping Orange County ' s Future sustainability indicators report to begin monitoring the County ' s progress, and fund dissemination of the report when ready • Increase dramatically public outreach and education, including expansion of the County ERCD/CFE web site for these purposes • The Planning and Ell" CD departments should develop a more cohesive plan for open space that involves revising existing tools (such as the Environmental Impact Ordinance) and implementing new tools that the CFE is continuing to evaluate . For more information or to receive a copy of the full report, visit the Environment and Resource Conservation Department web site at www . co . orange . nc . us/ercd, or call 245-2597. 17 Sources of NOx Emissions Orange County NOx Emissions Biogenic (3.4%) 14 Area (3 .99/o) 12 D 1990 'IF i v 1 e1995Po il , 111r ci A OFF Non-Road (13 . 6°/ ) // 8IF IF 6 4 21"2 6 ' - Mobile (73 .2°/n) 2i 6.6 U ! ' i 0 Point Area Non-Road Highway Mobile Mobile STATUS of AIR . QUALITY IN ORANGE COUNTY Prepared by The Orange County Commission for the Environment Air Quality Committee Prepared for The Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina November 14 , 1999 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Clean air is a national , state, and local goal , the importance of which is well recognized . The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC ) of Orange County has demonstrated their concern for protection of the environment and air quality in many actions that . they have taken . In 1997 , the BOCC approved creation of the Commission for the Environment (CfE) . The mandate of the Commission is to advise the BOCC on matters affecting the environment , with particular emphasis on environmental protection . During the past year, the CfE has proposed the following resolutions related to air quality which were approved by the BOCC : a) Resolution to Create an Ozone Air Quality Action Plan for Orange County . Status : plan developed and implemented in summer of 1999 b) Resolution Regarding Future Purchase of Low Emission and Fuel Efficient County Vehicles . Status : on- going activity c) Resolution for a Recommendation that Orange County Establish a Committee to Research a Plan for Use of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles , Improved Fleet Maintenance , . . . and the Potential for Submitting a Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant Application . Status . on- going activity. To assist the BOCC in identifying issues of concern to its constituents with respect to environmental quality, the Air Quality Committee of the CfE has prepared this report, which summarizes information about air quality in the County. It also includes goals and recommendations for actions that may maintain and/or improve air quality in the County. Status of Air Quality in the County The following briefly highlights the status of air quality in Orange County. a) Based on available information, mobile sources appear to be the major contributor to air pollutant levels in the County, b ) Based on U . S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) models , 73 % of the emissions of nitrogen oxides , precursors of ozone , are from mobile sources in Orange County compared to only 6 % from stationary sources , c) The average vehicle miles traveled per person in Orange County increased from 20 miles per person in 1987 to 28 miles per person in 1997 , a 40 % increase , d) There are only 20 permitted stationary sources in the County and most are small sources , e) There is little historical data on air quality in Orange County; the only historical data are for carbon monoxide , a pollutant of decreasing concern to the U . S . EPA; carbon monoxide monitoring in Chapel Hill will be discontinued in 2000 , f) A PM2 . 5 (fine particulate matter with a mean diameter of less than 2 . 5 Tim ) sampler was set up in Chapel Hill in 1999 in response to listing of PMZ . 5 as a criteria pollutant by the EPA ; the monitor will facilitate trend analysis in the coming years , g) Other than PM2 . 5 , no other air pollutants are monitored anywhere in Orange County, 11 19 h) Recent data from ozone monitoring sites in Chatham, Durham, and Wake County suggest that ozone concentrations are exceeding the ambient air quality standard at an increasing rate in recent years , and i) The State of North Carolina does not intend to locate an ozone monitor in Orange County in spite of the concern about ozone and its impact on human health . Goals - - The CfE has reviewed the goals developed by the Environment and Resources Protection Committee in the Report of the Shaping Orange County 's Future . These are admirable goals that the County should address over the long term . We suggest that there are four primary goals that should be addressed in the short- term that will help meet the long-term goals , and may ificant impact air quality in the County. Those goals are the following : ultimately have sign a) Gain a better quantitative understanding of the sources of air pollution in the County and the relationship between air quality and mobile sources within and outside the County, b) Gain a better understanding of transportation issues within the County and the region, c) Identify and define the role of Orange County in regional transportation issues and planning, and d) Reduce the impact of the County fleet on air quality. Needs and Recommendations To address the goals identified by the CfE and Shaping Orange County' s Future , there are a number of actions that that can be taken, including the following : e) The County should commit matching funds for a Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant . A grant application should be submitted to the State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in the next cycle (December 2000) . One potential proposal is for the County to purchase alternative fuel vehicles for use by selected County agencies or Departments . The County' s portion of funds would be for vehicles and refueling stations . The grant money from DENR would offset differences in costs between conventional vehicles and low-pollution alternative vehicles . Based on recent successful applications , the County should commit approximately $ 80 , 000 to $ 120 , 000 for aproject to reduce mobile source emissions in the County. The scope of the project should be determined by County agencies and departments with the assistance of the County Transportation Planner and the CfE . f) The County should commit staff support to work on issues related to air quality and transportation in the County. We recommend that at least 5 to 10 % of the time of one staff member in the Environment and Resources Conservation Department be devoted to research and data collection on air quality issues . We recommend that the County Transportation Planner in the Planning Department should spend at least 5 to 10 % of his/her time in support of research and data collection on transportation issues as they impact air quality. Issues requiring staff support include the following : iii Air Quality Issues and Recommendations : g) The County should evaluate its role in managing air quality in the County, h) The County should identify its role in management of regional air quality, i) The County should actively participate in management of regional air quality, j ) The County should pursue actions to reduce air pollutant emissions from the County ' s fleet of vehicles by use of alternative vehicles , improved vehicle maintenance, and reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and _ k) The ERCD , with the assistance of the CfE , should develop initiatives that the County can - implement to improve air quality in the County. Transportation Issues and Recommendations . 1) The County should collect information to better understand regional transportation issues , m) The County should determine what role it will take in addressing County and regional transportation issues , n) The County should take an active role in planning main travel corridors within the County and between regional jurisdictions , o) The County should aggressively participate in the planning and implementation of alternatives to traditional transportation systems in the region, including light rail systems , bicycle paths , tele -working, etc . 3 . The County should intensively lobby State and Federal Agencies to obtain more air quality data in and near the County in order to identify and control the major airborne sources that affect human health, environmental damage , and the quality of life in the County. Of particular concern is the lack of ozone air monitoring data in the County. iv 21 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Protecting the environment and the quality of the air we breathe is an important goal for individuals , industry, organizations , and government agencies . Clean air is a national , state , and local goal , the importance of which is well recognized. In the Report of the Shaping Orange County 's Future, the Environment & Resources Protection Committee recognized the importance of maintaining the current level of air quality in Orange County and setting goals to protect the health of people who live, work, and visit in Orange County, The Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has demonstrated their concern for protection of the environment and air quality in many actions that they have taken . In 1997 , the BOCC approved creation of the Commission for the Environment ( CfE) . The mandate of the Commission is to advise the BOCC on matters affecting the environment, with particular emphasis on environmental protection . The CfE established a number of committees , including an Air Quality Committee . In 1998 , the BOCC further demonstrated their concern for the environment by approving the formation of the Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) . To assist the BOCC in identifying issues of concern to its constituents with respect to environmental quality, the air quality committee of the CfE has prepared this report . The report summarizes available information on air quality collected from sources from the State of North Carolina Division of Air Quality. It also includes goals and recommendations for actions that may maintain and/or improve air quality in the County. 2 . 0 STATUS OF AIR QUALITY AND AIR CONTAMINANT SOURCES IN THE COUNTY Under the Clean Air Act, passed by Congress in 1970 , and amended in 1990 , the U . S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets and enforces air pollutant limits on sources such as power plants and industrial facilities . Although the Clean Air Act is a federal law , much of the work to carry out the act is performed by the states . Each state has a State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) that describes how the state will meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act . The federal law allows the states to have stronger pollution controls . The states are responsible for permitting sources and for monitoring air quality to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act . 2 . 1 Air Contaminants of Concern The Clean, Air Act establishes standards for a set of pollutants termed " criteria" pollutants , which are listed in Table 24 . A primary national standard has been set that protects human health . A secondary standard is intended to prevent environmental and property damage . The table also lists the North Carolina Standard . A geographic area that meets or does better than the primary standard is called an attainment area ; areas that don ' t meet the standard are non- attainment areas . Non- attainment areas may be required to take special actions to reduce 1 22 pollutant emissions , such as implementing vehicle emissions inspections or the use of special gasoline additives . Under extreme cases , non- attainment areas may lose sources of Federal funding (e . g . , for highway construction) for failure to take adequate action to meet Clean Air Act requirements . Geographic areas , usually metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) are used to draw the non- attainment areas . Chapel Hill is generally considered to be part of the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill MSA for the purposes of reporting air quality. But , with respect to the possibility that the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area may be a non- attainment area for ozone , the non- attainment area has not been drawn . Definition of the area is part of a " designation" process , which has not begun yet . Based on discussions with staff at the NC Division of Air Quality, there are three options for how non- attainment areas could be drawn . Table 2 - 1 National and North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standardsa Pollutant Primary National Secondary National North Carolina Standard Standard Standard PM2 , 5 (24 -hr avg) b 15 11gl m 3 15 ygl m 3 15 c / m , 65 ygl m ' 65 / m 3 65 ygl m ' PM j o (24-hr avg)b 50 ygl m 3 50 gl m 3 50 Ygl m 3 150 YgIM3 150 Ygl m 3 150 Tlgl m 3 CO ( 1 -hr avg) 9 PPM 9ppm. 35 ppm 35 ppm 03 ( 1 hr avg) 0 . 12 ppm 0 . 12 pin 0 . 12 ppm 0 . 08 ppin 0 . 08 ppm 0 . 08 ppm. S 02 ( 1 -hr avg) 0 . 03 ppm 0 . 03 ppm 0 . 14 ppm 0 . 14 ppm. 0 . 50 ppm 0 . 50 ppm. NO2 ( 1 -hr avg) 0 . 053 ppm. 0 . 053 ppm. 0 . 053 ppin Pb (24 -hr avg) 11 . 5 YgI m 3 1 . 5 ygl m 3 1 . 5 ygl m 3 ' Abbreviations * PM : Particulate Matter ; CO : Carbon Monoxide ; 03 : Ozone ; SO2 : Sulfur Dioxide ; NO2 : Nitrogen Dioxide ; Pb : Lead; Mean : Arithmetic Mean; Avg : Average b PM2 . 5 : Fine (respirable ) particulate matter with diameter of less than 2 . 5 ym ; PMIo : particulate (inhalable matter with diameter less than 10 ym 2 23 2 . 2 Air Quality Monitoring Sites in Orange and Adjacent Counties The State of North Carolina Division of Air Quality is responsible for set up , maintenance , calibration, and operation of sites for monitoring air quality. The State does not monitor all of the criteria pollutants at all of its monitoring sites . Not all counties in the state have monitoring sites . The criteria for determining the locations of the monitoring sites vary by pollutant and depend on guidance given by EPA and the needs of the State of North Carolina to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act . At this time , there are only two air monitoring sites in Orange County. Both sites are located in Chapel Hill . They include the following : a) Carbon monoxide ( CO) monitor - located at 147 East Franklin Street in Chapel Hill . CO is monitored on a seasonal basis from October to mid-March . This monitor has been operated for many years on a seasonal (fall/winter) basis . We have been advised by George Murray of the North Carolina Division of Air Quality that the monitor will not likely be run after this fall/winter season because ( 1 ) the EPA is working toward disinvestments in CO monitoring in the future , (2 ) the site is a " short-term" special purpose site, and (3 ) the CO concentrations are low . b ) Fine particulate matter (PM2 . 5) sampler - located at the U . S . EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, 104 Mason Farm Road in Chapel Hill . Samples are collected for 24 hours every third day. The sampler was set up this year ( 1999) in response to the addition of PM2 , 5 by the EPA to its list of criteria pollutants to be regulated under the Clean Air Act Because of the lack of monitoring sites in the County, there is little historical data on air quality in the County. Carbon monoxide , an air pollutant generated by combustion sources (e . g . , motor vehicles and power plants) , has been monitored in Chapel Hill for many years . But no other criteria pollutants have been monitored anywhere in the County . There are monitoring sites located in adjacent counties , which the State uses for assessing the air quality in the area. Table 2 - 2 lists locations of monitoring sites and the pollutants that are measured in this region . There are no monitoring sites for ozone in Orange County. Ozone is a seasonal contaminant with the highest concentrations occurring in the summer . Ozone is not emitted from sources , but is formed by sunlight- driven reactions of other pollutants , especially hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides . Nitrogen oxides are released from nearly all combustion processes , including industrial boilers , open fires , and mobile sources . Hydrocarbons are released from mobile sources , industries , painting, dry cleaning, fuel dispensing , and natural sources . Ozone reaches its highest concentrations 3 to 5 hours downwind from major sources of the ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons) . The State does not intend to install an ozone monitor in Orange County. Based on our discussions with staff at the NC State Division of Air Quality, the State will use data from monitors in adjacent counties to assess the impact of reacted pollutant emissions from the city ( Chapel Hill/Carrboro ) in the middle of the monitoring sites . There are ozone monitors northeast of Orange County and the Chatham monitor is to the south- 3 7 J . southwest of Chapel Hill . Because the winds at Chapel Hill are most frequently from the northeast and the 4 Table 2 - 2 . Locations of Monitoring Sites In and Around Orange County Pollutant County City Address CO Orange Chapel Hill 147 East Franklin St . PM2 . 5 Orange Chapel Hill 104 Mason Road PM10 Durham Durham Health Dept . , 300 E . Main St . Wake Raleigh Fire Station # 9 , Six Forks Rd . Guilford Greensboro Edgeworth and Bellemead Ozone Chatham Pittsboro Rt . 4 , Box 62 Durham Durham 2700 N . Duke St . Wake Raleigh E . Millbrook Jr . High School Wake Raleigh 808 North State Wake Fuquay 20 1 North Street Wake WRAL tower 5033 TV Tower Rd off 70E Person - - SR 49 Caswell - - Cherry Grove Rec . Guilford - - Keely Park . Forsyth Winston- Salem Four sites Nitrogen oxides Durham Durham 2700 North Duke St . Wake Raleigh 808 N . State St . southwest quadrants , the State believes the measurements at the monitors in the adjacent counties are representative of the affect of ozone precursor emissions from Orange County. However, because an ozone monitor is not located in the County, local ozone concentrations can not be determined . Nor can the County determine the impact of ozone precursor emissions from adjacent geographical areas on air quality in the County. Due to the proposed lowering of the ozone standard and addition of the PM2 . 5 standard, ozone, nitrogen oxides , hydrocarbons , PM2 . 5 , and PM10 are most likely to be the pollutants of greatest concern to the County in the coming years . Carbon monoxide is no longer of great concern . Advances in control technologies have reduced, but not eliminated, concerns about sulfur dioxide . 2 . 3 Historical Air Quality Data and Trends in the County and State Air quality data for the criteria pollutants are available from the North Carolina Division of Air Quality. Data can be retrieved from the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS ) Air Quality Subsystem . Air quality data can be retrieved by accessing the NC Division of Air Quality Internet site at http : //daq . state . ne . us/Offices/1\4onitoring/gklk98nc . htnil . The Offices and Regions , Monitoring Branch, Data & Statistics page links to Quick Look summaries of data for the individual criteria pollutants as well as the EPA Pollutant Standard Index . 5 r 26 As discussed above, the only historical data on air quality in the County is for CO measured in Chapel Hill . There have been no exceedances above the CO ambient air quality standards at the Chapel Hill site during the last three years . For 1998 , the maximum 1 -hr CO measurement was 8 . 0 ppm, with no observations above the 35 ppm secondary standard . The maximum 8 -hr measurement was 4 . 3 ppm, but there were no observations above the 9 ppm primary standard . There were also no observations above 9 ppm in 1997 or 1996 . The CO data from Chapel Hill are consistent with data for the state . In the 1996 Ambient Air Quality Report, published in April 1998 by the State of North Carolina Division of Air Quality Ambient Monitoring Section, there were no exceedances of the CO ambient air quality standards in the state of North Carolina in 1996 . Data reported in the 1996 Ambient Air Quality Report, showed no exceedances of the PMIO , S02 , NO2 , or lead standards in the state of North Carolina during 1996 . The 1972 - 1995 Ambient Air Quality Trends Summary, published in May 1998 by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources , reports that levels of total suspended particles , PMIo , carbon monoxide , sulfur dioxide , and lead in ambient air in the state of North Carolina have dropped substantially since the 1970s . According to the report , the long term trends are less clear for ozone and nitrogen dioxide , both of which have remained fairly constant . There is no reason to believe that the air quality in Orange County did not follow the same trends for these pollutants . Recent ozone data, available from the Division of Air Quality Internet site under the NC Ozone Forecast Center page , suggests that ozone exceedances are increasing . Data can be retrieved for each monitoring location in the state . Recent data for the two monitoring sites adjacent to Orange County and a site in Wake County are summarized in Table 2 . 3 . The table also includes the number of exceedances measured in the Triangle with all nine monitors that the State operates in the Triangle MSA . As shown in the table , the number of exceedances was high in 1998 . Tabulated data were not available for 1999 . Table 2 - 3 . Trends in Ozone Exceedances at Sites in the Triangle Region Site Number of Exceedances 1995 1996 1997 1998 Chatham County 4 3 8 9 Durham - Duke Street 2 4 3 17 Wake County - WRAL Tower 6 5 15 20 Triangle - Based on all nine monitors 16 194 25 44 6 21 No trend data are available for PM2 , 5 because data are just starting to be collected . Fortunately, there is a monitoring location in Chapel Hill that will generate data for future trend analyses . 2 . 4 Sources of Air Contaminants in Orange County There are two primary categories of sources of air pollutants - stationary and mobile . Stationary sources include power plants , manufacturing facilities , gas stations , incinerators , etc . Large stationary sources , such as power plants and large manufacturing facilities , must have permits from the State to operate if their emissions exceed certain threshold amounts . Smaller sources may also require permits , but the requirements for application and reporting are less stringent than for larger emitters . However, some sources , e . g . , dry cleaners , generally do not require permits due to the small volume of emissions . Mobile sources include cars , trucks , buses , planes , trains , motorcycles , and gasoline-powered lawn mowers . Mobile sources may be classified as on-road (e . g . , cars and trucks ) and off-road (trains , lawn mowers , tractors , and construction equipment) . In addition to the ' stationary and mobile sources , air pollutants , for example particulate matter, may be generated from agriculture activities , construction activities , or open burning . 2 . 4 . 1 Stationary Sources Stationary sources may emit criteria pollutants (e . g . , S02 from a power plant) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) . The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to address 188 HAPs . The State of North Carolina is responsible for issuing permits to facilities that emit air pollutants . Each facility prepares an application for a permit with a list of emitted pollutants and estimates of annual emissions . Actual emissions are reported by the facility. For this report , the NC Division of Air Quality provided the NC Emissions : Facility Detail report for 1997 for the 20 permitted facilities in Orange County. These data are also available from the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS ) and can be accessed via the Internet at http : //www . epa . gov/enviro /htinl/ airs/airs query Java . html . The first observation that can be made about permitted sources in Orange County is the small number . Compared to adjacent counties , Orange County has very few permitted facilities . The number of permitted facilities listed in AIRS for adjacent counties is as follows : a) Orange . 20 b) Alamance 159 c) Chatham 69 d) Durham 163 e) Person 36 f) Wake 309 The mass of air pollutants emitted in a County may not be directly related to the number of facilities , but the number of permitted facilities is a good indicator of the relative significance of 7 28 stationary sources in the adjacent counties . Data on the mass of pollutants emitted by each permitted facility is available , but compilation of the data was beyond the scope of this report . itted facilities in Orange County, only the University of North Carolina is Of the 20 perm listed in the Title V category, which requires an annual emissions inventory because the emissions are greater than 100 ton/yr . The University' s power generation facility on Cameron Avenue is the largest permitted stationary source in the County. Thirteen of the facilities are in the small category ( emissions greater than 5 ton/yr) , which requires an emissions inventory once every 3 years . The locations of the permitted facilities in the County are as follows : g) Chapel Hill 4 h) Carrboro 2 i ) Hillsborough 6 j ) Mebane 7 k) Rougemont 1 The largest emissions of HAPs reported for 1997 were as follows . 1) UNC at Chapel Hill ( Cameron Ave . ) 75 . 07 tons/yr m) General Electric Corp . (Mebane) 8 . 94 tons/yr n) AKG of America (Mebane) 4 . 48 tons/yr o) Nameplate (Hillsborough) 2 . 80 tons/yr Other sources of air contaminants in the county are do not need permits to operate due to their small volume of emissions . The contributions of fugitive emissions from some sources , such as dust from agricultural operations and construction sites are difficult to estimate . There are no regulatory requirements in the State of North Carolina to address control of fugitive emissions , such as particulate matter, from agricultural , construction, or open burning activities . Emissions from these sources can be estimated , but it is difficult to quantitatively determine the impact of these sources on air quality in the County. 2 . 4 . 2 Mobile Sources Mobile sources include on-road sources such as cars , trucks , and buses and off-road vehicles such as construction equipment (tractors , earth movers) . Both sources are important . But the on-road sources have a substantially larger impact on air quality due to the large number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled . Shaping Orange County ' s Future ( SOCF) performed analyses of various transportation issues for the County. Data from their work ( available at on the Internet at www . co . orange . nc . us/shaping/profile1 /transport . htm) demonstrates the increasing reliance on automobiles as a source of transportation for County residences . SOCF analyzed the following three measures , auto availability, modal choice , and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) : 8 p) Auto Availability - SOCF reported that in 1960 there were 12 , 933 vehicles registered in Orange County with a ratio of 3 . 32 persons per vehicle . By 1990 , there were 65 , 900 vehicles with a ratio of 1 . 57 persons per vehicle . q) Modal Choice - SOCF reported that U . S . Census data for 1980 showed that approximately 60 % of the County ' s working population drove to work alone, 23 % carpooled and the other 17 % used public transit, walked, motorcycled, or bicycled . But by 1990 , 72 % of the working population drove alone and only 14 % carpooled . r) Vehicle Miles Traveled - SOCF also reported that the total number of vehicle miles - - traveled (VMT) on Orange County roads increased by 80 % from 1 , 727 , 000 in 1987 to 3 , 114 , 000 in 1997 . When SOCF accounted for population growth during the period, the actual percent increase in average daily VMT was estimated to be 43 % . In 1997 , per capita VMT averaged 28 miles per person per day compared to 20 miles per person per day in 1987 . The importance of mobile sources in the County was demonstrated in the Air Quality summary that was prepared by the SOCF ( available on the Internet at www . co . orange . nc . us/shaping/profileI /airqual . htm) . Data from the NC Division of Air Quality, source data from 1990 , 1994 , and 1995 , and EPA mobile source models were used to estimate and break down sources of emissions of nitrogen oxides in Orange County. The SOCF results are reproduced in Figures 2 - 1 and 2 .2 . They demonstrate that on-road mobile sources are the most significant source of emissions of nitrogen oxides in the County. This is significant because NO ,, is an ozone precursor . Relative to stationary sources , mobile sources are likely to continue to be much more important when addressing air quality concerns in the County. The data suggest that the County can have the greatest impact on air quality by addressing transportation issues in the County and Triangle Region , 2 . 5 Regional Air Quality It is well recognized that air pollution does not recognize government boundaries . Pollutants such as S02 , particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides may travel great distances from the sources . Ground level ozone formation may result from nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated from upwind mobile or stationary sources . It is , therefore, essential that air quality be addressed at a regional level . Even if ozone levels in Orange County were to remain below the primary national ambient air quality standards , pollutants generated in the County may contribute to ozone formation in adjacent counties . It is imperative that Orange County citizens and government address air quality issues that affect the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill MSA and rest of the state . 9 30 Figure 24 . Sources of NOx Emissions in Orange County OF Biogenic (3 . 4 % ) Area ( 3 . 9 % ) Point ( 6 . 0 % ) Non-Road ::.. ( 13 . 6 % ) lii' weer— kjr r k IF Fee '61 Y atrS � t t L qi! !FIN I 'Net � x + � ' iIF 'I we.ar 5.: IF Mobile ( 73 . 2 %) Figure 2 - 2 . Orange County NOx Emissions 14 12 El 1990 11 . 5 1995 10I IN I IN 414 66 IF A . 11 , 9 8611 . { el IF 6 - cIF I IF Feell,ent-le-FINNIFFINIFFNIFINN E. ., , 4I It N Fill2 . 6Net 21 . .. IN 2 0 . 9 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 . - 0 -IF ' - __.__ In Point Area Non-Road Highway Mobile Mobile 10 31 3 . 0 RECOMMENDED GOALS TO ADDRESS AIR QUALITY IN THE COUNTY In the Report of the Shaping Orange County 's Future , the Environment and Resources Protection Committee set the following goals : s) Protect the respiratory health of all people ; Orange County should achieve and surpass ambient air quality standards . t) Create a community less dependent on the private auto . - - -u) Discourage further highway construction in Orange County. v) Promote less polluting traffic patterns . w) Lobby for state inspection of heavy- duty trucks . x) Promote ownership of low emission motor vehicles . These are admirable goals that the County should address over the long term . We suggest that there are four primary goals that should be addressed in the short-term that will help meet the long-term goals , and may ultimately have significant impact air quality in the County. Those goals are the following . y) Gain a better quantitative understanding of the sources of air pollution in the County and the relationship between air quality and mobile sources within and outside the County, z) Gain a better understanding of transportation issues within the County and the region, aa) Identify and define the role of Orange County in regional transportation issues and planning, and bb) Reduce the impact of the County fleet on air quality. 4 . 0 NEEDS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS AIR QUALITY ISSUES IN THE COUNTY To address the goals identified by the4 CfE and Shaping Orange County ' s Future, there are a number of actions that that can be taken, including the following . a) The County should commit matching funds for a Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant . A grant application should be submitted to the State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in the next cycle (December 2000) . One potential proposal is for the County to purchase alternative fuel vehicles for use by selected County agencies or Departments . The County ' s portion of funds would , be for vehicles and refueling stations . The grant money from DENR would offset differences in costs between conventional vehicles and low-pollution alternative vehicles . Based on recent successful applications , the County should commit approximately $ 80 , 000 to $ 120 , 000 for a project to reduce mobile source emissions in the County. The scope of the project should be determined by County agencies and departments with the assistance of the County Transportation Planner and the CfE . b ) The County should commit staff support to work on issues related to air quality and transportation in the County. We recommend that at least 5 to 10 % of the time of one staff member in the Environment and Resources Conservation Department be devoted to 11 32 research and data collection on air quality issues . We recommend that the County Transportation Planner in the Planning Department should spend at least 5 to 10 % of his/her time in support of research and data collection on transportation issues as they impact air quality. Issues requiring staff support include the following . Air Quality Issues and Recommendations . a. The County should evaluate its role in managing air quality in the County, b . The County should identify its role in management of regional air quality, - c . The County should actively participate in management of regional air quality, d . The County should pursue actions to reduce air pollutant emissions from the County' s fleet of vehicles by use of alternative vehicles , improved vehicle maintenance , and reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and e . The ERCD , with the assistance of the CfE , should develop initiatives that the County can implement to improve air quality in the County. Transportation Issues and Recommendations . a) The County should collect information to better understand regional transportation issues , b ) The County should determine what role it will take in addressing County and regional transportation issues , c) The County should take an active role in planning main travel corridors within the County and between regional jurisdictions , d) The County should aggressively participate in the planning and implementation of alternatives to traditional transportation systems in the region, including light rail systems , bicycle paths , tele-working, etc . 3 . The County should intensively lobby State and Federal Agencies to obtain more air quality data in and near the County in order to identify and control the major airborne sources that affect human health, environmental damage , and the quality of life in the County. Of particular concern is the lack of ozone air monitoring data in the County. 12 The State of Biological Diversity and Resources - - in Orange County , North Carolina a report of the Biological Resources Committee Orange County Commission for the Environment Prepared for The Board of County Commissioners Orange County , North Carolina December 14 , 1999 Contributors : Loraine Kohorn , Annette Jurgelski, Rosalinda Lidh 1 Executive Summary Substantial gains have been made in Orange County in the last decade in the amount of land area placed under some sort of protection . At the same time, however, the rates of forest loss likewise increased, primarily as a result of residential development . To and fragmentation have slow , to halt, or even to reverse the losses of our most significant resources and natural areas , we recommend to the County Commissioners that the County take the following steps : Increase the total area of protected natural areas , with highest priority given to the most significant areas facing the most imminent threat . This requires allocation of County funds towards land acquisition, as well as seeking matching funds from outside sources . The County should also play a more important role in working with other land preservation groups , and in helping to coordinate the efforts of all partners involved in land preservation in the County, to work towards a planned County conservation landscape . ➢ Make appropriate changes to the Environmental Impact Ordinance , to the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and to zoning regulations , to offer full and complete protection to the most biologically significant sites , and to encourage restricted use buffer zones surrounding important core areas . ➢ Establish a means by which the County' s Biological Inventory can be continually reviewed and updated . ➢ Improve coordination of conservation effort with neighboring counties , particularly for those natural features which cross jurisdictional boundaries . ➢ Assure that the Environment and Resource Conservation Department performs a GIS assessment from the most recent aerial photographs ( 1998 ) documenting forest area changes since 1988 . FG a? ;d LJZ95 � 2 Y' I . Introduction Orange County represents 0 . 5 % of the Southern Appalachian Piedmont, an ecoregion lying between the mountains and the Atlantic coastal plain, and extending from Maryland to Alabama . The Piedmont forest is comprised primarily of mixed hardwood tree species , dominated by oaks and hickories , but containing a rich diversity, of tree species and a very diverse understory plant community. This plant diversity supports a rich assemblage of animal species . Orange County is home to at least 1500 non-human species , though the exact number is not known . The dense habitation of the Piedmont region since European settlement, and to some extent prior to that, has led to a heterogeneous landscape of forests of many ages and types - - the result of considerable human disturbance . As the stewards of this piece of the Piedmont , it is our task to offer what protection is feasible to the least disturbed elements found in the County, and to provide secure habitat over the long term for the plants and animals currently residing on the land . II . Current Status of Biological Resources in Orange County Our current understanding of the biological state of the County derives from three principal documents : the 1988 biological inventory by Sather and Hall and two Landscape with Wildlife reports by Ludington, Hall and Wiley for the Triangle Land Conservancy (LWW-I, 1997 , and LWW-II, 1999) . In addition, the Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) has data from the NC Natural Heritage Program on the occurrences of important biological elements in the County, both of species and of biological communities . LWW- II identifies large , older hardwood forests as the most important sites for wildlife preservation in the County. While the report accomplishes this admirably, it is also important to recognize that not all old forests are alike , and that the prime forests identified in the TLC reports represent a diverse matrix of different ecological community types , each with distinct associated species . Sather and Hall document 16 different natural communities in the County, some of which are large enough to show on the prime forest maps , and some of which are not . Thus it is important to note that while LWW41 is intended to be viewed as an important supplement to Sather and Hall , it does not function as an update to it . State of our Forests Declining in area ? Ten percent of Orange County' s forests are estimated to have been lost or impacted over the past decade , primarily as a result of residential building (TLC , Landscape with Wildlife , Parts I and II) . However this is only an estimate based on building permits issued . This percentage does not account for forest clearing that occurred independently of the building permitting process in this same time interval, nor does it reflect the net change in forest cover, as it does not take into account simultaneous forest development . There is a significant need to document 3 36 actual changes in land use , using aerial photographs and site surveys . Chan,ges to 1988 Inventoried Sites Of the 77 sites currently included in the County' s database , 49 , or 63 % are considered to be intact and in much the same condition as they were in 1988 , except for some trees downed by Hurricane Fran . Two sites were substantially impacted by Fran (M06 and NO 1 ) . For 18 of the sites , or 23 % , comprising some 1 , 735 acres of land, the status in 1999 is unknown and is in need of investigation . Two sites are considered to be gone, or substantially modified by adjacent residential development (Vernal Pool section of Laurel Hill Ridge and Vernal Pool [M13 ] and Currie Hill [N07 ] . The irreversible loss of these areas provide sorry testimony to the inability of the current " planning " process to provide for protection of documented biologically significant sites . The remaining six sites are believed to be intact , but their status has yet to be verified . Protected Area About 5 . 3 % of the County' s land could be considered to be under some form of protection , however only 1 % is truly protected for ecosystem conservation (Table 1 /Map 1 ) . The remainder consists of land managed for multiple uses , including limited timber extraction (Table 2/Map 2) . Table 1 . Acreage in full protection in the county : Eno River State Park 1 , 897 ac . Triangle Land Conservancy 436 ac . NC Botanical Garden Fdn . 92 ac . The Nature Conservancy 10 ac . Eno River Association 17 ac . Total 2 , 452 acres In addition , 388 acres in the county are protected through conservation easements (317 acres held by the Triangle Land Conservancy, 48 acres held by the US Fish and Wildlife Service , and 23 acres by the NC Botanical Garden Foundation) . Table 2 . Acreage with some level of protection, though this may be combined with extractive uses , which are not fully compatible with protection of significant species and communities ( excludes lakes and active parklands) : Duke Forest 4 , 933 ac . Orange Co . ( Seven-Mile Creek) 160 ac . OWASA 3 , 091 ac . Town of Hillsborou h 28 ac . UNC (includes campus , Bot 2 , 585 ac . Town of Carrboro 10 ac . Garden , Mason Farm, H . Williams Town of Chapel Hill 437 ac . Total 11 , 244 acres 4 Map 1 37 Orange County Protected Lands ills ro Hi Legend 0 Protected Lands r Map 2 38 ® range County Partially Protected Lands re f Hi as t V " C a H" 0 y - Legend ® Partially Protected Lands E vironment aane nd Resource Conservation Department Beth Young Note: Specific locations of Chapel Hill and Carrboro areas not availab of-o� ao le at this time, - � J Chan,ae in acres under protection 19894999 The current protected acreage reflects important advances made in the past decade in the realm of protection, through purchases by the Triangle Land Conservancy, through conservation easements , through acquisition by Duke University, and through expansion of the Eno River State Park to include Occoneechee Mountain . However, during this same time interval , the threat to the remainder of the County' s forest has increased substantially due to residential development and suburban sprawl . We feel the County should aim for a goal of having at least 10 % of its land, or 25 , 600 acres , in some form of protected status within the next 10 years . Although an ambitious goal, the CfE feels it is reasonable and achievable if the proposed increases in state and federal funds for open space acquisition become available to supplement local government funds dedicated for this purpose . (Without an increase in state and federal funds , a goal of 10 % in 15 years would still be achievable . ) Also , it is important that the ERCD document changes in land status , in order to provide a metric of progress towards obtaining this conservation goal . State of our watersheds The watersheds of Orange County have received increasing conservation attention over the past two decades and generally have maintained or improved many aspects of water quality over this time interval . The presence of rare or uncommon freshwater mussels in many of our streams are evidence of the clean water found in these waterways . Eno River : The Eno River Association, in conjunction with the Eno River State Park, has increased the area under protection along the lower Eno River . The addition of Occoneechee Mountain to the park was a substantial gain for Eno protection . In addition, the Eno River Association is currently developing a plan for the Upper Eno . Little River : Durham County is presently developing a protection plan for the Little River Corridor in Durham County. Durham' s inventory indicates the presence of three rare freshwater mussel species in the Little River, at least one of which is a candidate for federal listing, and the presence of these species in Orange County is corroborated by data from the NC Natural Heritage Program . This is biological evidence of the fine quality of water in the Little River and testimony to the need to maintain this quality. New Hope Creek : The New Hope Corridor Master Plan has led to increased security of maintaining water quality in New Hope Creek, in large part due to the efforts of the Triangle Land Conservancy and Duke Forest . This plan could serve as a model for a plan for other river systems in the County, such as the Little River . Cane Creek, University Lake and other municipal water sources : As public water supply sources , Cane Creek and University Lake receive some protection from OWASA' s efforts . OWASA' s plans for considerable increased land acquisition for watershed protection should be 5 coordinated with conservation efforts if feasible , and acquired lands assessed from a biological standpoint . In addition, in the interest of monitoring the status of our biological resources , the biological changes that have come about as a result of Cane Creek reservoir should be assessed , relative to the 1988 inventory. Similarly, lands acquired for watershed protection by the Town of Hillsborough should be surveyed by the County, though this would not be a high priority action . Hyco Creek , Back Creek, and the Flat River : These watersheds have not received substantial attention to date , and would all benefit from biological survey. Flat River water quality was assessed in 1988 , however that of Hyco and Back Creeks should be assessed at their headwaters in Orange County. III . Goals for the Coming Year A review of the current state of biological resources in Orange County reminds us of the many assets we enjoy, but it also highlights areas in which we need more and better information in order to make informed decisions . A review aids us in prioritizing those natural areas for which we should be concerned, and points to the need for more effective conservation policy in the County. A . More and Better Information There are several valuable tools not currently in use , which would give us a better indication of the state of the environment in the county. ➢ An improved inventory of biological resources in the northern half of county, including a ground-based investigation of large forest tracts identified in LWW-II. Private lands should be included where site review is permitted . ➢ A dynamic , periodically reviewed biological inventory. ➢ A methodological approach to periodically assess change in the area of forest annually, or at least every five to ten years . This might be based on building permit information, field observations , and GIS analysis from aerial photos (to compare with 1988 photos) . The interest would be to document forest losses from building, timber extraction, and road building, to document fragmentation from road building and other causes , and also to document forest growth (changes from field to pine , pine to hardwood and other trends) . Findings could also serve as a map documenting progress toward County conservation goals . B . Increased Protection for Areas of Concern Some natural areas in the County, those with unique value or lack of accessibility, require ongoing surveillance to prevent future negative impacts . 6 41 ➢ The Little River Corridors : While the County' s proposed acquisition of the 135 - acre Newton/TCF property makes a beginning to protection of this clean water body, we would like to encourage the County to take steps to offer greater watershed protection in the Little River Basin, and to work in conjunction with Durham County as they develop a plan for the Little River . ➢ Highly ranked sites on private lands : Because County government has little direct control of these lands , there needs to be strong incentives for developers to respect and to contribute to the protection of our critical , inventoried, and important biological sites . If incentives are inadequate, the County needs to consider imposing restrictions on development, land clearing, or ecosystem disturbance on or near these sites . In addition, methods and means to acquire such sites when they become available need to be fully available to the ERCD , to permit the ability to respond to conservation opportunities in a timely fashion . C . More Effective Conservation Policy While the state of biological resources in Orange County is better than in many counties throughout the state and the nation, some adjustments in the policy arena will help these resources to maintain their integrity through the human population increase foreseen for the future . ➢ Orange County does have existing policy aimed at protecting the environment ; however, enforcement is limited and, in some cases , ineffective . A list of current policy with a side-by- side listing of available remedies would inform both county employees and citizens of what recourse we have when an area is in danger and what policies need better means of enforcement . ➢ The existing Environmental Impact Ordinance lacks the instruments to offer full protection to inventoried natural area sites . We strongly encourage amendment of this ordinance to provide for effective protection of significant biological resources . ➢ Clear- cutting and the damage it inflicts on wildlife habitats , biological diversity, water quality and quality of life is a significant problem faced throughout the county. The county' s current ability to regulate clear- cutting is limited, and the role of timber harvest in the local rural economy cannot be overlooked . However, a balance needs to be established between the rights of private property owners and the needs of the community as a whole . Finding such a balance needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, as this method of harvest both exacerbates the biological impact of forest loss from clearing for residential development and contributes to conflict between rural and suburban populations . This problem has been exacerbated in recent years , and will continue to be in the near future , as a result of the 1994 opening of a Louisiana Pacific plant in Roxboro . 7 42 ➢ Finally, there is a significant lack of coordination of protection efforts with surrounding counties . Forests , watersheds , wildlife corridors and development projects do not abruptly stop at county borders . Efforts in one location may be impeded by lack of effort in a neighboring county or vice versa. Effective protection of resources must include coordinated effort among all the affected jurisdictions . I-v . Needs and Recommended Actions to Protect Biological Diversity in Orange County : A . Highest Priority Areas for Conservation Effort . Overall , we feel the County should aim to ensure that at least 10 % of its land , or 25 , 600 acres , is in some form of designated protected status within the next 10 years . This goal is reasonable and achievable , especially if the proposed . increases in state and federal funds for open space acquisition become available to supplement local government funds dedicated for this purpose . If state and federal Rinds are not increased, a 15 -year goal would be recommended . Based on currently available information (biological . inventory, Natural Heritage data and both TLC reports) , we present the following areas as a first approximation of those highest conservation priority areas for the County, in order of importance , and subject to further review and change by the BRC and the ERCD (Table 3 ) . Primary criteria used in arriving at this list include size , composition, biological distinctness , degree of threat, and connectivity to other areas . Table 3 : Highest priority areas for conservation action in Orange County : A First Approximation L Lands surrounding Eno River State Park 2 . Occoneechee Mountain buffer 3 . Sevenmile Creek Bottoms 4 . Lands along Morgan Creek and those surrounding Mason Farm 5 . Central County Forest , Hills , and Corridor : Blackwood Mountain/Duke Forest Blackwood Division/ Meadow Flats/Bald Mountain/Pegg Hill , and connecting lands 6 . New Hope Creek Corridor, including upper section which connects to the Central County Forest , Dills , and Corridor (see # 5 , above) 7 . Chestnut Ridge 8 . River corridors : Upper Eno River, N and S forks of the Little River 9 . Forest southwest of Cedar Grove 10 . Pickard' s Mountain Justifications : 1 . Lands surrounding Eno River State Park (ERSP ) : This area is identified in LWW-I and -II as the 8 most important intact prime forest in the County, by virtue of its area, the presence of the River, the undisturbed forest within the Park, as well as numerous Natural Heritage records for regionally important species . However there is no guarantee that this area will retain this high biological value, as the State Park lands comprise less than half of the total forested area in which it is embedded . Residential development in this area is rapidly fragmenting the surrounding forest . If this cutting and building is left unchecked, it is sure to lead to degradation of the core forest area of the Park. This area needs to be designated as buffer area, and tools developed that will restrict land uses to those compatible with the aims of the Park, and protect this land as wildlife habitat. 2 . Occoneechee Mountain : The inclusion of much of Occoneechee Mountain within the ERSP has been an important step forward . However, adjacent lands remain in private hands . While private ownership may be the best, most secure solution, the County should work with landowners to assure that this most significant of the County's sites remains securely protected and buffered. 3 . Sevenmde Creek Bottoms : This inventoried bottomland forest is of regional biological significance for the species found there, and is also identified in LWW-II as a forest of high wildlife value , by virtue of its size , and forms part of the County' s designated corridor system. We recommend that the County work to acquire parcels to connect the pieces it already holds in this area, and/or that they work with landowners to negotiate conservation easements or practices to keep this site in a natural, unfragmented state . 4 . Lands along Morgan Creek and those surrounding Mason Farm: Because of the biological significance of Mason Farm and adjacent Botanical Garden Lands and the high degree of threat to their integrity, the County should take what steps it can to help keep further losses and fragmentation from occurring . Without some secure buffers , the integrity of some of the County' s most unique forests and associated vertebrate communities could be compromised . 5 . Central County Forests , Hills , and Corridor : Blackwood Mountain/Duke Forest Blackwood Division/ Meadow Flats/ Bald Mountain/ Pegg Hill, and connecting lands . From LWW-II it is evident that one of the key core forest areas of the county extends in a band through the central County, from Blackwood Mountain to Bald Mountain. Of strategic importance here is maintaining connectivity in a fragmented system of uplands and stream corridors . If connectivity to the New Hope Creek Corridor ( See #6 , below) can be maintained and/or developed, this enlarges the natural area substantially. Acquisitions or easements which help to preserve forest integrity in this region are to be fostered by the County. 6 . New Hope Creek Corridor, including the upper section which connects to the Central County Forest ( See #5 , above ) . The New Hope Creek Corridor east of NC 86, currently of relatively secure conservation status , is another key core natural area in the County. While it is generally isolated from the Blackwood-Bald Mountain core , New Hope Creek could conceivably be serving as a conduit for animal and plant movement. Anything that can be done to maintain or restore connectivity between the New Hope Creek basin and area #5 is to be encouraged. Protection of surrounding land from conflicting uses by designating it as buffer zone would enhance protection of New Hope Creek. 7 . Chestnut Ridge : This xeric forest (E01 AND EO2) is an important upland forest, comprised largely of chestnut oak . It is a relatively large tract of forest, and also is an important upland area for landscape connectivity . Due to its present status as privately-owned land, its long-term status may be insecure . Allegedly there has been some fragmentation from residential development. The extent of this fragmentation needs to be assessed, and the current biological value of the site determined . Conservation strategy would then be based on current integrity. 8 . River corridors : Eno River, N and S forks of the Little River ( See III . B above) % Conservation 9 efforts should focus on protection of the Upper Eno River basin, and along both the North and South Forks of the Little River, for water quality protection, rare species protection, and for the maintenance of wildlife corridors . 9 . Forest southwest of Cedar Grove : a large tract of forest was identified southwest of Cedar Grove by LWW4 and -II . This forest was identified from aerial photographs solely based on its size . It should be surveyed for biological importance . Its current status is not known. Conservation effort would then reflect results of such on- site survey. 1-0 . Pickard' s Mountain: While Pickard' s Mountain is now relatively secure, in environmentally responsible private hands, it remains an area of biological importance, primarily by virtue of its size and its unfragmented status . The County should be kept apprised of the status of this land and perhaps work with the landowner to encourage putting the tract, or parts of it, under conservation easement . Also , the County should work to encourage habitat connectivity between Pickard' s Mountain and Bald Mountain, through easements and/or acquisition. B . A Dynamic Biological Inventory Biological systems are dynamic entities , changing over time and shifting spatially on the landscape . What we see today is merely one point in the history of the landscape , and not a static reflection of the " Balance of Nature " . In addition, new sites are identified through increased exploration of the landscape , acquisition of new knowledge, and temporal changes in biotic communities . County protection efforts need to take this spatial and temporal dynamism into account . To keep its biological information current , Orange County needs to develop a dynamic biological inventory that builds the 1988 inventory by Sather and Hall and the two recent Landscape with Wildlife reports from TLC . This dynamic inventory will respond to changes that occur as new sites are described and as documented sites are lost through land use changes . Updating the inventory could be the joint responsibility of an Inventory Review Committee comprised of biologists and conservation workers , and the Land Resources Conservation Manager . The updated inventory could both be made available as a resource to entities working to protect natural areas within the county, and could serve as the repository for biological data gathered by these groups . NC Natural Heritage Program has indicated that funding may be available for such an update (Rich Shaw, pers . comm . ) C . Improved Inventory of Resources in Northern Orange County While the greater presence of agricultural activity, as well as the nature of the soils , makes it less likely that unusual species will be found in northern Orange County, there remains a need for greater biological exploration in the northern County. This area was not thoroughly investigated by Sather and Hall , for both biological and logistic reasons . But LWW4 and 41 have pointed to several areas of prime forest that may warrant exploration . D . Update GIS Data 10 There is a current need to update the GIS layers showing forest cover of different types , : and document changes from 1988 photos . The goal would be to assess rate of deforestation, to document increases in forest fragmentation, to note intactness of inventoried. sites , and to locate areas of increased or qualitatively changed forest cover . E . Ground-truthin � Ground- level verification of the results from aerial surveys is important ; observations on forest quality and species composition, where land is accessible , is also vital to maintaining an accurate picture of County biological resources . One way to obtain this information would be to work with local hiking groups , scout troops , , and birding and butterfly groups , under the guidance of the ERCD Land Resources Conservation Manager , F . Development of a county plan for biological resource protection and acquisition . Although Orange County has an avowed commitment to environmental protection, there does not seem to be a comprehensive plan in place to prioritize and preserve biological resources as they are identified . The following actions are recommended : 1 . Complete a Natural Areas element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2 . Refine the enclosed prioritization of natural areas that are candidates for protection using the criteria developed by the BRC for the Lands Legacy Program . 3 . Re - examine and fortify County policy tools for land protection . These include zoning (or overlay zoning) , fee - simple purchase by the county or purchase by a conservancy working with the county. Other alternatives that have been used elsewhere and could be explored are purchase of development rights , conservation easements , and independent arrangements with landowners . 4 . Compile information on existing outside funding sources for land acquisition, beyond such sources as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, and the Natural Heritage Trust Fund . Mobilizing the ERCD to have full knowledge of available outside funding sources can allow increased land protection with less direct County funding . As many of these funds are matching funds , we encourage the Board of Commissioners to allocate adequate funds for land acquisition, particularly over the next decade as land development accelerates . 5 . Allocate County funding for land acquisition . An initial step should be to define what funds are available for natural area acquisition from the Parks and Recreation Bond Funds and to make explicit which natural areas acquired with these funds would be used for recreational purposes . Another possible step could be to raise funds through a bond issue specifically earmarked for acquisition of biological resources . If voter 11 approval is solicited for this type of bond issue in the next election, a voter education . program should be launched soon to avoid rejection, particularly in northern Orange County. 6 . If the County is successful in raising funds for land acquisition, consider establishing a matching grant program to facilitate land acquisition by local conservancies and appropriate citizen groups . G - Cooperative Conservation Programs with Adjacent Counties County boundaries are often established without consideration for preserving the integrity of natural areas that happen to span county borders . As a result, an area that one county has elected to preserve may be compromised by actions on the other side of the county line . Rivers that flow without respect to political boundaries are in particular jeopardy. The following recommendations are preliminary to establishing a formal mechanism for regional environmental planning : 1 . Continue sending County representative to the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee . 2 . Authorize the Commission for the Environment to establish a liaison with citizens ' environmental planning groups in Durham, Chatham, Alamance( ? ) , and Person( ?) counties . H . More Vigorous Enforcement of County Resource Protection Ordinances Some existing County ordinances and regulations could be rendered more effective if amplified or more vigorously enforced . We make the following recommendations . 1 . Upgrade the County ' s Environmental Impact Ordinance to provide more explicit requirements for protection of the current evaluation of biologically important areas , and to specify clarified mechanisms for enforcement . 2 . Take measures to more effectively monitor activities leading to substantial soil erosion, and to enforce existing soil erosion ordinances . 3 . Increase the area required for riparian buffers , if permitted by State laws , to maximize land protection along stream corridors , which serve as important wildlife corridors . 12 Q REPORT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT The Environmental Indicators and Education (EIE) Committee of the Commission for the Environment was created to address current and emerging environmental trends and issues in the county . Of particular concern is rapid growth in the county and the need to -plan development more precisely and preserve natural and cultural resources in order to ensure a high quality of life into the future . This committee has identified several critical issues that need to be addressed as the county enters the 21s ' century . This report includes an overview of some environmental indicators., which point to significant trends now shaping the future of the county. Based on these trends , the report also outlines recommendations for action and proposes specific recommendations for the Orange County Board of Commissioners to take into consideration . State of the Environment in Orange County Recent studies by different committees for the county have resulted in findings , which taken together, reveal the effects of rapid development on county resources . • A study by the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group identified a deficit of 645 acres of parkland based on population standards . • A Report to the Shaping Orange County' s Future Task Force by the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department indicates that farmland in the County declined 76 % from 1967 to 1996 , from 183 , 263 acres to 44 , 500 acres . • The Triangle Land Conservancy has estimated that 10 % of the county' s prime hardwood forest has been lost in the past decade, due to development and clear- cutting . These changes are due in part to the county ' s population increase of 67 , 000 from 1960 - 1998 . When taken with the county' s expected population growth of another 64 , 000 from 2000 - 2030 ( an increase larger than the population of Chapel Hill today) , these alarming, declines in open space and land resources merit immediate attention . 1960 429970 1970 579707 1980 77 , 055 1990 93 , 851 2000 (proj ) 114 , 000 2010 1345400 2020 1575820 2030 178 , 740 Other data shows increases in undesirable activities . • Vehicle miles traveled has increased by 43 % between 1987 and 1997 , over and above increase in traffic due to population growth . This averages 28 miles per person per day versus 20 miles per person per day in 1987 . This figure will go up , with attendant increases in air pollution and the further development of roads and other impermeable surfaces unless aggressive steps are taken to reduce it . • Aggravating this trend is the fact that the county has very little roadway that is safe and adequate for bicycle transportation . The lack of infrastructure that would promote bicycling as a viable transportation option has contributed to the increase in vehicle miles traveled and the deterioration of air quality . Priorities If Orange County' s current development trends continue for the next thirty years , the result will be a county largely subdivided into two - acre lots and suburban developments , with little or no productive farmland and only a few fragmented parcels of habitat for the county' s unique species . The county needs to plan aggressively for- its future and guide development in a way that preserves rural character, productive farms , critical habitat , and open space . This is best done through guiding development away from : • biologically or ecologically sensitive areas., such as wetlands ; • critical habitat for the county' s unique species ; • those areas most productive for other uses., such as farming ; and • encouraging clustered development in rural villages , activity nodes , and other areas most suitable for human habitation . Such planning., which sites each use in its most appropriate area within the county, creates a richly diverse and productive landscape . Recommendations In addition to the studies mentioned above , the various committees working for the county have proposed strategies to address their particular area of concern . These groups should be encouraged to continue their work and to develop their studies into long-term policy recommendations . The BOCC should also see that the groups coordinate their planning and recommendations so that multiple solutions may be achieved within single proposals . In particular, the EIE Committee recommends that the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group coordinate with the Bicycle Task Force and the Land Resources Conservation manager to examine ways in which open space might jointly or complementarily meet the needs of recreation, bikeways and critical habitat . The EIE Committee makes the following recommendations to address the rapid growth currently being experienced by the county : 1 . Immediately adopt and implement a farmland preservation plan , through the proposed Lands Legacy program . The EIE Committee recommends implementing both Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) for maximum flexibility in acquisition methods . 2 . Update and maintain the Natural Areas Inventory as one of the county' s core tools for planning and guiding development . 3 . Develop bikeways according to the Bicycle Plan of the Bicycle Plan Task Force . 4 . Complete a report on Sustainability Indicators . 5 . Commit funds to public outreach, for educating the public on the need to plan for the county' s environmental future and for building support for the various tools and methods proposed . This would also include funding to disseminate the Sustainability Indicators report, and to maintain and expand the county' s environmental education web site as developed by this committee and to promote it to the public . This committee also recommends that the County develop a cohesive plan for the protection of open space and that the Environment and Resource Conservation Department work closely with the Planning Department to revise and enhance existing tools and implement new tools for such protection . This committee recommends the county adopt a resolution forthcoming from the Commission for the Environment regarding specific actions for the preservation of open space . 5 � Oran2e County Commission for the Environment Kris Price, Chair Roy Fortmann, Vice- Chair Alice Gordon, County Commissioners Liaison Cara Crisler William Glaze - Annette Jurgelski Loraine Kohorn Rosalinda Lidh Dan Okun Richard Pratt Lee Rafalow Mark Smith Julie Tucker ORANGE COUNTY El`IVIROI IMENT AND RESOURCE, CONSERVAT1ON DEhA.RTMENT MEMORANDUM To so Commission for the Environment From : Rich Shaw , Land Conservation Manager Date : October 3 , 2001 Re : Natural Areas Element — Draft Sections ERCD is making good progress on developing 'a Natural Areas Element to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan . Over the last several months , staff has worked on the document assisted by the CFE 's Biological Resources Committee . Attached for your consideration is a sample of some of the work in progress . Included is a draft Outline showing the different sections of the proposed document, a draft set of Goals and Objectives , and a page from the draft Action Strategy . I will review this information with you at your August 13th meeting and discuss the anticipated timetable for completion . Until then if you have any questions about the Natural Areas Element, feel free to contact me at 245 - 2591 or by email at rshaw@co . orange . nc . us . Attachment Draft Outline (841 01 ) Natural Areas Element 4 Natural Areas Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents Lists of Figures , Tables , Maps 1 . 0 Introduction [include definitions of "natural areas " and "open space '] - 2 . 0 Overview of Orange County ' s Natural Landscape [Emphasize plant and wildlife habitat using narrative and maps from existing Land Use Element ; expand and amend as needed; there will be separate Water Resources and Recreation & Parks elements .] 3 . 0 Summary of Existing Inventories and Available Knowledge 3 . 1 Inventory of Public/ Privately Owned lands in Orange County ( ERCD , 2000 ) 3 . 2 Inventory of Sites of Cultural , Historic , Recreational , Biological and Geographical Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County ( 1988 , Orange County Planning Dept . ) 3 . 3 Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats ( 1988 , TLC ) 3 . 4 Catalogue Vascular Flora of the Duke Forest , NC ( Palmer , 1990 ) 3 . 5 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan ( 1991 , Orange/ Durham/ChH111 ) 3 . 6 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment ( LESA ) Program for Farmland Evaluation ( Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board , 1992 ) 3 . 7 Catalogue of Permanent Accessions ( NC Botanical Garden , 1993 ) 3 . 8 Aquatic Inventory of Eno River State Park ( NCWRC , 1996 ) 3 . 9 A Landscape with Wildlife , Part 1 ( 1997 , Triangle Land Conservancy) 3 . 10 Rating Land in Orange County for its Wildlife Value : A Landscape with Wildlife , Part II ( 1999 , Triangle Land Conservancy) 3 . 11 Jordan Lake Natural Heritage Inventory ( 1999 , NC Nat Heritage Program ) 3 . 12 State of the Environment Report ( 2000 , Orange County CfE ) 3 . 13 A Lands Legacy Program for Orange County ( 2000 , Orange Co . ERCD ) 3 . 14 Status of Open Space 2000 ( 2000 , Triangle Land Conservancy) 3 . 15 Inventory of Breeding Birds in Orange County (Wiley/ UNC ) 3 . 16 Listings from the NC Natural Heritage Program ( NCDENR ) 4 . 0 Inventory of Orange County Natural Areas [ 1988 ] 5 . 0 Status of Orange County Natural Areas [CfE State of Env. , updates] 6 . 0 Current Protection Measures [summarize; critique; what 's missing] 6 . 1 Legal Tools 6 . 1 . 1 Zoning Ordinance , as amended 6 . 1 . 2 Subdivision Regulations , as amended 6 . 1 . 3 Environmental Impact Ordinance 6 . 1 . 4 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 6 . 1 . 5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance , as amended 6 . 1 . 6 Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance r . Draft Outline ( 8- 1 - 01 ) Natural Areas Element 6 . 2 Planning Tools 6 . 2A Land Use Element 6 . 2 . 2 Orange Co . - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning : Land Use Plan 6 . 2 . 3 The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan 6 . 2 . 4 The Master Recreation and Parks Plan 6 . 2 . 5 Lands Legacy Program 6 . 2 . 6 Shaping Orange County ' s Future 6 . 3 Technical Support Tools 6 . 3A Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County 6 . 3 . 2 An Inventory of Sites of Cultural , Historic , Recreational , Biological and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange Co . TO Goals and Objectives 8 . 0 Action Strategy [zoning, sub regs . , education, land acquisition , New Hope Creek master plan, coordination w/ other jurisdictions/land trusts/partners, etc. ] 9 . 0 Interface with other Plan Elements [Land Use, Water, Rec. & Parks] 10 . 0 Plan Adoption , Evaluation and Review Appendices Draft Goals ( 84 - 01 ) Natural Areas Element Goals for Protection of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat Natural Environment , Biodiversity and Resource Conservation Goal One . The conservation and protection of Orange County ' s most important natural environments . Objective 1 . 1 Protect the following significant Public Interest Areas and - - - Resource Protection Areas from adverse development impacts : • Wetlands ; • Floodplains and alluvial soils ; • Steep slopes , • Water reservoir buffer land ( e . g . , lands around University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir) ; • Natural areas , and wildlife corridors and habitats , including : Sites listed in the Orange County inventory of natural areas and wildlife habitats Wildlife corridors identified in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Prime habitat for native wildlife identified in the Orange County inventory of lands rated by wildlife value ( TLC , 1999 ) ; • Biologically significant aquatic habitat • Publicly owned parkland ( e . g . , Eno River State Park) ; • Research oriented lands ( e . g . , Duke Forest) ; and • Privately owned lands protected by conservation easements . Objective 1 . 2 Restrict or prohibit uses in flood hazard areas that are dangerous to health , safety and property due to flood heights or velocities . Protect the function of the floodway to provide passage for 100 - year floods without increasing flood levels upstream and downstream . Goal Two . The conservation of native biological diversity , natural resources , and open space in Orange County in such a way that assures the long -term viability of indigenous animal and plant populations . Objective 2 . 1 Protect enough mature forest and connections between larger forest tracts to allow for the maintenance of native wildlife populations and the functional relationships among wildlife , habitat and nutrient cycles . Page 1 of 3 Draft Goals (841 01 ) Natural Areas Element Objective 2 . 2 Encourage land uses that minimize fragmentation of natural areas and wildlife habitat , and discourage land uses that lead to increased fragmentation . Objective 2 . 3 Protect Orange County ' s aquatic habitat for its rare aquatic species . Objective 2 . 4 Assure that at least 10 percent of the County ' s land area ( or 25 , 600 acres ) is in some form of protected status by 2010 . Objective 2 . 5 Maintain and protect land that contains valuable productive resources , such as prime farmland , managed forest areas and potential reservoir sites , by directing incompatible development away from these areas . Objective 2 . 6 Encourage forest management practices that minimize disturbance and fragmentation of intact hardwood forests . Objective 2 . 7 Encourage long - term productivity of farm and forest lands through best land - use management practices . Growth Management Goal Three : The management of growth so that it is directed to areas where growth is desirable and can be accommodated without compromising goals for protecting natural diversity in Orange County . Objective 3 . 1 Use the following criteria to designate the most appropriate location for the various Land Use Plan Categories : natural environment constraints ( land slope , hydrology , flora and fauna , soil conditions ) ; availability of public services and utilities , transportation system access and capacity ; impact on energy resources ; existing land uses ; presence of productive agricultural or forested land ; appropriate population densities ; and the presence of unique natural , historic or cultural features . Objective 3 . 2 Direct intensive land uses to existing urban areas and away from natural areas , agricultural and forest lands , water supply watersheds , water quality critical areas and stream corridors . Objective 3 . 3 In the rural landscape , rather than low - density rural sprawl , encourage small nodes of high - density development in conjunction with dedicated natural areas and open space surrounding these nodes . Page 2 of 3 Draft Goals (84 - 01 ) Natural Areas Element Objective 3 . 4 Designate an urban growth boundary around Chapel Hill , Carrboro , Hillsborough , Mebane and Durham (within Orange County) , and direct intensive land uses to those areas . Goal Four : Residential development that has easily accessible natural habitat scattered throughout , where children and other residents can explore and play , and which generally enhances opportunities for people to connect with Orange - - - - County ' s native biological richness . [ or, Residential development that maintains residents ' access to natural , undeveloped land and open space . ] Objective 4 . 1 Require proposed major subdivisions to plan for every residential unit to be within one quarter mile of natural , undeveloped land and open space . Objective 4 . 2 Promote residential developments that cluster houses and dedicate large areas of undisturbed land for residents and wildlife to enjoy . Where feasible , these areas should be located would preferably be contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land belonging to neighboring developments . Goal Five : The maximum availability and use of open space , natural environments , recreational land , and facilities to serve citizens at both the County-wide and community level . Objective 5 . 1 Locate parks and recreational facilities close to residential areas to encourage informal interaction with nature , to create islands of habitat within the heavily populated areas , and to reduce long trips for recreational purposes . Objective 5 . 2 Encourage the design of existing public and institutional buildings , and the plantings of grounds around them , for wildlife habitat , informal nature education , and passive recreation in nature as well as for their primary uses . Minimize clearing of land , cutting of trees , and planting of high - maintenance lawns , and encourage planting native plant species . Objective 5 . 3 Require developers to provide for adequate open space suitable for [wildlife and ] recreation in residential developments . Objective 5 . 4 Identify public lands that serve as sensitive natural environments and manage them primarily to protect their significant natural features . Examples include the county ' s identified natural areas , wildlife habitat , riparian areas , and watershed critical areas . Page 3 of 3 58 Q Q Q Q b A u : bA U bn bA bq U ,� bA bq w A, . G c a o u u u PU4 U wwa w ww ww 00 bA bA bA • ".� :�: v� 'b F ., cd 0 "MEN(M d ul>> r, vim. s "d � a• a bA cr' ~ O CA �O c~~d �? 6r .. v cd d] .d y >< 4� O Q+ 'dam+ O + �, ctS O cd y cd a, � ip 0 604 � p Z A A.4.4 0 ° bA '� -d 64 o El � o .` �' a 0 cz Z o o 'd pa 'b oo 0 0 a, M � 4 towl O ^' b cd N 6r O ccS U bA .d p ° U-4 Cl � p .� o o r 3 +� � 3 a o .o ° o i � o � v O o 0 cad � � � O ( ' � � o a, � ° � 'd � � • ° ° bA >co ° a>i pc� U b v 3 a. vas ° ,� o a ,� � 5 m aQi -d x 0 o ° �; 64 .a + cd b t . .C� cd N 6y ~ .� c cz Z O � bA 4� • A U '> p . cd u 0 O Cd w" o c o CA) cn 0 64 � ~ > o a) ~ � � ol O � ° � c W > czcn Sop cz 44 a) En a -d :�' E�- 0b °o � � ZO o 0 w v, Z w C' a) u b i a, > ao C7 � ¢� -d Proposed Scope of Work and Budget For Cost of Community Services Study And Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis In Triangle J Council of Governments Region 1 .) Project Summary American Farmland Trust (AFT ) and Agricultural and Community Development Services , Inc . (ACDS ) will conduct Cost of Community Services Studies and Agricultural Economic Impact Analyses in the Triangle J Council of Governments ' (TJCOG) six- county region . The studies and analyses will be conducted in one , several or all of the six counties , at the recommendation of the TJCOG . The project will illustrate the economic and fiscal benefits of protecting farmland in the region . The project is intended to : • Inform and generate public support for farmland protection . • ity dialogue about planning for a strong agricultural Improve commun industry . • Assist the TJCOG Agricultural Working Group in writing the land use strategy being developed as part of the Triangle Regional Principles Project . • Assist the Governor ' s Smart Growth Task Force in making recommendations to the North Carolina Legislature . 2 .) Project Partners and Responsibilities AFT is a private, nonprofit organization founded in 1980 to protect our nation ' s farmland. AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment . AFT does research, education , land demonstration projects and policy development . AFT will be responsible for conducting the . COCS study ( ies ) , as well as overseeing the preparation of the final report and the public relations and outreach campaigns . AFT has conducted more than 20 COCS studies at the county and township level and reviewed or provided advise for several dozen others . Staff from AFT ' s Farmland Advisory Services office in Massachusetts will manage and coordinate all aspects of the COCS study ( ies ) , as well as the entire project , depending on the project scope agreed upon with the project committee . Staff from the Washington , D. C . national office and Southeast office (to open in the fall of 2000 ) will assist with the public relations and outreach campaigns . firm providing agricultural marketing and economic ACDS is a specialized consulting development services to private , public , and not - for- profit clients nationwide . ACDS «' ill 1 be responsible for conducting the agricultural economic impact analysis ( es ) . ACDS utilizes a network of specialists within agriculture , economics , rural development , • :moranagement , public policy , banking , business development , and related disciplines to provide an uncompromised level of service . This blend of professional talent and extensive experience allows ACDS to research , develop , administer, and manage agricultural and rural development projects within the following areas : agricultural economic development , regional/industrial economic studies , business development programs , strategic planning , marketing initiatives , market research , incentive programs , public relations and marketing , regional and product identity and financial assistance . Staff from ACDS ' Maryland and California offices will be on the project team . ' See appendix for additional information about the project partners . 3 . ) Cost of Community Services Study Purpose AFT developed the COCS methodology to analyze demands on public services by assessing the financial contribution made by all land uses , including farmland and open space . The main purpose of these studies is to give communities a better understanding of the costs of development and the effect of different land uses on the tax base . They also can be used to analyze the impact of differential or current use tax assessment for privately owned productive open lands . COCS studies provide a snapshot in time of current revenues and expenditures on a land use basis measured by demand for services . They do not predict the impact of future , decisions but provide local leaders the benefit of hindsight to see what the effect of current development patterns has been . Unlike typical fiscal impact studies , they evaluate farm , forest, and open land uses on equal ground with development . They do not judge the intrinsic value of one land use over another. They can be used in conjunction with gies to give communities complete information on the fiscal value predictive methodolo of different land uses to aid in planning decisions . A 1999 study by AFT and the Southern New England Forest Consortium found that COCS findings are changing public perceptions about farmland . The vast majority of communities and organizations surveyed ( 81 percent) have used the results from COOS studies as an educational tool for citizens and government officials and to raise public awareness about land conservation . COCS studies have been effective , too . Sixty- five percent said that the study contributed to a shift of awareness or public opinion in regards to farmland , forestland and open space . Methodology AFT will manage each COCS study ( ies ) on a case study basis from start to finish and will cess . Tasks will include : consult with the project sponsors throughout the pro ICA • Meeting with the COCS prof ect committee (made up of representatives from local agencies and organizations ) to explain the study , define land use categories , and • ~ discuss the most efficient ways to collect data, given the local tax and governmental structure . • Corning to the region to collect data and interview local officials and department managers . • Organizing the data on a computer spreadsheet . - • Analyzing and checking the data for consistency . - • Calculating the final land use ratios . Presentation of Findin_2s When the research is completed , a brief summary report of the findings (usually 3 - 5 pages per community or county plus data tables ) could be produced and followed up with a presentation of the findings to the COCS project committee . Another option, chosen by most communities , is for AFT to write and produce a full report and make a public presentation of findings . The full report would include graphics , photographs and a color cover. AFT staff would write and design the report ( approximately 30 -40 pages ) . The full report would include . • Background on the study region . • A summary of current land use and agricultural issues . • An explanation of the COCS methodology . • Findings . • An in - depth discussion of what the results mean and how they can be used , given the context of local planning and land use issues . The full reports have been extremely useful in other communiti es es as an outreach tool to get the word out about the results of the study . In addition to the study and report , AFT could assist with public relations and outreach events to ensure that the general public receives and understands your COCS message . AFT could work with you from the outset of the project to design a communications plan which could include some or all of the following : • Press releases in local newspapers . • Press conferences . • Sneakers at local events . • Coverage in TV and/ or radio programs . • Brochures . This option has been very useful in helping communities share study results with a broad community base , as well as to help support local political initiatives . NOTE : The project partners recommend combining the information from the COCS study ( ies ) and Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis ( es ) into one final report , as well as presenting the information together to the media during the outreach campaign . 3 4 . ) Agricultural Economic Impact Analysis Purpose Agriculture in the TJCOG region is undergoing enormous change . This change is being driven by many factors , including depressed commodity markets , environmental factors such as drought , changing agricultural market structures, increasing government regulation , labor shortages , competing/conflicting land uses , and increasing land values . These factors affect farmers and their support industries as well as the communities in which they exist . Many communities in the Southeast have chosen to study and seek solutions to problems within the agricultural community on an issue by issue basis , beginning with farmland preservation . These studies fail to generate a comprehensive understanding of local and regional agricultural economic health, and frequently miss opportunities to preserve agriculture through profitability and the - enhancement of economic health . In other words , they fail to turn the challenges of agriculture into opportunities for growth , advancement and economic stability . By engaging in the proposed agricultural economic impact study ( ies ) , the TJCOG region will be strategically positioned to capitalize on its absolute and relative strengths in agriculture and related industries . The benefits of this approach will accrue not only to the region ' s farms and agribusinesses , but to the overall community as well . Methodology The analysis will include two components : a market analysis and a SWOT analysis . They are described below : Market Analysis : Empirical data from available county , state , and federal sources , including the U . S . Census of Agriculture , United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports ( Market order reports ) , North Carolina Department of Agriculture markets reports , U . S . Economic Census , Regional Economic Information System , and County Business patterns will be used to classify and assess agricultural and related industry segments of the economy . Where applicable , ACDS will develop trend line information over a twenty- five year time frame . In addition , ACDS will utilize the IMPLAN model (Input- Output Analysis ) to benchmark the agricultural sector against other industry segments in the local economy . LMPLAN will also yield output , employment , and value - added multipliers for the county ( ies ) allowing ACDS to estimate the economy-wide impact of agriculture and related industries . Anecdotal information gathered from interviews with agricultural industry leaders will be used to supplement this analysis and provide a basis for predicting trends within individual industry segments . ACDS will work with state and local economic developers , the IDA , the Chamber of Commerce , Soil Conservation District , and others 4 9 to identify critical contacts within agriculture , service industries , and processing . A media search for relevant , industry related information will serve to supplement this 'information . SWOT Analysis : Using standard tools of marketing and competitive analysis , ACDS will assess the overall strengths , weaknesses , opportunities , and threats ( SWOT ) of the county ( ies ) agriculture vis - a - vis regional , national , and international market dynamics . This analysis will independently address important industry sectors such as tobacco , = - livestock , tree fruit , and small grains as well as niche opportunities such as agricultural tourism , and alternative crops . Presentation of Findings ACDS will provide TJCOG a final report package that consists of three bound copies and a complete electronic file of the final report . It can be incorporated with the COCS report , if the client so chooses . The final report will be written for a non . technical audience of industry representatives , policy makers , and the general public . The report will include the following components . • Executive Summary • Background Information • Study Methodology • Research Findings and Analysis ( statement of current conditions , statement of economic . impact , segment analysis and SWOT analysis ) • Action strategies/recommendations • Appendices Furthermore , ACDS commits itself to make a public presentation of the research findings . The presentation is estimated to be 1 . 5 hours in duration and will be held at a mutually convenient date and time to be determined . 5 5 . ) Estimated Budget " '*Following is an estimated budget for the project . It is important to note that these numbers will be finalized when the client ( s ) and project partners have finalized the specific details of the project ( e . g . , number of reports to print , quality of report design , number of public presentations to do as part of the outreach component and extent of public relations responsibilities to be handled by project partners ) . Cost for One Cost Per Cost for County County for Six Additional Counties Counties COCS Study $ 14 , 000 $ 6 , 000 - $ 502000 $ 9 , 000 Agricultural $ 12 , 000 $ 121000 $ 40 , 000 Industry Economic Analysis Design/Printing $ 85000 $ 1 , 000 $ 1 AO of Final Report Public Relations $ 4 , 000 $ 25000 $ 142000 and Outreach Project Total * * $ 38 , 000 $ 213000 - $ 1179000 $ 24 , 000 * Due to economies of scale , the cost per county for COCS decreases as the number of counties done at once increases . * * Assumes all options are selected ( e . g . , design and public relations ) 6 T; , • - _• . : . rl.. q. . l .. yr r- .ar;t' �; 'y wT•w. J. l i. i i... Lrr•; .!'<a S \ 4. r. tr. -z:k A ' p �'��' to• � iw-t F2{'S'v , 1". r` '. -a It:lw :,:•• a Y �T+ r , .�} ' t < � ;y�� •z- rr� : : . .+4 ' }iyR"'S'+ ar;�O i' -•��w,� .t r•1 -t• 'l{' i'- a,{ r �ii M<' M`'<�f+r. + jP. ' ' jfi'-ftI V. r �� low or I dp7obsa - ♦ . IwIli; ' 90ta �,`¢ i �riiyJy;�i �'i YC `✓ din tii `` la Iy . �• •allr'Sr •w;.•. r,µ.J' `{J Yrrj♦ .'{y/�:•,p ,r t rr r) Fa': J 1h + � � aG, y aera['♦Z• �r. t`\ ll u illei ry L �.i3"ti•1jar•..%, +� 4 :<, } •: L .. ax .rL•,. d••r^j' +:4s for •ra.• •y' �'l.0 r',ry:4 '�S s• +rT r}• bl- ei- +i .1:K;`it;' r✓a� 7 ' 'r _. �.A rt , . . '•i' v . .. a . �.� . i, . it Of dry: : �i!: 'r, .►.t;�.�d Ar .;r .h:v ' ♦ Tic J w •':•j� . .r,r - 7. .n;, r r ,n of 14 Fa J �+r . + 4.6 •n IV IIA PT ', 3 '•� • ow '3 J ' .:_ __r, . <'00 ..i8 t!'• .%$ a- �' T j6 ti•CYn;c.< �l;. ,Nei• .,,• , .�: •.: ^• =r•` .4. . IV . ." _ .:41.;�• tOLL ..•:r.,_ t. 'f'►% ,: I '�i<2 �;ice• -! • Y;t �,' f 11.•.f ` i 'r .J+�•s 1 s f- F. ir• ...�t••J• 'L r •rw•r„• .l' _1' .yV •L. •:•N( �10 osy < • e ^es ,I _ 1S' J a �j� : �Yr 'tol Air ::ff?j.: aalx':�;.: rF:t1.•k �• e �n"1�-'�3 1. �. - r W .r. :~ F, •�-1al . k' i�.Vpo � �. }popSc IC',tr• :•RIP °`ram"• ' .} !''Q r' t1.^•F..v>.CX-^•�: i., . s , r v . - r ';. n y ; l .' s ,�;;Yi•�,;, .r a ♦r ►i ii r •+ . a. r �+ ti :ay., , gyCISISVI �-Yc-' � '%of .Y.e.-s dai w %.L.r, �:�,,+'�: ,r4 zgaF<;, •♦ ♦ is. II ry~f blow ! -�/low� � 1(• IF ,•, '%N� ±i.tSi.f11a• yam• •• or IV IV, -!r ..� Y: "'.+- IC,�1 ; ��"Prti. �'Li,•'' =�Y. s 'S��;i;,�.:.�:•�. �rvt?r �4 .VIP lobby `tia,� • vt of I If :a'IZ . ��+ . loph`` v.��(�l . . s i::4: ae?i^ 1 tr i:a♦y' F• • , °., ' if oft .- 'la . ••~ 4'•ZC +1% 4 .' A r- I►.:,j• G r -Q..cti< �:. _ i' r ?a:i' • , i.�r ol' y ."'.' rZ'a1• i• �'^tem 'K �s. `�• ` Is "♦ •Y K.<^' e,• R� ; <va• a r ,�s- y� �r• S;fip .: T V. it. l&% r: der ' 'L.sn Y a 'il �.�F .'�Y i Kjop`s"!r'f ' r'i' 1 4IF r• a ' 66 Y • i3!,}^` : .�. ,�. .al wt' : t4 t . ty - Z Cb<. �.i• �i ' p. qIF :wr_{rIN, !.IV , , .' Ty -'• a� uT .'t I , ' - •3i]^�r�<Tl y.•'- !rF"y�'�'c�r •a � j %0 RC Zri•'` ( f i i/- I•I, s �� .�'.' > jlr * .;v p �t�•1.. ,ram y .� . �low IV ,co %s , . ' - �s+ to, •:�llow,'y �.��'� �,4 .�;.i;:� s "-�• :�!101 b of r •7 :'=^vy '1'..4AMrmllo I.. �•%�'jl2_if:44 : � ' mof-oa FL�r v - y}'' f `i.-J,41�ik• •1�•ys� �� (�' 'ry1n'• v ,,,y, Ky.. r - • 'f it ''- low TV. n (.. ar X,r'��h.S�f 7 ♦ w. y.+. µy. r`-.,a�:1�,a+ .=i7ft�.�jc� rt ♦ .: �i • •� �Ior " . 0 All � �. : 1•�•.d4o'a, ♦ Y c rJ : .. t A_ Tf% ` t ' doll ♦ �1+i�+• t ... qG" e. •x • -. ,'co �t.0. 1: r IrJ_� ysi'L-Wivv 514 z v r ' ' � 2 ate - k�r )1 � - w .,c::.'.:j'{,,`' c i�"• ' X, :+(••.• - •' bit .YW' G 'S' • - e+F�. . •_?" '�Li;:y=.:- t. `. S e +res .ate? 'far •.. . y a �: � " y�. - '. y. Yw'fCF',y ' 3 , 1 • .:• y'•2•i ^�. ,.'� ' � '.'a. �- .?;(�• L.,, f • '� .n•1•t...:a_c• • t.':L�:-+` df-`'�- A riR: .cE �£'. a�'� x. �t �— � i• . '�,.. .i +i• • v r • . r�•+�' ..r 'wi3Y: >'a!`•'�`":' ♦� i. ar .} _ ,rr'Cp: r . t .:%e_- ��vr;F .i :;A, 77,E .a, v .-3. :•o .�'ti o! 2 if. iRi•:' .r •' �. t•,t. '`�•t�_.;'t s L R.k. .�W' r_ � yl,,-�,'.'j�.r` tky ±. jr; '<'•,L;.lar: 1 �+ r ,:� pp / i t � .� ..i. ' -� S f ' `•1�Z• 4 'ly.• • i�: :7!. • : ' fit . y -) -j♦ 'V'"rR\!p' /• '• L.Y' � ' +' t i.:. rye•+ `. .j . 11 ii. �..r i••5.•r } •.x�y S;y�Ct ah . ''.i.• •�:rj.+"5 �M a • t j � ' sr�+y :, = a .'i`: !'.','.z^.. i < } ' .wr ''.IVY, f� �'. --R ,.�i1. .Ly'.o •a'- '-• •'` iS` . ,al.•1'1'+:lr r + - a I IV ft Itior i- .r•n � < tip . boommol ill •,t 'r• :�•1It lVV, . 1ai��• :for 4 `w': l 6 ti .rr . : •S.' :4.'.' } . ,i. w•T./NS{tiz�i-4 y • � � h. . 7r : a 2`+�, _ '�• r f L . ,t'a'7.yy,�y{•r♦.Ynof ya . r' �Zi : . Wor- i,�, x. r . �.� c -_ 4r �� ,rSt' s�s i - r Y _ •,rRR. M , - _ • �' ~ _ _ : ..- AIR "4V. v'rc .�' i It k , t. � •,•A_ - _ -'ir-ate., 49 K , 'y ;, y� JVI �• `i , `wr S , _ - _ :'`"! • ; ` '� ' 'ay'�nr'•-••"`1` r " c .Wep ­IL � „ s _miliNisig .L 'fir .,�.. .'r�E" r ' r� . -.k.t ;� ` ( - lF� .-. � "� ro ' _ •,, <t •r" -• . Y^ v : . .ram. ti• t �'; • IVa � lop • *y:.'a 'a tares ' WI y r VAR ra I IV 6 Now low 10 OR to to top r•• .ter !to • ,- f.. ,Y ' '+,° �G. . * �+ _ PoLlow so It for IL Ir pop 0111111. wow - �.,.��f• s_ of All w1bOFt F will . 1Y:'.K^'+P!'wrir:".iw,., IV I ow ��� •'/r. !—�to 41 • '` r . = :.t:..^�Sto Vo­ { " ► ` .�i. of. I Vw_V blow r �f i _ a< : 1;::, YgY ;' 1 rpool a = volt ., ' w It yV:jI %;y. lb-foru c _; lot j let off rCTrti( � •� Toft ..' ' 'r•••t wihrt�:^+4a,�,,,,,��� ( r • ow, Ilia R Lim ;;mffj .Fk No V or 4r 1 mk�1vgpwo trrc :..� ` ; 4 f` '"` yB+ it . i . Xt for iw7. Sw W Kwa Poll No N� - woov4 , .� r 'R,. , i^�blow fe• ••frq� �1'�'p`N' mac,..; �v S•rfS '+•. -` . j +`Y . eloworms• . �i• ~ � . '• 'S. - E. • 1, . t r •e„� ..�'Y 4 w ' ,eitw- ••� ^� �a-�•V'x. >, rye+'__ r 1 - 1 - . c r S ] !• ''' 4VII off; a�`� 0 or �"��•' .ryA6 . .M -r ; ' 1� ._ 1. air L� i�•r` �.�..� •� '. . � _ "�� `La. � rof '�,�. r � . !jr�+,+• 'r`' 3..i _S,'r,)4t tily` '•r aY•t .a � , ., • . •,r►• IV .h . • AI - to ' rY i.. ! 'r ^y3:7.1. \-.s,-.-. a,,..'f'•-*}�: I': f�OItI .^Y' _ _ �(� f • 1- . i:# a - . - •'1IV I . J ,r mot..-, . r" . y 1 t i s: . 'I a Z „� r - - �. -y.. .. s 1 ' 7 . i W I 'Rook of it* ftw Vo to I 1 a r I ' 'r v to , ` f Of IV to 14 Issow Will be < If _ :, , t •- ,e.r. - flow7i ill µ , ' , ob .i It t It � y� gAb14VIn ImFir ' .16 oft IV yew ' it for �''�j� I� '� '! ,'�'�- < • � ; • 44 IF ftPow G my bill If al -tom � rF�• '16i 4 '. t-�:• ,4r: a L.-Ey, 00 �"'�t'y-j..• r T i• r� , . ea . . ; • Alo Go low algo Via 8 so lo al For la''I T�1 14 oa .SStIn �' it I ` � t • 1f y •�rr, r .• ' 1 �t :Go �p Pa�.. 5. 5�..`, • y-. �M ai all ' ; : -:. s :J.!..}-::�•�,lr"�a3ar.,!y�lJ..i-{• �,.,,fir!'• • •. ° r ' s 'rl :•.: rw •X. 1, . J '�' : _. 1' 'r ' '' �• a:4^4%i ..• y�, . . ,. . . .� ti' • f . f r • ih { . . . t � I .. S � , ::- 'e _F . 1_ ,i r •"ham ' " ~ IN ' 'zC:iw.k^"1: " i' ': ' i?.("t,`-{���, •; �r�L} `::',1 :r � + ' ,ji.' • 10 s `4 .R' ylc'f`.al� ; �;�•IY• � ,i'f; :)y. . . rc'T .', ,r; , r"T,�N' ,.• . _ �'� �` of r- • Z'LI{.-iiG�+-j- M�z t'I is -ra•• �S(�j•GI .-n' 'Y . •*. -,ir •" .!•`„' i' r .f, ; . _ '•y-Y.ic T Y�t-'•i C"?'r^r, 1 ' t ' a'hrc n A • • -i1 �+~�i'�'' Y��j*, N Go � 1%, fF1' .+"'_'`J•!c,:.�f:?''j'p t,t 4. A . V Pt n ••%k''.Jrr'4 If o,t•"��!r� ... - 'i.43-/• 2 (, 4"`�[4 -t"►' �t . . • '+• F� li p'= -•'� 1 �� ''t. +pl w• •r r. • . * -. (�y ,Q ,o - _. .r, O or .. i[�` •� • {•rM., .•li_ ' •4A ,• .'1. �5 A'� i . JF L~r ! ✓�•` 'Y -•. . • tr• ve; jEG t • SS�S ry '.Y"��,fi '3 tv� j�'+I • Y• t r '' • 'yi 'w +, ,.• 1 .Sl• :.:.,- 4 t 1 'J ar 1 t r y .r °;ti rV S' '' r ' n 'tj^�!i:�':r r ` t vf. .?• s * IF •� Y „Ki ' I< >r^.y.�: . i i r,. .Y . •�. y. - �i; ' - ; 7.�11r:i'3'!l,•.'•`.` "' 'lM .}l.t` 'r 3F 'is'7>K ;:.:f I 1 f 1 : Fr-1►y'i ( 1 1 11 1 i1•. r' .D f:•:"�j.,la �•*,�i . rr 'r�. e, w•, '• � � ... - .. ~ . '�• `Y;, ,. �T _L'ii1,:�"`!� _ �r 1i •� t � �1vX rosT #(iii'y"'I+.i`t r �.r_• : . :. _ 1vlq, t1• �, -, {� L; s yt ,aft ` •_ t . .•�.y�•b •� r la:2 ' .i: �'1••! +•r .. •• . . E , ..i ' • I • , w'A), 1.• oememi -F: •t•• } • -; Iva leek 0 Iva a y L ♦ ••, _ r, , • �iy,�'.r�• _ .IJ- 1r -�i ?!�`• •iG •1•' ° r. �•_ '. lf. . r r1 1 vY� 1 1 ►:1 ; Ly t � ; ,:�1� . .'�' 'etk ♦�+�lkti 7:.;� y � '' c _ SSL. `J1� " ., _ s � " �" 'din - - : =.{r„ ,, s;, ll �_�•r,. - .: ! ]r } ' ';. . > r r>. l� =#.. . S - - ; ear Yy . ^ `, 3 • Ye : •"ii4. ., !. ^' 3�iiyi•'�y-.a .•,. �. . _ j F Ott ' • 'C- +�� j• i( ii•� L,� •�-0,R-. k'.��.A� < '-, . i 1 1 . :; - • - ._ Rs • - -•.}�� .y-�rYt`, , * lr : :�^. ►�+� •'- �. , • ,�4j1 '' ,�I�,t'.''` ' r ' VME al all Ilia f Ir, .�, P !� �- GO n Italia away 111111"Ittt p _ y- •t a'A•;,'7+, 5 III .r• •.w .�'` ,. ' ` .. .• . . �4 j — Me ME dbft� .. `' 1 s'�"l•'• r I - . ` 'i ,�w ), =�'^Mv' r .c�. t'L%` Y"�•. ..•y110a go A Goal i Y•w', . . � . — Impost, la ME Mae , 0 Gap _ 1 1 ` ~ / �".• .J---,b�-.r. nr- ,• �_ .. -.' -.:... `. . , .fit *r ..s: - _ . _ . . •-R... •c`~ . �� 'V •± � i _ - -r- � •,+. :• _ ;. Y.•r- At • • Val - Ne+lli►M�r•�it�x"1r1Gi"R '° " f~{#tC .�' j � ., ... �:,s 1to 0 •' '�' Iat MGM ' °In. _ _ - r':- '•{•�p •1y `LYE .>. .. ,- ' - �yy •. r • • ' , -' {�w�f•+!'.� � - +� r,;, �.►ti�y r _ �._ y� 4 � . ryS'ilXe 1 •-vi": . .�/� . . . , . . x: - me # Val, r : ` ` i,`t" i• SA .~ri •' 16 Goal all 00 y l,:s �''y..iI•K��-.�1•.' fa t3'�l1_-{2. •.�- , ,{ _-r'-I - s Y '.�%• tuaS t •t'A'.Tur'� "��.�4',t_t `1��=�• . < ' • • ...• +: 1i` Y;�.•�.�1 � " " .. : ' MY•PA�^ •l,-xtid'4 . >C..•4;"y111Y 1.h;ma x • Rr. 117 .y7 m: .�,t•1.t: ` V . , a ] . '] : , Sales ? • = � (. . :lll��E. tiyTl.� �• r'.{ -•,Jet • A >�%i ea=d- 1'•.,.ter'-•1''' mar „ •C�'.TiC t . . `• t y�. L. % t fir• .t. .r. ''- �'•��^,�.•F14�• + '�'rk lY✓-;f" 6 • - _ - • YEtaj' . .,: rt nT':•a ,. (a+�. [.. ti ' l�'t^:Yr!F :i�"�f . .+v^ ' . AsaL.{ fVella, r .j . low r . r 41,Y1 ,- ,W ' h $ `? it J • ; „ 1 1 • 1 •..ti ,f,,: y y?• .. •• -.: r''((�b '_..,,.alia�^� _ s7 �.� ry s^3��1�` 't. r ra 7r" ` R • r.'rc � -' • coo 4=•::! -s-T ^N�~F'J, `'• ;+F •. y i �r r. N ' too 1 :+s, .% rn 1 t I f ; r� arr3c{ y�ta +t�v + r tom ; t por 4. • ,.,fi��x tt _ c . •.-• s - •��`T`�i �:},j�1� ( F:�� �,1 I �.7 �;��: y,:�` ��+} -ram � Y=� = r. `�' .r mot. ` rp o. I — s +X"r:.::;`".Y..`a�G. o'V�l lower tiir,4 ' .3•-at ,1,,'r/%Sy =''4`•�,e t ,'qa K�•`":i +,�'+f''iy+^r: ME Get at Idplo I � '"I. r'C Go +1.. .. •W 9 ME�V . to 1 •/�xtj ,�{r• ` Ivl�l I t 'Tye" r�•1•!r. �,.�,1+'Tj '-': ,.[" _• '�'�..e.•�-ay- . '"�'T� .•- 7 • �� � • .��. pya�¢ w-7� rjy�r`.r.. iW . Ift WE l yci•'.-� 1w'+ wt -,rJ 1, X 'l: s+ 'r r4=�,•, i . �•'!'`t Nmamoor*q& It na GEE. or Pa 'fr';. }.5' � rTt-. . �174•�?e'�7�$rr', •..•;S.�;rrl .k.,-•tf.: , ;.%x•' ',(' � . ., �„'. ` ► •_M' i �r atl +r:*+retizT� yw v-e +�U.� 4` �Y``re• '3ti� r• y '��j�„r„ {�• yy,vr ^. I•' T t. •( �/ Y .yaw� , C '(.,'L � ' y,R A1.lr ^• '" • ' ••/•,••y •. if •Y ufa.i +`4r l •yy•���Y���Y`(R.+n'�: f, _.':� :�.. . y^":�.• ti}•cW 1.� VJwl-�w�Mv! J .HIu '� L� 1 V J f 1 / . . '..�ti` I `�,�•t - Y• y Met L% :� ir^,r•$^it r R - 4'y �•`"yy' •' �...{ •rL' _ ;rr .1,... . •C1 rat i �,1�. ••`�t Eaff T+,^ F ►f i.f � l 1 . r•� '�' l�yI' iVr AV MGM III A, apok , • 1 Z 7L -_ _'too,a � y. F 1 Goal 4 VGA Go M ,�tiwI `�'s• r •�. - f� :aYr' ilow,✓ �•. :,�as.•"F .+x"r :% YJ'fLanZ`.'L,• •y •,'�A .r• 7 t . T .+ r 5 Lia ]�;+ -r{.�-'r'+Y i- .• 'i: o'at;.� ` J. a. yra �.h ' • i '� �' 1 n • t � 1iSf / f � 1f� ? ` / i�' : •sI II "`'.; .� �f. 41_s •.Vat s V Jar WE we ?ol .'.?V,i•:+F^�' r(y',y.+. � • 1 7 It •T.S' .-:r ''r: ir."-t� • �1 e- i• :iZ;i , 4 T� .j*j+ 1 : , liyr(R4r4 Via. yi: too ._ c �, ; h,�R .'aRT" ;r.•G ;c tray :�i's�"r +.X.1: ''"'l o �i< •.'•�, w yt •. ,lh.:j• ' _, . x�± 'r- ,, .Y-'t'• "atEp . GeV '¢,' •��'.asp ;.�•C v ��% ^ ...i .r{S� , „ t4j. • % '.`• . ..►• y, i .1 ; .. - Now n. L . _ ' r w Z . .: ` t - r W gob 6 `V :: O >? E..P111.14I. . . . F : :. :: AND . : Q:::.: :: :: :: »:: : : :: : ::: . 41 CQ . . . . . . . Y' f' :: .: 0.1 S�o .:: :: : : IC TY E� S:T.::: A� IC :. � �American Farmland Trust Spring 1993 . AL i American Farmland Trust is a private , nonprofit conservation organization founded in 1980 to protect the nation ' s agricultural resources . AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment . Its action-oriented programs include public education , technical assistance in policy development and direct farmland protection practices . Minimum annual membership is $20 . For membership information , contact the National %. Office . For information on cost of community services studies , contact the Northeastern Office . American Farmland Trust American Farmland Trust Northeastern Office National Office Herrick Mill 1920 N Street , N .W . One Short Street Suite 400 • Northampton , Mass . 01060 Washington , D . C . 20036 (413) 586=9330 (202) 659-5170 (413) 58 &9332 fax (202) 6594339 fax This handbook was funded , in part , through a contract with the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture , Division of Agricultural Development and grants from the Southern New England Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society and the Sweet Water Trust . Cover photo : Scott P . Heyl Cover design : Cleare Communications , Inc . t4 printed on recycled paper. r � � 70 5. :. : . . . . :::. . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .::.:.: : . . Tab e �`of c tens ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I1�VT1 . \ TRODUCTION . . . . . as . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rose . . . . . .. . . . . . . as . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sea 1 GETTING STARTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HOW TO DO A COOS STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 FINAL WORDS . . . seem smog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . see . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES seems see . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * so message see . . . : . . . 20 SAMPLETABLES . . . . . . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . games 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 kn :.c ld : . Do : :. I am grateful for the assistance of other Special thanks to Jennifer Blumenthal , Harrison members of American Farmland Trust ' s staff for Glavan and Juli Kois for their assistance in pulling their comments , suggestions and review of this together text and materials in the first stages of this handbook , including : Valerie Berton , Carol Fesco , project and their assistance in the Massachusetts Gary Kozel , Donna McAdam and Bob Wagner . studies upon which this handbook is based . I especially would like to thank Dr . J . Dixon Finally , I would like to express my deep Esseks of Northern Illinois University and AFT ' s appreciation to Jim Riggle , who helped smooth out Center for Agriculture in the Environment who the rough spots and give context to the cost of took time out of 'his busy schedule to make many community services technique . very helpful comments on the draft. Respectfully submitted , Julia Freedgood Spring 1993 i . 72 t &'Awl 1 :::::::: : ::;:::::;>:::::::: >:::::::>::>::>::>;::<: ::::: ::::::.:: ::::>:; :::::::::4 : ::>: :>::::: ::::::: •::; 1::: 1.111.:<:::> [RUC American Farmland Trust is a private Although a rural acre with a new house will conservation organization that works to stop the undoubtedly generate more total revenue than an loss of productive farmland and to promote farming acre of cows or corn , such simplistic arguments do practices that lead to a healthy environment . We not provide communities with a realistic bottom act on our mission through policy development , line . Especially where farming and forestry are demonstration land projects and public education to still important industries , the claims do not consider protect the best farmland for future generations and the real property tax contribution of privately to encourage good stewardship of our vital owned natural resources . While they may be lower farmland resources . However , AFT is neither a revenue generators , farm and forest lands require pro -growth nor an anti-growth organization . minimal public infrastructure and services . Our regional office in Northampton , Mass . Of these claims , AFT is most concerned about covers the Mid-Atlantic States and New England those used to oppose laws and statutes that benefit from Delaware to Maine . Although this is a highly farmland , most notably use - value or current-use urbanized region and much of our agriculture is on assessment , agricultural districts and zoning , and the urban- edge , there are also some extremely rural purchase of conservation easement programs . What areas . Three of the most common claims we hear particularly concerns us is that despite these claims , when we work at the local level are : no basis in fact exists for opposing farmland retention programs to solve fiscal problems . Use- 1 . Residential development will lower property taxes by increasing the tax base ; value assessment programs were designed to 2 . Farmland gets an unfair tax break when it is encourage landowners to keep the working assessed at its actual use for agriculture instead of landscape in production . Typically , these programs its potential use for development ; and assess farmland and forestland at the value, of their 3 . Open lands , including productive farms and current use instead of at the value of their potential forests , are interim uses awaiting conversion to use for development . their " highest and best use . " 1 Introduction It is worth mentioning that undeveloped land is AFT ' s Northeastern Office conducted its first the only category of real estate that needs a special COOS study in Hebron , Conn . , in 1986 . State and program to be taxed on the basis of its actual use . local policy-makers used it to . support farmland Tax codes do not require a mobile home t0 be protection efforts and to defend Connecticut ' s use- assessed on the theoretical value of the mansion that assessment program . In 1989 , Cornell Cooperative might be built on its site . Nor do they require a Extension and AFT co - sponsored a COCS study of general store to be taxed as a supermarket . two towns in Dutchess County , N . Y . As early as 1957 , Maryland initiated a use The Massachusetts Department of Food and value assessment program . By 1991 , all 50 states Agriculture approached AFT in 1990 to study three had adopted similar programs . Although they differ Connecticut River Valley towns . DFA chose the in specifics , these programs share broad goals , valley because it has some of the most important including : slowing the loss of farmland and farmland in the region , and unprecedented growth forestland and more equitably distributing property in the 1980s had tripled the number of building tax burdens . permits , forced property values up by 300 percent In the 1980s , AFT became concerned about and claimed 7 , 000 acres of land . Towns did not attacks on several Northeastern use- assessment have enough financial information to respond to programs . To learn if working lands contributed to developers who promised to lower taxes by the local tax base , AFT developed an inexpensive , subdividing prime farmland . Some local officials easy -to -understand way to determine a community ' s maintained that open lands were interim uses that bottom line by apportioning the direct costs of should be developed to their " highest and best use . " public services to specific land uses . We call the The three Massachusetts studies corroborated technique cost of community services studies . the pattern of earlier findings . Farm , forest, and COCS studies analyze demands on public open lands far more than paid for themselves , services by assessing the financial contribution They helped support increasing demand for made by all land uses , including farm , forest and residential services . For every dollar of revenue open lands . The studies compare annual revenues to raised from the residential sector , Massachusetts public sector expenses . Financial snapshots , they towns spent $ 1 . 12 on public services . But for do not predict the fiscal impact of future land use every dollar raised by undeveloped lands , towns decisions but do give communities a better baseline spent 33 cents , leaving 67 cents to offset other of budgetary information . expenses . 2 It B Introduction COCS studies suggest it is time to start their own COCS studies . Recently , we have appreciating farm and forest lands for their received increasing numbers , of requests from contribution to the local tax base . Their t,revenues outside the region , may be modest , but so are their demands for Because of this interest and our curiosity to see services . Across America , evidence mounts that if the same pattern exists in other parts of the communities have paid a high price for unplanned country , we have put together this handbook to help growth - - from traffic congestion and increased people conduct COCS studies themselves . Since , infrastructure needs to budgetary shortfalls and the process is based on our work in Massachusetts rising property taxes . Yet , while adding to the tax where town government is very strong , it may have base , farm and forest lands also provide wildlife to be modified in other states . (Massachusetts is habitat and protect our wetlands and floodplains . typical of New England where local budget and tax They provide tourist and recreational opportunities decisions are made by citizens at town meetings , and contribute to the quality of life of local County governments do not play large roles in town residents . Primary farm and forest industries budgets , and there are no townships . ) We also are important economically , creating jobs and recommend you use this handbook in conjunction supplying lucrative secondary markets such with , the Massachusetts report , Does Farmland as food processing and lumber milling . Common Protection Pay ? where detailed tables and text serve estimates place the multiplier effect of local as a case- study example of the process detailed agriculture at $ 3 to $ 5 . (e . g . , for every dollar here , received from farmers for selling agricultural goods Feel free to call AFT for assistance using the and services , $ 3 - $5 are earned by local businesses information on the inside cover . We would like to and processors serving farmers and their know if you do a study and would be very customers . ) interested in your results . Over the years , AFT ' s COCS studies have received tremendous attention . Many Northeastern Thank you for your interest in this subject . We communities have asked AFT for help conducting hope the handbook is user- friendly . Good luck ! 3 f :•.•:::::..:::::::::::•::::::::::::::::..:::::::.::.: 6 0 6.I... . . . . ::::.•:::.:•a 11011. ::::.1_::•::.::•::. :: :: '.:a . . .: . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . <• e taxtie. t Cost of community services studies reorganize individual fiscal periods and analyze the current financial data at the local level to show the demand contributions of various land use sectors . We often for services by different land uses . Straightforward call them snapshot studies because the findings are and inexpensive , these studies can be used by local limited in scope . If you are considering one , you decision-makers . COCS studies should not be do not need a degree in economics . But it helps to confused with traditional fiscal impact studies that be a good sleuth ! You mainly need persistence , a project the future cost of services incurred by new willingness to ask tough questions and the ability to developments . Instead , COCS studies look at use a computer spread - sheet . aaaaaXbXOX } :aaaaaaaaX4 > < < ' •�itili !eS aaaaa:: .: : • Iaa�: :;: :e: . eT11l:�:S �at#d �?eR �Il.d . . : :�vide:.a . . .urrer�t. .sna shot. .of. . z v. . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fie . . .�o .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �'r. . . . . . . . .e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . .: . . . . ld . b . . . " dndfer sma d $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . sur :sneapb . < < < :' made ::: ;El oca _ ` ; � ��ec�sions� :Instea- : �tle:�: � u . . . . . . . . . . . . ::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:::::. not .: : : ;: <: P-rediet:::tbe.:i�n� act::o�:::�uture.:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . .::.�.:a::::::.�:: .�: :.::::::::.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.::.�.�:.�:::. . . ::: :...P.::. ::.::: :.::: ::::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. :.: .::. . . :.. 1 V '::':::•:::. 10<;: : ::: : ::h�ndsr bt� «:a1 k : back:::at::a�iee�f�cts :.: 11 , ��:.: asx.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .: ..� . . :. . . .:: . . .::: . . :::.::.� . . . . . . . .: .:: 1 e � ::::the. .benefi�'.:��. . . . . . . . . . . . . :oo . . ead. .rs� . :P.: . . . . . . . . :. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::. :....::.:...�:�..:;....:....:.:.:....:..;....��...:...::.�.:._:..:.-:..B.........u....i...te....:.:...d`.....:..>..`.�..d.....-:.::. n. . . .o. . .d.:. ... -.:..�. .::.:. :. ..:.E $ne:. .. .`�.�r.:t.f: .�.c. x.� aaaaa >. . d. . Pmeetox :th:.:.:. :. eased . do .do e :: aaaaaaaaa 1000 : : aaa1a . . .model model model model model model model model model model model model model model model delta delta delta delta delta delta delta delta oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa � , : eag : e d ov n . v reue f�: e s n bo r : ry : l .: aIf It aaaaaaaaI :e <ubs > <4urset o: . .isc But :� � � nd:: :7u :.P.: 4 to r.1 1 Z,44� IF (3L IV . IF 5. ,. -4 IV � 46 Getting Started r. pill,. ; Why Do a COOS ? Before you begin , think about what you want enduring development pressure . COCS may not be to find out and why . Consider your reasons the best type of study for very rural or entirely carefully to make sure a COCS study will help urban areas . So think about what municipality to accomplish your goals . Investigate other available study : Consider how your local government is techniques . Be sure that what you want is a structured . Is town or county government stronger? snapshot of the current demand for services by land Which public bodies are responsible for what types use , not a prediction of future demand . The of services ? Since every state is different , you may following box suggests some questions to ask : need to examine villages , towns , townships , parishes or counties to get the full picture . In a 11411111 MEN very ry smallstate with limited loc al a1 government , you I IF i 1 1 n This s ma ve want to study whole state . IF e d the oe Wei ` IF . : ..:::.;:: :.:.. dd Y Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . doi ng o a h you must be clear your reasons ns ford IF I w on o e g :::::;: : YY Y W h I IF.I I I I I . I IF F :.... o, ag.d :wfiat s.: the: s..tud for...;::.;:.;;;::: ::<.: ..:;<:: IV :;:::y.. :;:...:1.... ::::: ::. . 1 . COCS Try to narrow the scope of your stud to IV ; :+;; Do: critacs: . ose' ath•reatto :a distracts < ;: an area ou can tackle thoroughly . Include al Y g Y ..IIII: zonm urchaseo easement revenues expenditures even if that .::< ::.:.:; 110 * 1 .1 IV relevant a es and e end tares DR : : ro ransorother: :Winds:'of:; <> : : <> <;: : : P financ ial data . f means assemblingvariou e of .. : .:. . . . : and. protection ro raIFIIII .ms . .:: ::. ::. ... :::: :::: :: :::>;::: ::::::: rYP For the u i ha ndbook , we have 0 purposes f this handbo + s . t ere 6cal: interest. in .:natur. al. . . . . . . . . P rP e o : : : 'esource > conseratzono <farmland >< : < > adaP ted AFT ' s Massachusetts studies for the model . IF- r : :: ' Therefore , th l0 1 unit for discussion e local u t used o c I: ::} —XI i > 5::i: `'`•>: i 5 %`2•` i government ,s town ove e t ... . . . . . . . I IV :<:: - :.:::... . .:: :. y:X-:,:-.r:,state >s: :use=assessment:::: ::::::::.I: <: : : : : > :> > : : purposes g o P :..:. ..:::.:...:..::.:...:::... :..::.:....:::.::::::..:::..::....::::. ..:. :. :::::. :... .: Once you have decided where re to focus your fin a much you an abou t the uned . . d d out s c as c e and > ::: ::< :: <: : :<� > � ; :you you affo:. :d , : <: < : Y , Y < I > I a pore o h ►sticated: stud :.. :;:: :...:.: . .: : : . IV . :;:; ;:.. :.;:.::. :;: .: : :. .. . . :: :...;;:.. .;:.:.;:.: community . Thebetter unde rstan d it the c o you tYY easier your study will be . The following box outlines some possible questions to ask : Where Will You Conduct the Study ? AFT has found COCS studies most useful in places undergoing transition , especially those 5 Getting StartedIX If >.:::: ::>::>:::: :::;::::;:: As an insider , you m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , y may receive more direct : ::::::What:> Ys> . our ;communi ke > : . assi stance a s s ce from local oca bodies die face s an personnel 1 d o d e so e an > Iow rural or suburban is � t? :: ; P less resistance stance i and di strust .. . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n other hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O the ::::::;: ::::.::::: : ::: :> 1::> :>::::::::::>:::<:: ::: : ::: :: : :.. ::: . :: <::: ; + ' ? ' at:: :� s 1S: : po .0 atio.n : , :.:::.,:.:.;:;.;:.;::.; .: ;.:: local officials may not take you or our findings as ri> > se ousl as they would those from an outside t..:�s:.. it...grow� ng I: :::»::::::1 ;; ::;::: . r iza o an tion r i o a adcn o sul I are an g P tart f you e Y :.::.Do . . . . t. . ave. . .s ecialnatural > > < > : :> » > ': got1 . i er outs d ill i you w r ce m ar e ve i i you e >;o-6.r : Y most ass stance f Y n r e do sedb a lo cal boar d or respected com munity tY + : ;Does it have resource based : industries? leader r e o r 1 group . And u ill ' n results o w gain es res s g P g the best Y > + >: : . . . . . des::::it:have 'a si : ifica t commer : i ::: > < if local official i > : c :a s are Comm tted to the study and interested i n the f d in in g s . d of zoning; s �zr place . . Therefore , no matter who you are or what your relationship is to the community , work closely with local officials . They might include members of the Ultimately , you will make decisions about the planning board , select board or the mayor ' s office . study based on why it is being conducted , the Their sponsorship is especially important when you available resources and how much the town values frame the project ' s parameters and set goals . They the information , can help you focus on what is most meaningful , determine land use categories and guide you to the Who are you9 best sources of information . Then , if you have Who you are and what your relationship is to problems , they will support your efforts to obtain the community you study may affect your initial reliable data . approach . For example , local officials may Finally , you will need one person to act as if you are a community project leader or principal investigator . That respond to you differently member working with a local board or a university person must understand all aspects of the study , and researcher who happens to be interested in their depending on the scope of the project , be able to do town . It may matter whether you are a concerned the study alone or supervise assistants , paid staff, local citizen or if you work for a non- local interns or volunteers . If the study area includes organization . Another thing that can affect your several towns , it is best to have only one person reception is whether the town requested the study . assigned to data collection in each locality . 6 diA . 7 8; Getting Started How Much Time -- and Money ? How much time does it take to do a COCS Here , expenses are determined by the number of study ? That really depends upon the complexity of pages , design features , number of copies printed your community , who does the researcil , what and method of distribution . Decide these things in financial records exist and the type of personnel advance and get printing estimates so you can available to provide data . As a benchmark , AFT budget accordingly . found the leg work in three Massachusetts studies If you use volunteers , costs will be minimal bu; required about 150 hours per town . Additional time the volunteers will have to be carefully supervised . was required for project coordination , report Most universities have a set rate for graduate preparation and design and printing for all three assistants , although you may find students who studies , want to take on the study as part of their academic A COCS budget varies according to the program . Professors and consultants charge more requirements of the study , but it should not be but add to the credibility of your findings . You will expensive . Depending on the resources you have at probably have to pay travel expenses - - you can use hand , costs can be greatly reduced . Most are the federal reimbursement rate as a guide - - and associated with travel and personnel . AFT ' s three some administrative costs . Massachusetts studies cost an average of $5 , 000 Before you begin the study , evaluate available each , including limited printings of in-house resources and your target audience . More than reports . However , a potentially significant cost is anything , answering budget questions specific to publishing a report for wide distribution . your locale will determine the eventual price tag . Mwi 7 ::.•::::.•::::.: :.:•:. ::.1::::.: ::::. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::: ::::::::: CS stuo :.... ... . , ..... .: .:, .::::.. . :. .:: :.::: .: .:.. . . :. . . . . ::. . .: :.::: ..::.:. ::.::: :. .;.. ..... :. . . . . .: ... . :: Overview A COCS study has five basic steps : meeting people , give them fair warning ! Prepare them for with local sponsors to define objectives , collecting the type of questions you plan to ask later . data , allocating revenues by land use category , Some cautionary words : Contacting officials allocating expenditures by land use demand and can be time consuming and even frustrating . While computing ratios . larger towns have employees who work . regular The most important thing the local official , hours , many small towns are run by volunteers . board or organization sponsoring your work can Paid employees may be easier to contact than their offer is an endorsement . Let them help set the volunteer counterparts and may have access to study ' s goals so the findings will be useful to them . computerized records . Be sure to respect their Once your sponsors are comfortable with your busy schedules and remember they may not be objective , your , next task is data collection . Start by prepared to answer all your questions immediately . obtaining financial reports . Among others , these In smaller towns , tracking down department heads , will include property tax summaries , applications financial officers and even the assessors can be for state aid , the annual town budget and a land use difficult , often requiring evening meetings and breakdown . Basic demographic and census early -morning phone calls . Since many small towns information are also helpful . Take a look at any do not keep records on computer , you may have to recent planning documents or maps , zoning by - go through them manually . In these cases , you may laws , open space plans , blueprints for downtown have to interview extensively to get the information revitalization and so on . As part of this process , you need . Allow plenty of time for research . you should contact key officials and town personnel Next , you need to group and allocate revenues for additional data . Try to gather department by land use . This is usually quite straightforward , budgets and reports at the same time . Since you although it may be time consuming as your land use will have to go back to interview many of these categories may differ from the town ' s . Find out 8 1ar:Ki I , .. I pil r:�. L.' How to Do a COCS Study 0 V . which land uses provide what sources of income : town ' s current bottom line . . property tax revenue , state and federal aid , funds Be prepared to interview extensively to be sure from special districts and so on . A you allocate expenses fairly . Make a special effort . This step is very important because many local to stay objective -- the people you interview may be officials have never calculated the revenues from too close to the material to be impartial . Once you . farmland and forestland . However , even more • are confident you have allocated revenues and important is the next step : grouping and allocating expenditures correctly , enter them into your spread- expenditures . You must make sense out of budgets sheet . Then , you are ready for the final and easiest and reports and reorganize them by land use . step -- calculating the ratios . Taken togeth.er , these steps help establish the The following box outlines the five steps : :i < ::::::: ;:::::::: ::::::::::::: <::: ; ::: :: :::: ::: : :: >::»: . .':v::'+��'ri:i :� ':'iii$:::: : ii$�i%-'%%':tititit: }k:; �;:JJ:i{J:i:i::i:{ :�::::{{:7i:?::}:: ::(:ii 'r:;:}::y:{{{:y::'ryiii:{: :.:,:0... ::}: :;•$i:•: XG 0ii: i a::i::::::?:`v?:::i•: $: :: :v:v: ii:++{ ::•:i:;i:•::::i:v::::v:•i::^:::v:. :::::. : :: : :: : : : :::: :: : :: 1 . un . . . . e 1% l l l� :.:.: :.: wiye . . Basrc . . tens: :for:::::: u ::: Cost . o �'omm ity S X:.::.::.:::.:.::: ::.::::::.:::: ::::.::.:.::.::::.:: ::::::::::<::< : : 40 : < :11 as W : M :: h ; fine:: Yand.iiiiuse .::cate o es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: .: :.. :•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:::.::. . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1., . . . ee . .wlt oca . . .s ons .o.�rs . . and. . �.e . :.III . . . :. .::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:: .::: .::::: ::::::::::::::::..:::::::. :::::::.::. :. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .::.:::::. . ::::.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: :.I P.. ;: : >: : ::.::::. . : :.:::.::: .:. :•. :;:.:: . . . ::::i:i .: :.land: :•::.::.; .: ::•::::•::::::::.::..;:;:.: :.::::;:::.:: :.<>. . . . . . . . . . . . >:: :: ::. . . . . . . . . . . ::>;:.::.::.::::.>::::.;::::::.>:.:::. . . .:: . . . .Farm : :forest :and:::o n . . :::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: .::.. . . :::::::,:.. oszdeniial.::.: ::: .: . . . . . .: . . .: . .:Commer. cial.:. . . . .. ::::::. :::. industr�al: .: :. .::. ::::::::::::::::::::.. . . :.::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.._:.1 .::.: :::.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . .::::. :::. . :. . . . . ::. . : ::: ` ::::::; ::0:: : I6:::::>:;: : ::: : : :: : > ::: :: : : : ;:> : ' <: : :; : : : _ : : : ::: : :::: :: I : : : :: : : : < :::: :::::: :> : : :; : ; artxnen :: ::<:< : :::<:: ::: :;: : ;:: . < contact:> off�ciaLs:- < :boards :and::;fie ::. ::. .: ..::::. . . . . . . :: :. . . . . :.: •::. :.:::. . . . ... �olle�t::, 0 0:, �btam . reiei t. :re . orts :. . . . . . . . . . . . . .::. .:.:. :. :..:.: ::. .: . . . . .�.. :.: . . :. . . :. :::. . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . :. . :. : . :::.::: :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .::::: .: :• . . . . . . . . P. �. . X? . . : : : : : : : : > < < : ::: :<;_a :: : :< : : : a : :: ::: : 0 :: ::: > : ::: : : < :;i : : :: <:::> ::: :::>:>: ::;:> : : :< ::: : . > ::j:::>:::>: : : : > : :: :: ::: 11 =:: ::::::::: ; : :::: :<: :::: : ::::<:::X::X i :<: : ::<::;:;:>::« : : :;<: : :>::>:; ;: :,:<::>:: :> : ::>::<::: :: ::::::><>::::: : :::: ::::>:: ::< : : ::: >: < : :l : : d < i P : : : ! : . . .•. . .. . .: ... . . ... . :.. . . . :: axL an . . . . . . .A :. . . . . ert u:. :. :. :I . : . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . • • . : t . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oPt •. . . :•:. :•. ::. :•. . . .: . . . . . . . br ::. nvnbuc et . :. : : :: no . . :. . . :. . .•. ::::: .. . : : . . . . . . •. .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Au r. . : dtdr : >:::: 5 : qa , ON :. . . . . : . : :. :. . . . .:aentr r#s . . . :.: :.: . :. .. .. , ., a: a I uc Fia : ::, , . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . . : . Pe : : . g! . . . .: . .: . . . . : . .am. :. . .g : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : •.. . .: . . . . ... ::. . :. :.: :: . .P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . :: :: ::::::«< : > : :::< :::::.::: :: : :< :::::::> : : : :: :. :::::... :.:. . . . . . . . . 11 *....: ::::::::::..: :. ::. . . . . . . . . . .. r r..:,•::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::.: ::::: •: Plannin :.boar.d•::. ::::.. . C � t ..co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. .::::::._. .:: . :::: ,•::. :::::::::::Select.:b.�ard: .: .::: .: . :. . . . . . . . . . . . .: assessor.. . . . . .: . :,.:::: . .::::::::. ::. reasu e : .. .:::::. . :::::. ::::::. . . :. . . . . :. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . .; . .:: .:::::..:•::::.Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :•::::::.. .. . . . . . .. :.:: ::::: 44 :t y: :::ii`:'vi: :j: •:ti :^:: ::::::{Ci: J :`: <j: :: rii } ::y;: ; : ::tv:^}::4:;•?:• y :i:•i:•: :•:. ' . e . . .<: e w :. :::. :. . . . . . . . . :: :: :<:> :: :>:::.::::;.::.:::'. an:.services.: :< : ::.::.'water ;&.: . . . . . . . . . . . .: .::::::•:::::.: . 11 . 11 , 11 :. . . . . . .:. .. :Public: works. . . . . . . . . . . :. :. . . . . . . :. . Ii chie . . . . . . . . . . . ,. .:•.•:. . Fire: chief. . . ::• •:. :::::::•::. :::::::::::::: ium . . . . . ::. . . . . . . :.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: .::•:::. ::::::::::.: . . . . . . . :.:::::::::. . :. . . . ::: :. : . 4440a,60* :. ... :: .. ::. :::. . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.:.: ::::. .: .:::: . :.: Po . ce: . . . . . . . . . .f..:.:::::.::. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: .: •. :::.:. . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. .:: .::::::::::. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :•:::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . :• -:::. . . . . . . . . . 4%4060 Oi 'll also <3 llocat > : : ::: : : : a ><= - < > 1 < - : > ::> : : :: : > : >:<:: :::: : ::> ::: : ;.":' e . . re ennesIIIftIq . . b• .: larid alo> us . : . 11 . 194 .3'.... : :> :>: : :: : : :: : * ;:: >:: . .:: >:. : :::..::::. : .::::::::Pro . . . . :t ; .tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LVaotocal . receI ts. . . . . . . . . . :. .:. . State., a� :. :. :.III . :.:::. .:::::::.. .:::$:. :...: :.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .::::::::::::. . . . . . . . . . . .:::::. :. ::. . :: :.::.:::.::::::,: . . .:: .. :.. . :.: .. :. :. . :. . :. . :. . . : . . . . :.:. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. . . . . . . . . . .too. . . . . . . ::*• i:: . 14 rtm n ::: : hoft . W ea::.0 r: ' n :: d 1:: if . iru e di tri r. e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . s 0 :•. : .::: . •::::.. :::. :.: :. ::::::::::::::::::::. . . :. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pera : ct$ . s . . g . P . > • :< : < > 1. > ; < ; >: :::: : • t > b : .l . < . . I. duse ` <t : : aeeX . a > q . :: >d < . Y.: e : : : :: :« P :uman • ser o . • . �w t . .. . :: . . . . . . : : . .ok f v ::u Eduaton :ub Y411, . :Hs ces. G . : .: bl . r ;: .P . . . : .. : : 6. : : d: : : Undcalculateabb: <: ::: :: : : . . .. . . . . . . . .x .::: :: .::.::.::.: :::: :.::.: ..& . I:.: S How to Do a COCS Study L Meet with local sponsors When you are ready to meet with your meaningful if you receive reliable information , sponsors , contact them directly to set a convenient emphasize how much you are depending on them . meeting time , When you get together , be prepared ! Bring an agenda and a workplan , and explain how 'Whom to Contact they can help you . Try to get them involved Your sponsors should send the introductory without overloading them , letter to all their recommended contacts . Among The three most important things your sponsors others , those might include the treasurer , assessors can help you with are : and department heads . To be Oprudent , bring a copy of the letter to your initial meetings . You may also 1 . Writing an endorsement letter to all department heads , key officials and budget officers ; want to look at the town report that lists all local personnel to identify other people to contact . For 2 . Providing names and phone numbers of contacts for information ; and example , town clerks are often overlooked but tend 3 . Helping define land use categories . to be knowledgeable and helpful , especially if they have been employed for many years . The Letter The author of your endorsement letter should be someone with enough authority to gain the Land Use Categories cooperation of key officials and department heads . Perhaps the most important assistance your The letter should be addressed to the treasurer , sponsors can provide is defining the land use accountant , fire and police chiefs , highway categories for your analysis . They can also help superintendent , municipal admini answer questions about community character , strator , assessors and so on . It should briefly explain the nature of a including its relative stability , recent changes , COOS study , why it is important , and how it is growth pressures , and the mix of houses , busi- done . It should also emphasize that its accuracy nesses , industries and farms . These things will depends on the quality of information provided by help in land use classification . AFT ' s studies have the community . Since the study will only be used the following land use categories : 10 . A `7�i Fit• pp old , pCr ad a do of ; dotal . , :4 How to Do a COOS Study ; generally ene a ed in re cord so f other la nd d uses . Y bun R den al welkin s es . . :. . . . ti . Pro : e ... : ised for all1? . . . . :': . . : . > g ' AFT recommends referring to your state ' s use- > r >.includ n ' < arm douses :Terri `10 ee: housin and:::;:: r assessment o r l : am to hel ou defin e oe our :::...: <. R .:.:,:. .:.:««.:.;> «.: : :.41 . 111 * :.' foropen ;.; :. rental . its . emember., . houses ark .: , . pe P : : .. program P Y Y P add who need;: residential ad I 1. serv� ees :;regardless of lands category . If necessary and relevant add :a::I. .. ., . . . . g rY anY > < who >o: s liemb :or: their:: 4ccu at�onsr> :: > : > :» . ::.P; .;:.:::.:.;..k:-:': ... ..:::. ..::.: ::::::. : the tax co des . In oother open space categories from : < :Comity .... . : Property actively :used >for : : use- assessment programs working lands are taxed :::::::`:::::'- bus ines&::Pu uses::ether:> iari lndustr� aI <> add, ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. . . rP . . . . . . :... . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . :.:.:... . . . . . e alu of their r ther an n eir > a : :::;<::<: r. . . ores . . . . :- ..::..::,. on th v e actual use a than o their in fdevelopment . A 1 thi n ia1 value r s ote t o App lying<: '1e_ P Y JfidustrYal , Pro :. ,. . ad vet �` used for. . w . . . . ..PD . . . . ... . .:..•: ::Pew ::; .:•: :>::::.;:<::: ;:.; :.: ;:.>: :.: >;< <.;:.;:<: : : :.: ::.:<. :: . :.. . . a . i i m re complicated a er than a o . .. . . . add addefinitions easier s .e prductton and utilities ,I . .usually.. ::::; : It pp :: ad I . .;. : .. goods pxoducmg delineation and AFT has found the pattern of do 11 -14. > > t ' n the e ul mains e same . > :::: res s ar fo :::,:.: : .::. .%%. . . . . . rest :and >o ;en . rand.. ::faro e :>:<: Wood . : : < used. Idor designated as . open space , forest.,:::: ' To stay on track , go back to your original . . . farxril:and , :or. •.recreationai.:.i:and .:. :: ten t Md. . . cafe c ' can . be `de d n altodo . the > : ` :: > : oals kee in in in ersonnel and time g .; .:rY.::::;: >;:;:. •:.:.:.:;:::•:: .>:::fined:>:accor :.:.;�:.;add . g.:;:::< $ 1 add •:::::::.: >; : ': ;'.. :. . . g P g P stu e-assessmen <:: ro r :;:.>:.P:<.::.::g.:::;:;.;: :<. . .;::..::::::::::::::: .. :.. development in constraints as well as the level of P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . your community . Remember , all you want to With your sponsors ' help , adapt these determine is how much each land use demands in categories to the land use mix in your community . services for every dollar it generates in revenues . For example , if the area is still quite rural , you The broader your categories , the easier it will be to may not need to separate commercial from present meaningful data . But be careful not to industrial . Think carefully about What to include in dilute information for expediency ' s sake . Above the farm , forest and open land category , which is alld, avoid muddled definitions ! 2 . Collect data Now you are ready to work ! However , if something unusual happened that might Start by choosing a typical year with closed affect your findings , such as a major fire or unusual books . This way , real numbers will be used , not windfall , choose another year . Your sponsors can financial estimates . Normally , the last completed tell you what is -- or is not -- typical . fiscal period is best because it is freshest in In collecting data , pay attention to how people ' s memories and records are easiest to locate . departments keep their records . Some use a fiscal < > 6.1 1 1 add add add I >a 4 1 a 4 11 � _ How to Do a COCS Study I year for reporting purposes while others use a Usually , plenty of raw data is available . For calendar year . If the fiscal year begins on Jan . 1 , example , most assessors ' records detail lot you are in luck . If not , you may have to review numbers , acres , property classification and values two years ' of records to determine annual amounts , of taxes paid . (In some places , this is most readily Since consistency is key , be patient and probing , available from the local or county treasurer ' s especially if you find conflicting data : Computer office . ) Recalculate to suit the land use categories records may not match hand -written ledgers . you have defined . Fire and police departments Annual reports may differ from department records . record their calls . You can use their logs to form a Data may not be expressed the way you need it . picture of how they divide resources . But these As a rule , municipalities do not keep expense logs will not be enough . You still will have to find information by land use . If they do , they probably out what other things they do and how they divide considered farm , forest and open land either a their time when they are not answering calls . subsidiary use in another category or an " interim " Sometimes you will have to go through depart- use not worth special attention . So assume you will ment records and reports just to identify useful be looking for information busy people have not information . . Usually , you will have to interview assembled . Since this means you will need their extensively before you can organize it . Since you time and energy , . as well as their budgets and will , have to go back to most of the officials and records , be especially respectful and considerate . department heads with specific questions , be sure to A big part of your job is to help department gain their cooperation early on . heads and officials provide the level of detail you At this point , do not lose sight of the best need . Sometimes this is hard for them to do . Keep resource in data collection : Youl So be polite and the faith . Most of the information is there . persevere . 3 . Group revenues and allocate them Group Revenues Your next step is to organize revenues . Start Tax Rate Recapitulation form ; in Connecticut , it is with the local document that provides a summary of called the Grand List . property tax revenues and figures for state aid and Revenues are typically grouped into classes local receipts . In Massachusetts , this form is the such as .property taxes , local receipts , state aid and 12 aw All w aa N . a. r law (,Ov � Via if,. TM2 . *all }, r; all r _ 5u How to Do a COCS Study 14. special districts (fire , water , sanitation and school) 2 . Spell out your assumptions clearly . and miscellaneous revenues . 3 . Be sure that decisions you make on the When you distribute revenues , thnik of how revenue side match those you make on they apply to your land use categories . Property -the expenditure side , law taxes may be the most straightforward . Building Transfer Land Values permit fees would be distributed according to the Match local records with COCS land uses by law type of land use indicated by permit files or in a transferring property values from the state tax summary report , The same approach should work classes to yours . This is a fairly simple , but time- for other types of permits and licenses . consuming process . Subtract items that do not Special taxes and tax districts can be tricky , so belong in existing categories , then add them to the weigh available information carefully before you appropriate categories for your study . For example , decide how to handle them . For instance , if your in Massachusetts , farm , forest and recreational community has a special fire district that only lands enrolled in the use- assessment program are serves some neighborhoods and charges on a fee reported as commercial properties in the tax code . basis , you may want to treat it as a footnote and But they are considered farm , forest and open land omit it from your regular analysis . Just be sure to in a COCS study . So AFT subtracted them from mention this in your final report and explain the commercial and added them to farm , forest and rationale for your decision . On the other hand , if open land . fire districts represent all properties and are paid Mixed-use parcels can be difficult to allocate . for out of regular tax revenues , include them as If you can determine the value of different land part of your regular analysis . Special districts uses , break them out accordingly . Otherwise , illustrate why you must understand the community attribute them to the category of primary use . you are studying . Large towns often have computerized records that Three rules of thumb to follow when grouping provide a high - level of detail on lot size , number revenues : and type of buildings and so on . These can help 1 . Gather as much information as possible , you distribute revenues in mixed -use parcels in the discuss any special cases with your same way they helped you in other categories . In sponsors and base your final decisions on the original goals of the study and the small towns without computers , breakdowns may quality and quantity of available data . have to be determined by the assessors , if at all . 13 look ,<. n - MEMO How to Do a COCS Study Personal property tax is another category to income from a state lottery may be distributed in investigate carefully . In Massachusetts , it is a tax many ways . If your state has a lottery , find out if on equipment associated with real estate . However , income goes to specific programs or a general fund . in Illinois , it is a separate type of tax levied on Allocate it to specific programs by determining the cars , boats and other types of property . When you nature of the program . It is likely most of these know what the tax is for , you will be able to would be for residential services . However , transfer values based on application . For example , general funds may be dispersed according to a corporate revenue would be considered commercial . formula . If so , distribute them accordingly . As. Receipts from manufacturing , utilities , mentioned earlier , income from licensing fees , fines telecommunications and pipelines would be and permits should be distributed by use as much as industrial . Income from rental homes would be possible . residential . And -so on . Property taxes from use- assessed lands should When All Else Fails be transferred to farm , forest and open land . So Occasionally , even after extensive record should revenues from grain and feed elevators , searches and interviews , it is still not clear how to barns , silos , greenhouses and related farm allocate specific revenues or expenditures . Then properties , including seasonal housing for farm you can use what we call fall-back percentages . employees . Apartments and vacation homes may These are based on the portion of property tax be listed as commercial , but would be residential in revenue raised by each land use and reflect the a COCS because of the services they demand . distribution of collected tax receipts . If 71 percent of total property tax revenue came from the Allocate Other Revenues residential sector , then the residential fall-back After allocating property values , you ' ll need to would be 71 percent . Likewise , if taxes on farm , apportion all other types of revenues . These will forest and open land represent 4 percent of the include state aid , local receipts and free cash . Use total , then the fall -back used to attribute unclear the same type of analysis you did for property revenues and expenditures would be 4 percent . values to identify which land use category should Only apply fall -back percentages when concrete claim the revenues . For example , state aid for information is totally unavailable from record schools is residential income . Some kinds of searches or interviews . Using them too much will revenues are more questionable . For instance , dilute your findings . 14 Igo 6 V;m - . k J��it of yof000 -� IN 1 `1om4 ., 4w: How to Do a COOS Study 4. Group Expenditures and Allocate Them Group Expenditures Once you have gotten revenues in order , you are considered residential . So are government can broadly group expenditures' . Base your expenses such as elections and voter registration , decisions on budget allocations and actual Even though society as a whole benefits from a departmental expenses that should be readily healthy and educated voting public , citizens directly available . AFT usually divides expenditures into demand these services . COCS studies measure this five classes : demand , not the public good to be . derived from it . 1 . General government , While they provide practical data on land use 2 . Public safety , requirements for services , these studies do not 3 . Education , answer broad , philosophical questions about who in 4 . Health and human services , and 5 . Public works . society should pay for what . However , if other categories are better suited to Allocating most services will rely on a fair your community , use them . Just be consistent . amount of investigation . So put on your Sherlock Holmes hat and study the clues concealed in the Allocate Expenditures basic financial data you have collected . The heart of a COCS study is allocating Meanwhile , prepare specific questions to ask when expenditures based on land use demand . Since most you interview officials and key department heads town records are not kept by land use , this process for details , requires significant effort . Try to stay intrigued Find out about expenses that may not be as and do not get frustrated if this step is difficult ; it is straightforward as they seerq, A forestry expense a critical part of your study , might be for pruning dead branches in a residential Even though expenditure reports are generally neighborhood or maintaining the woods in a re- available from department heads , you may still creational area . Pruning the neighborhood trees is have trouble allocating expenses . Start with ones a residential expense , whereas forest management you can apportion with little or no assistance . For serves open land . Does the animal officer handle example , education and most health and human working dogs or pets ? Treat a guard- dog infraction services are residential . Remember , farm houses at . a factory as an industrial expense and a barking 15 i i How to Do a COCS Study pet as residential . But before you overwhelm Since each type of incident uses different yourself, consider if a single and unique line item resources , you ' ll want to examine your findings in will affect your findings . If the expenditurg detail with the police chief. Generally farm , forest represents a tiny cost in the overall budget , you and open land does not require much in the way of may use fall-back percentages . In a $ 10- million police protection . Other public safety expenses budget , $ 100 is not worth much effort . may be easier to allocate . For example , building It is crucial to get a detailed analysis of fire and and zoning costs can be based on the number of police departments , as they generally account for a permits and inspections in each land use area . large portion of public safety budgets . In your General government expenses can be hard to interviews with the fire chief, find out how much allocate . Those for the tax collector and assessors time was spent on various activities such as should be based on land use value , but others are answering calls , inspecting smoke detectors , trickier . To some extent , administrative and educating school children or surveying industrial insurance costs apply to all land uses . If a type of sprinkler systems . ' Divide the budget accordingly . expenditure -- or revenue - - is not tied to a specific When you try to ascertain the cost of answering land use , it could just be left out of the analysis as calls , determine how many fires were attributed to it will not affect comparisons across land uses . each land use category . Were they mostly house _ If you can gather reliable data from interviews , fires , was there a fire in a local business , or were use it . When you cannot , use the property tax. fall - there barn and brush fires ? How much time did the back percentages described in the revenues section . department spend on each type of call ? These Keep in mind it is best to bias against your own details will improve your accuracy in allocating interest . If you hope to find positive contributions expenses , from the working landscape , when in doubt , allo - As for the police budget , review incident Cate more revenues to the residential sector and reports to determine the nature of the call . Consider more expenditures to farm , forest and open land . the type of incident carefully . Some calls are This will make your study more objective , so it will clear- cut. Domestic violence is residential . A bank be easier to defend your findings , is commercial . Cows in the road are farm , Of all expenses , public works can be toughest robbery forest and open land . Security around a shopping to assign . This is especially true of highways . mall is commercial . And so on . Here , an interview may play a key role in 16 am ` J 1 �, isIS c FF How to Do a COCS Study allocations , or you may be forced to use your fall - elevator . But a farmer driving to church or to shop back percentages . When you talk to the highway is a residential expense . superintendent , try to tease out quantifiable data . Finally , try to avoid bias in your allocations The number of curb miles may provide some useful and to base them on land use demand and sound information , but beware ! Simply counting the financial data . If you hope that farm , forest and number of miles and estimating how many went open lands will show a positive contribution , make through each land use sector will not give you an sure you are conservative when you allocate accurate picture of road use . Probe a little deeper , revenues to them and liberal when you allocate Rural roads are often used by commuters and their expenditures . This will help keep your study tourists , not just farmers . Farms need roads for impartial and credible . When objective data is tractors , milk trucks or hauling beans to the unavailable , use fall -back percentages . S. Calculate ratios Now you can analyze the data . Enter revenues picture of demand on services in your community . and expenditures on a spread - sheet to come up with They neither project growth nor describe all the land use totals . Furnish as much detail as you want financial implications of any land use . For to use in your analysis . Then establish a ratio that example , in AFT ' s studies , commercial and shows how much was spent on services for every industrial development were net contributors . But dollar raised in revenues , sometimes it appeared that this type of development For example , in one Massachusetts town , attracted new residents to fill newly created jobs . residential expenses were $ 4 , 025 , 367 , and revenues Some officials complained that this further strained were $ 3 , 458 , 764 . Viewed as a ratio , for every education and other public service budgets , which dollar raised , it cost $ 1 . 16 to provide residential the community . did not have sufficient resources to services . Farm and open land expenditures were provide . COCS studies do not evaluate the extent $ 61 , 021 and revenues were $ 207 , 615 so the ratio to which secondary effects occur . These should be between them was $ 1 to 29 cents . considered as part of the planning process . When you review your findings , remember they After you have completed the calculations and are a snapshot of a single year and give a focused determined the ratios , submit them as a draft to 17 � ... _ How to Do a COCS , Study your sponsors and the people you have interviewed . overhead projections to highlight your findings . Make sure they understand your findings are No COCS studies do not exist in a vacuum . - preliminary and incorporate their comments ;nto Compare your findings with other studies to see if your final analysis . Once you have made any they fit_ a general pattern . If they do not , you may necessary revisions , submit your report to the want to analyze why . Was it because of the community , location , tax structure or importance of agriculture Whether you present your findings in a meeting and forestry , or did an unusual event affect your or in writing , be sure to include your goals , findings ? assumptions , methodology , land use definitions and If you are using the study to help with long - an explanation of any unusual factors . Pay special range planning , as well as a quick assessment of attention to explaining what the ratios mean . your community ' s current situation , consider Tables are a clear way to present financial data . traditional planning tools as well . You can (See samples starting on page 22 . ) In a written complement your COCS findings with predictive report , include all revenues and expenditures . In a studies such as build -out or fiscal impact analysis public presentation , you might want to use for a full portrait of your community ' s future . 18 V h • • .. •1,y J 14 15 � .%.• 1. .,-a It . ' ` ✓``mil Ir }': . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7yy/./�, Whatever your findings , remember that one This is why it is so important for communities type of land use is not intrinsically better than to see the full picture of their land uses . Disclosing another . Communities should not blindly pursue the net contribution of farm , forest and open lands either a conservation or a growth management can help local leaders overcome the notion that agenda . Planning decisions must be community - natural resources must be converted to other uses to based and reflect local goals and opportunities . ensure economic stability . At the least , they should However , in the past , slighting the economic help dispel the myths that residential development importance of farm and forestlands has meant these lowers taxes , or that use- assessment programs give precious natural resources have consistently been landowners an unfair tak break , sacrificed to their " highest and best " use , forever Even with due consideration of their multiple altering the local landscape and weakening the local economic and environmental benefits , farm and potential of resource-based economic development . . forestlands will continue to be threatened by And while commercial / industrial growth offers a conversion to higher tax-generating uses . That is potential balance , it is not a miracle cure , either , why local decision- makers must weigh all the What happens when local skills are not available to advantages that farm and forestlands have to offer fill the jobs created by new businesses ? Will new in the planning , zoning and public policy process . houses be needed for the people who move to town Supporting farmland protection and conservation to take the new jobs ? Will the cycle continue? can prove to be a sound community investment . 19 t : _:::R esour .::.:: : . . : di s 0:1 : :: ; . : qIAdt111 . . . . . :. . . . . . IX.Agricultural Experiment Station , University of Delaware . Use Value Assessment of Farmland : A Bibliography , 1988 . American Farmland Trust . The Cost of Community Services in Hebron , Conn . , 1986 . - -- . Density Related Public Costs , 1996 . - - Does Farmland Protection Pay ? The Cost of Community Services in Three Massachusetts Towns , 1992 . American Farmland Trust and Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Dutchess County . Cost of Community Services Study : Dutchess Coun ► , NY . , 1989 . Bucknall , Christopher P . The Real Cost of Development , Poughkeepsie , N . Y . , Scenic Hudson Inc . , 1989 . Burcheil , R . W . , and D . Listokin . The Fiscal Impact Handbook : Estimating Local Costs and Revenues of Land Development , New Jersey : Center for Urban Policy Research , 1978 . Burchell , R . W . , D . Listokin , and W . R . Dolphin . The New Practitioner ' s Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis , New Jersey : Center for Urban Policy Research , 1985 . Council on Environmental Quality . Untaxing Qpen Spaces An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Qpen Space , 1976 , Massachusetts Department of Revenue , Bureau of Local Assessment . Guidelines for Classification and Taxation of Property According to Use • Property Type Classification Codes , 1988 . Nantucket Land Council . The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Growth on the Island of Nantucket : Final Report , 1989 , Stone , P . A . The Structure , Size and Costs of Urban Settlements , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1973 . Vance , Tamara . Fiscal Impacts of Major Land Uses Clarke County , Piedmont Va . , Piedmont Environmental Council , 1984 , Vermont League of Cities and Towns , and Vermont Natural Resources Council . The Tax Base and The Tax Bill : Tax Implication of Development , 1990 . 20 9to Sample Tables Town Revenues Source Residential Commercial Industrial Farm/ Open Total T . . . . . . . . . . . AX RECEIPT < < > : > < : .. :::. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : :::: . .S f Real property $ 1 , 796 , 993 70 . 3 7c 1 $ 283 9736 1181 % $ 324 , 528 13 A $ 132 , 921 5 . 2 g'o $ 2 , 556 , 178 1111 WIN Pers . property 20 , 369 43 . 0 27 , 001 57 . 0 47 , 370 TOTAL 1 , 796 , 993 69 . 0 304 , 105 11 . 7 3699529 14 . 2 132 , 921 5 . 1 29603 , 548 IF ::;.:: T;:::: S A :: a.: :: :::: TE A D< RE ::<:>:<::.::: T Education 524 , 673 100 524 , 673 Public libraries 57790 100 5 , 790 Highway fund 64 , 586 69 . 0 10 , 952 11 . 7 13 , 292 14 . 2 47774 5 . 1 93 , 604 Lottery /Beano 129 , 296 69 . 0 21 , 924 11 . 7 2609 14 . 2 9 . 557 5 . 1 187 , 386 Vets abatement 1 2 , 373 100 29373 Elderly abatement 12 , 976 100 12 , 976 Overestimates 2 , 567 69 . 0 435 11 . 7 528 14 . 2 190 5 . 1 32720 TOTAL 7429261 89 . 4 33 , 311 4 . 0 409429 4 . 9 14 , 521 1 . 7 8`12 I SO ::: . .: :: :: :::::>:< : :<>::> :::::<:: ::; .:` ` > 4 > I o: II X 1 < > < > > >AL .. EIPTS . . :: :: ...::.:..:::.:. .:::.:f. :. . . : ::. 1 . Excise Taut 154 , 000 77 . 0 34 , 000 17 . 0 12 , 000 6 . 0 200 , 000 WIN Other excise ' 5 , 500 100 5 , 500 Interest income 1024, 120 69 . 0 17 , 316 11 . 7 21 , 016 14 . 2 72548 5 . 1 1487000 Payments -in-lieu 41 , 400 69 . 0 7 , 020 11 . 7 8 , 520 14 . 2 . 3 , 060 5 . 1 602000 MINIMMINIMMIN Penalties/Inter. 6 , 900 69 . 0 11170 11 . 7 1 , 420 14 . 2 510 5 . 1 10 , 000 Trash Disposal 62 , 900 34 . 0 57 , 350 31 . 0 61 , 050 33 . 0 39700 2 . 0 185 , 000 Other Dept . 27 , 600 69 . 0 4 , 680 11 . 7 5 , 680 14 . 2 2 , 040 5 . 1 40 , 000 Licenses /Permits 12 , 420 69 . 0 2 , 106 11 . 7 22556 14 . 2 918 5 . 1 18 , 000 Wood WOMEN Wool Fines /Forfeits 72 , 450 69 . 0 12 , 285 11 . 7 149910 14 . 2 5 , 355 5 . 1 1059000 TOTAL 4799790 62 . 2 1359927 17 . 6 127 , 152 16 . 5 28 , 631 3 . 7 7719500 -WIMMET`H too RECEIPTS . .. : . Free Cash/Total 25898 69 . 0 43 , 887 11 . 7 53 , 265 14 . 2 19 , 130 5 . 1 375 , 104 21 S ,3 Town Revenues Source Residential Commercial Industrial Farm/ Open Total REC IIPT IRE F.S . . AX :... : :: :.: ::::::. : . : .. : :. . :. :. . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Dstrct. 1 taxes 137 , 641 66 . 8 259756 12 . 5 349204 16 . 6 8 , 448 4 . 1 206 , 049 Dstrct . 1 receipts 12 , 024 66 . 8 2 , 250 12 . 5 21988 16 . 6 738 4 . 1 18 , 000 Dstrct . 2 taxes 289709 76 . 5 32528 9A 2 , 327 6 . 2 29965 7 . 9 372529 Dstrct . 2 receipts 29524 76 . 5 310 9 . 4 205 6 . 2 261 7 . 9 3 , 300 TOTAL 1809898 68 . 3 31 , 844 1200 39 , 724 15 . 0 129412 4 . 7 2649878 :;GRAND :. O AL :. :.3, 458 , 764 : :. . . . _ 7.1, E :.: : . . .5.49 , 074 1I. 3. .: . . . . . . . . 630 , 099 : 1 0 . . 207, 615. :.; . . 4. 3. 4 ,845., 552 : Town Expenditures Source Residential Commercial Industrial Farm/Open Total G Moderator $ 31 75 . 0 % $ 4 10 . 0 % $ 5 12 . 0 % $ 1 3 . 0 9 $ 41 Selectpeople 21 , 994 71A 3 , 481 11 . 3 41, 005 13 . 0 1 , 325 4 . 3 30 , 805 Admin Assist. 10 , 121 71 . 4 19602 11 . 3 19843 13 . 0 610 4 . 3 14 , 176 Finance Cmte 143 71 . 4 23 11 . 3 26 13 . 0 9 4 . 3 200 Town Accountant 87801 71 . 4 1 , 393 11 . 3 110602 13 . 0 530 4 . 3 12 , 326 Assessor 283, 359 60 . 0 5 , 672 12 . 0 29363 5 . 0 10 , 871 23 . 0 47 , 265 Town Treasurer 50 , 583 71 . 4 89005 11 . 3 9 , 210 13 . 0 39046 4 . 3 70 , 844 Tax Collector 655 69 . 0 111 11 . 7 135 14 . 2 48 5 . 1 949 Town Clerk 5 , 630 89 . 0 380 6 . 0 253 4 . 0 63 1 . 0 6 , 326 Planning Board 489 13 . 0 21819 75 . 0 451 12 . 0 3 , 759 Zoning Board 675 60 . 0 90 10 . 0 108 12 . 0 27 3 . 0 900 Building Inspect 25 , 163 75 . 0 3 , 355 10 . 0 4 , 026 12 . 0 1 , 007 3 . 0 33 , 551 Const. permit 808 69 . 0 137 11 . 7 166 14 . 2 60 5 . 1 1 , 171 Con Comm 571 71 A 90 11 . 3 104 13 . 0 34 4 . 3 800 Legal 7 , 476 71 . 4 19183 11 . 3 1 , 361 13 . 0 450 4 . 3 10 , 470 22q . > : ``` ' Town Ex enditures Source Residential Commercial Industrial Farm/Open Total G 4VERhTMENT . . . ;: :. Election/registr 4 , 100 100 4 , 100 Town Office 11 , 237 89 . 0 631 5 . 0 593 4 . 7 164 1 . 3 12 , 625 Town computers 62 , 300 89 . 0 3 , 500 5 . 0 3 , 290 4 . 7 910 1 . 3 702000 Town reports 21670 89 . 0 150 5 . 0 141 4 . 7 39 1 . 3 3 , 000 Telecommunication 890 89 . 0 50 5 . 0 47 4 . 7 13 1 . 3 1 , 000 Gen insurance 27 , 145 89 . 0 12525 5 . 0 1 , 433 4 . 7 397 1 . 3 301506 Empl insurance 96 , 964 89 . 0 53, 448 5 . 0 51120 4 . 7 1 , 417 1 . 3 108 , 949 Emergency reser 28 , 560 71 . 4 41520 11 . 3 51200 13 . 0 1 , 720 4 . 3 40 , 000 Stabilization 28 , 560 71 . 4 47520 111 . 3 5 , 200 13 . 0 19720 4 , 3 40 , 000 Debt service 71140 71 . 4 1 , 130 11 . 3 1 , 300 13 . 0 430 4 . 3 102000 TOTAL 431 , 065 77 . 8 49 , 819 9 . 0 47 , 982 8 . 7 24 , 889 4 . 5 553 , 755 Police Dept . 146 , 778 65 . 0 452162 20 . 0 31 , 614 14 . 0 2 , 258 1 . 0 2259812 S . Deerfield Fire 121 , 569 59 . 0 41 , 210 20 . 0 32 , 968 16 . 0 107302 5 . 0 206 , 049 Deerfield Area Fire 32 , 662 80 . 0 39675 9 . 0 29450 6 . 0 29041 5 . 0 402828 Board of Health 19170 78 . 0 150 10 . 0 180 12 . 0 1 , 550 Dog Officer 2 , 000 100 27000 Pest control 29640 88 . 0 360 12 . 0 31000 Dutch Elm . disease 11760 88 . 0 240 12 . 0 3 , 000 Tree Warden 17 , 953 88 . 0 2 , 448 12 . 0 209401 Taking of prop 21 , 848 71 . 4 350458 11 . 3 3 , 978 13 . 0 12316 4 . 3 30 , 600 TOTAL 348 , 380 65 . 5 969703 18 . 2 71 , 190 . 13 . 4 159917 2 . 9 532 , 190 TJBLIC.. WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. .: .: .:::. ::..: .::.:. ::: .... . ::: .::.. . . . . . . . Utility inspect 8 , 820 73 . 5 1 , 488 12 . 4 1 , 692 14 . 1 12 , 000 Highway 253 , 624 71 . 4 402139 11 . 3 46 , 178 13 . 0 15 , 274 4 . 3 355 , 215 Street lights 22 , 050 73 . 5 31720 12 . 4 41P230 14 . 1 30 , 000 Pickup truck 12 , 138 71 . 4 11921 11 . 3 2 , 210 13 . 0 731 4 . 3 17 , 000 Waste disposal 40 , 954 34 . 0 37 , 340 31 . 0 39 , 749 3390 25410 2 . 0 120 , 453 IX 23 Rmp Town Ex enditures Source Residential Commercial Industrial Farm/ Open Total VGENERAL G4VERNIVIEiT :: . . .. . : : . . . :...;>; ::.:.:.: ..::,::..::._. Brook cleaning 1 , 786 71 . 4 283 11 . 3 325 13 . 0 108 4 . 3 2 , 502 Town clock 440 88 . 0 60 12 . 0 500 Memorial St . bldg . 59190 100 1 , 5 , 190 TOTAL 3459002 63 . 6 84 , 951 15 . 6 941384 17 . 0 18 , 523 3 . 4 542 , 860 IV E _ L�� ATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::::.•::. :. ..:::::: . ::• Schools /TOTAL 2 , 8059422 100 2 , 8059422 SOCIAL` E VIC ES Community nurse 112466 100 11 , 466 Council on Aging 11 , 437 100 117437 Vets services 4 , 000 100 47000 Libraries 502295 100 50 , 295 OSW trustee 20 100 20 MINE Playground comet 52800 100 5 , 800 Tri -town beach 11 , 066 100 11 , 066 Girl Scout house 250 100 250 MIN Vets /Memorial day 17375 100 1 , 375 Past parade exp 333 100 333 MINE TOTAL 94 , 042 100 96 , 042 G :: .:< . RAND T0� S 4 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 fl25 9I1 . . . . . . . . . . . .88 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 231`:�473 � . . . . . . . . . 55 :: :213' S56� �: � �> 5 �>< � < > 59'�329» . . . . . . . Town budget balance by land use category . Residential Commercial Industrial Farm / Open Total Revenues $ 3 , 458 , 764 $ 529 , 074 $ 630 , 099 $ 2079615 $ 42845 , 552 Expenditures 41025 , 911 231 , 473 2132556 59 , 329 41530 , 269 Balance (5677147) 317 , 601 416 , 543 1487286 3152283 :: Rat :>:S:;:;: ';i F7 I Iin ' 29:`: 24 J :< ; V T � COST OF COMMtJNI7CY SERVICES IN CHATHAM COUNTY A Report to the Chatham County Planning Department Prepared by : Mitch Renkow Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics North Carolina State University December 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the many Chatham County officials who kindly contributed information and assistance in course of conducting this research . Karen Allen , Chatham County Community ColIeae Renee Dickson , Assistant County Manager Wanda Dowless , Building Inspections _ Barbara Garcia, Public Library Services Robert Hall , Department of Social Services Rodger Hamrick, Building Inspections Department Bob Holden , Solid Waste Division Kim Horton , Tax Office . Jeff Hughes , Public Works Administration Larry Mabe , Superintendent of Public Schools Vicki McConnell , Finance Office Keith Meg inson , Planning Department Wayne Sherman , Public Health Administration Mike Sturdivant , Soil & Water Department Tony Tucker, Emergency Operations Lynn Weller, Solid Waste Division Don Whitt, Sheriffs Department y Brenda Williams , Soil & Water Department Glenn Woolard, Cooperative Extension Service Funding for this project came from the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association , the Chatham County Farm Bureau , Sustenance Farm, Rural Advancement Fund International , and the Chatham County Board of Commissioners . Finally , able research assistance was provided by Jon Corning . 98 COST OF CONfNIUNITY SERVICES IN CHATHAM COUNTY Introduction Like many rural counties located near fast- growing urban areas , Chatham County faces a complex set *ofissues revolving around the desirable mi P x of land uses within the county . Over the Past decade , the continuing economic growth of the adjoining counties of the Research Triangle have created unprecedented demands for residential and commercial development in .. Count On the one hand, this situation has been welcomed by manymbecause it has Chatham y created significant economic development opportunities for the county ' s citizens and a signifi cant increase in the county ' s revenue base . On the other hand, many of the county ' s citizens worry that the rapid pace of these changes will alter the rural character of Chatham County in ways that are undesirable . As new land uses supplant traditional ones in Chatham County , there is concern that the increased local government expenditures on community services needed to accommodate accelerated residential and commercial development may exceed the contribution of that to the county ' ings of a r s revenue base . This report presents the findesearch project development aimed at addressing this specific issue . The research quantified the contribution to local ;government revenues of various land use sectors (residential , commercial , industrial , and al government financial resources of those same land use farmland) , and the demands on loc s " snapshot" sectors . This " shot" of current revenues and expenditures allows an assessment of the costs and benefits of different land uses from the perspective of local government finance . resented here employs a methodology established by the American Farmland The analysisp sed in numerous Cost of Community Services (COOS ) studies Trust one that has been u U . S . Like those studies , the current research was motivated by two questions : ( 1 ) throughout the . Does farmland receive an unfair tax advantage when it is assessed at its actual use — as in North Carolina — instead of its potential use in residential or commercial development ? (? ) Do the property ert taxes and other revenues generated by residential , commercial and industrial land uses exceed the amount of publicly - provided services required by those land uses ? As has been found in other COOS studies , the answers to these questions are negative for Chatham County . Despite being taxed on the basis of current land uses , the farm sector is found to be a net contributor to the local budget , receiving $ 0 . 92 in public services for eve dollar every that it generates in revenues . Conversely , for every dollar contributed to the county budget by residential sector, the county spent somewhere between $ 1 . 07 and $ 1 . 12 in services to that sector. Commercial/industnal land uses are found to be the largest net contributors to the public purse , receiving somewhere between $ 0 . 47 and $ 0 . 76 worth of publicly provided services for each dollar in revenues that they generate , At the outset , it is important to recognize two important limitations of analyses such as the one presented here . First , COCS studies highlight the relative demands of various land uses on local fiscal resources given the current pattern of development. As such , one should be cautious in extrapolating from the results of studies such as this in order to gauge the impact of future patterns of development on local public finance . Nonetheless , the results of studies such as this are useful in informing debates over such issues as whether or not alternative types of land uses are likely to contribute more in tax dollars than they demand in the way of support services . Second, the current study in no way deals with the social value of each of these forms of development — i . e . , their contribution (positive or negative ) to the well -being of the county ' s citizens . Rather it focuses on the more narrow issue of whether or not these land uses "pay their . own way . " It is important to bear in mind that there is nothing particularly sacred reQardina an exact balance between revenues and expenditures associated with a particular land use — even when balancing the local budget is an overriding priority . Indeed, one of the rim functions primary tribute local financial resources such that services desired by of a local Government is to redis citizens are supplied even when those services cannot pay for themselves. Determining the optimal distribution of those resources is a public policy issue resolved in the political arena. A study such as this fits into the process wherein such issues are resolved by shedding light on the relative costs and benefits of specific distribution of financial resources implicit in the existincr pattern of development. 100 Methodology The basic approach used in this research was quite simple . Working from the most recent available county financial data, revenues and expenditures were allocated among three specific idential ; ( b ) Commercial/Industrial ; and ( c ) Farm . This allocation land use categories : ( a ) Res process was- carried out in conjunction with a series of interviews conducted with a variety of. local officials knowledgeable about the workings of specific departments — e . g . , the county health director, the public works director, the sheriff, the superintendent of schools , etc . Once revenues and expenditures were allocated to specific land use sectors , the ratio of revenues to expenditures for each sector was computed. A revenue -expenditure ratio greater than one indicates that that sector ' s contribution to the public purse exceeds its demands for public funds . Conversely , a revenue -expenditure ratio less than one indicates that the sector ' s demand for publicly financed services exceeds its contribution to local public finance . The basis for the current analysis was Chatham County ' s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the 1997 - 98 fiscal year. As noted above , the allocation of these data to specific sectors was done in consultation with a variety of local officials (listed in the Acknowledgements ) . These individuals were best equipped to assess the extent to which the various land use sectors partake of the services provided by their departments . Where feasible , expenditures were allocated to the various land use categories using available data on staff salaries and/or activities records . For example , the County Building Inspections Department maintains monthly records on the number and type of inspections conducted, and so we were able to compute the share of residential and commercial inspections and allocate the Inspections Department ' s expenditures accordingly . Often , existing records were not amenable to being decomposed into various land use categories . In many of these cases , we relied on a local official ' s best guess of how their department ' s efforts were allocated. Where the relevant officials were unable ( or unwilling) to make such a guess , we used one of two default allocation schemes that seemed most sensible . For services that exclusively benefit households ( as opposed to commercial establishments ) — for example , library services and Board of Elections services — we allocated expenditures based on 3 the distribution of the county ' s population between farm households and nonfarm households . ) For services benefiting both households and commercial establishments ( such as Emergency Management activities and many General Government functions ) , we allocated expenditures based on the proportion of total property value accounted for by each land use category . Finally , early on in the research a question arose as to the appropriate treatment of expenditures related to Chatham County ' s rapidly increasing Latino population . According to Census Bureau estimates - which almost surely understate the true numbers — the proportion of county population made up by Latinos grew from 1 . 5 % in 1990 to 2 . 6 % in 1997 . Additionally , as of December 1998 , Latino children accounted for 8 . 76 % of public school students . Amon ] county residents , the dramatic growth in the Latino population is commonly linked to certain industries within the county — particularly the poultry processing plants in Siler City. This amounts to an argument that expenditures directly attributable to this segment of the population — specifically public health services and public school expenses — should be allocated to the commercial industrial sector. On the other hand; one could argue that many residents of Chatham County ( of all ethnic groups ) have moved there because of work opportunities , that singling out Latinos is both arbitrary and inappropriate , and that expenditures related to this sub - population should be allocated to the residential sector. It was decided to conduct parallel analyses , one allocating Latino -related expenditures to the commercial/industrial sector, and the other allocating them to the residential sector. This essentially places upper and lower bounds on the computed revenue/expenditure ratios for the residential and commerciaUindustrial sectors . ' An important exception to this was in the allocation of public schools expenditures . Based on information supplied by the Superintendent of Schools and the County Health Director, it was assumed that 1 % of all students were from farm households and 99 % were from nonfarm households . 4 Kew X600 Results A detailed breakdown of revenues sources is found in Appendix Table 1 . Total county revenues for 1997 - 98 were slightly more than $ 39 . 5 million Approximately 52 % of this money came frompropertytaxes . The largest other revenue sources were sales taxes ( 15 % ) and inter- governmental transfers from state and federal sources ( 18 % ) . Table 1 summarizes the overall breakdown of county expenditures for the 1997 -98 fiscal ' led information is found in Appendix Tables 2 and 3 . Overall expenditures for year. More deta million . Two departments — human services and education —each 1997 - 98 were just under $ 40 . 5 accounted for roughly one quarter of the total budget. In addition to expenditures out of the General Fund , there are three additional expenditure sources that account for about 15 % of the rise Funds related to solid waste management and water total budget. These include Enterp ' es • contributions to Special Revenue Funds (primarily supporting public safety functions ) ; utllitl P and a Capital Projects Fund that is exclusively devoted to public schools . Table ? summarizes revenues and expenditures by land use category . As noted earlier, twin Tab analyses were conducted — one allocating public schools and health expenditures directly attributable to the Latino population to the residential sector, the other allocating these expenditures to the commercial sector. In either event , the figures in Table 2 indicate that expenditures Ptures exceeded revenues for the residential land use category , while revenues exceeded expenditures for the commercial/industrial and farm land use categories . The computed revenue/ expenditure ratios quantifies the extent to which each of the three land use categories are either a net contributor or a net drain on Chatham County ' s financial resources . The two ratios for the residential sector are 0 . 90 and 0 , 93 , depending on how in expenses related to the Latino population are treated. These imply that for each dollar ' properly tax and other revenues generated by residential land uses , the county spends somewhere P Y between $ 1 . 07 and $ 1 . 12 to provide services supporting those land uses . In other words , the residential sector is on balance a net user of local public finances . 5 On the other hand , the other two land use categories are net contributors to local fiscal resources . The revenue/expenditure ratio of 1 . 09 for the fa= sector implies that for every dollar In revenues attributable to farms , the county spends only $ 0 . 92 in services benefiting the farm sector. The commercial/industrial land use category stands out as the sector having the Iowest revenue/expenditure ratios (2 . 13 and 1 . 32 ) , and the one most sensitive to how one treats school and public health expenditures directly attributable to the Latino population . 2 Even when all of these expenditures are allocated to the commercial/industrial sector, the results indicate that the county spends only $ 0 . 76 in services benefiting commercial and industrial establishments for every public dollar generated by those establishments . This figure falls to $ 0 . 47 when Latino - related expenditures are allocated exclusively to the residential sector. Conciusiona The results presented above provide , answers to the two questions � osed at the besdnnin �P of this report . As regards the public services provided by Chatham County , farms more than pay their own way . This is true despite farms being taxed on the basis of their current use ( as opposed to their potential use were they to be transformed into commercial or residential uses ) . In contrast , the value of public services provided to residential Iand uses exceed the tax property and other revenues that they contribute to the county budget . This contradicts claims that are sometimes made that residential development is a boon to county finances due to its expansion of the property tax base . Finally, commercial and industrial land uses -emerge as bein .a the .. largest net contributors to local financial resources — even when public expenditures attributable to the county ' s burgeoning Latino population are allocated to this sector. The main finding of this research , then , is that farm and commercial/industrial land uses subsidize residential land uses in Chatham County. This is consistent with the findings of other Cost of Community Services studies carried out in other communities throucrhout the U. S . However, the degree to which the revenue/expenditure ratios of these various Iand uses differ from one another is much more modest than has been found in most other studies . In other These expenditures ( totaling approximately $ 1 . 5 miIlion ) represent a much larger fraction of commercial/industnal expenditures than of residential expenditures , and therefore affect the ratio of revenues to expenditures much more strongly . 6 words , the degree of cross - subsidization of the residential sector by the other land use sectors is significantly more modest in Chatham County than in other locations . As was stressed at the outset, some degree of subsidization of certain land uses by other land uses is .to be expected in virtually every community . The distribution of revenues and expenditures among various land uses in Chatham County that has been computed here is based on current land patterns in the county . Determining whether or not this relatively balanced distribution is appropriate — either now or in the future — is an issue that can only be resolved in the local political arena. 7 Table I . Chatham County Budget Expenditures for 1997- 98 Item Ex enditure % Education $ 1070147518 24 . 8 Debt Service 420747577 10 . 1 Human Services 10 , 77330759 26 : 6 Public Safety 5 , 0221377 Economic and Physical Development 6647116 146 General Government 279247456 7 , 2 Culture & Recreation 657; 011 106 Total General Fund $ 3421307814 54A Enterprise Funds $ 173819752 3 , 4 Special Revenue Funds 12435 , 020 3 . 5 Capital Projects Funds 315007596 8 . 7 Total Other Funds $ 67317 ,368 15 . 6 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $ 40 , 44864182 100 Source : Chatham County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - 8 Table 2 . Chatham County Revenues and Expenditures by Land Use Category for 1997 - 98 Land Use Category Revenues fR Expenditure (E ) RlE Ratios --- - ---- - E e � zditures attributable to the Latino population treated as residential b --- xP Residential $ 321948 , 191 $36 , 681 , 581 0 . 90 Farm _ _ $ 1 , 318 , 025 $ 17206 , 962 1 . 09 Commercial/Industrial $ 5 , 239 , 806 $ 2 , 460 , 105 2 . 13 TOTAL $39, 5 06, 022 401448, .182 -- -- - -- - Expenditures attributable to the Latino population treated as commercial Residential $ 3279487191 $ 357269 , 146 0 . 93 Farm $ 1 , 3187025 $ 172067962 1 . 09 CommerciaUlndustnal $ 5 , 2391806 $ 379727074 1 . 32 �06, 022 40, 448, 182 TOTAL �'39 , a . This ratio measures the amount of county revenue contributed by a given land use sector for each dollar in public services used by that sector . b . Based on estimates that allocated to the residential sector all public health and public school expenditures that are directly attributable to Latinos . c . Based on estimates that allocated to the commercial/industrial sector all public health and public school expenditures that are directly attributable to Latinos . 9 00 O N W) 00 to \0 O 1:5 M O O cn C\ V7 O N `O M M O N M � C\ 'L. ^ N N^ cn LO to ZO N O G\ G1 00 cV N 00N O N N N \ O cn O10 moo rZ to cn M U ~ SS kn Gam% 140 cV 0 �t 0 0 N o0o N 0�0 OMO cn o�p �o V moo N kn �p O tn 00 G 00 Cc C4 cn kn oho O O t� N �-+ G\ O o0 --i to V M CN N O O G\ O O tn "E 4 v 00 r� cn G1 N G1 V7 00 C\ 'Nt cn Uc� ►.y^ r- r N �., cn cn V N d^ N cn M --o �^ O to N Ln to -+ G\ co d' Mcn 00 cn in \40 moo N N G1 - cc M G1 00 [� �. O CD G\ M --� --•i N d; to N O cn N to G\ N oo M cn O 1n \J M O t� G\ C a0 tin Nz:r N 41 m N 1�0 \%o cV N 'd^ N O 00 00 00 � oo N �^ c*� M \%c �^ �D oo O r-i N oo t� to O 00 G1 r••� --+ � G\ o0 00 41 cn M oo G\ Vi —+ M •-� r� (V \40 CDV) M y � V •-1 d- --r - Q 00 \p DO •--a CN }, vc - r. .r r- cn Ca OC) Cot CJ] V owt cc CZ "mod pkb _. cn %Mob '� . ... 0*0 v ?� . G c� C U O O O OC U ` ` yr a� ... --O as U ZOO p CZ a� U v: F+ �• ►� QO �IUU � �.—�' UpUWQ �. � � v� �, �, . c� v� 1018 cn On N cm o c O cn cn cn N v1 N oo N C1 O Q\ O oo `O N "MobC1 C\ —� V co �^ in oo r� cotn in ioc� .. d& N Mr two cn cn oo cn to --� en th N L to d' cn � 00 C\ cn C\ 00 V) (� 00 V `O OU O tn --+ N O cn N G1 G1 d' cn M M O r•-�kn C1 G1 d' V cn GN r-. O c� M N N a' V GME4 d' cn ,;z cn d' vm=4 N O O 7 cf• "zo • d' ffr M oo d- M N —+ \%D C\ 0o O C1 C \ N O G1 00 cn oo p G1 0o r� O O M C' C' N C\ N Ln Ln C\ V') oo N C\ to N in $'3• M � G1 M � � • O v� U c3 -O ...a V U C cn E cs a� r > raj � c WEI _ a� o a� 0 rn cn FEW _� • u C� CJ cn cn Coo PWO -' it .... r V -» am* u MEN ploo roe mmia 7� • N G a '� c� .. �? O U C C _ U C --+ C�o y U V ploo U U O N �► cny n cw GO ~ v u �0 U t. 4� b y tr O ,m Elmo ^^.. Obi • C V C ^ C CZ C� S •; UO cn 000 � � � cn �- v� coo) O E� - + 000M r00 � 000 c� ^ OOM � c� r c: en M tn G1 to 0 0 0 0 • v • L O O 'a^ O cn N O N O N O to N m L N N *-� M 00 r•-i O r-+ O V , w d• V V O o0 CJ N N N cc N °o N tn N N try N romo •-• �- OEM kfm 00 kn 00 M C M ^ N O to [� 00 w N V N 7 t�% cV N oo V V 00 N V eT O to d^ G1 � VI V N d" G\ V V r o0 00 •.-: t �% N cn 00 cc G1 00 U1 N 47t (` r-•1 [� N V) %n " t q7t C G1 to M N to 00 M ^ G1 M N r--i � b+g 7 —r --• b4 C� G1 r M' to 00 C -� O C\ e•-1 kn m G1 00 M CEO v O mot ' • tm C\ N M N vi m t %� 00 C\ GN to Ln ;., d' ' l� O Vr Ct'' O V� O d cq kn M 0C ' "�' C) 00 N.y. � v e� cn G1 d' C [` '�t 00 7 � � N , \0 oo M � 00 • � O C1 N C1 N 00 r*� �^. O M V 00 'd' N m G1 [� to N • � V l N mot' 00 'q' �t O *-• cn qt m oo try N M cn 0=\ cj c� U3 •- COMEN cc G1 C\ O 00 C\ c1 O *- r� C\ N C CZ wm- C\ r- t� 00 G1 G1 tn V C to M in 00 � 00 en G1 G1 . to \%to N G1 \0 d• c*\ GN m r-+ N C\ try V C� G1 V t� 00 vn O cal t� C —+ M to t1 try d' M tr) m to M O M N cq POO -} r "".i ,. v U r x mod qqmmb mEd � U U V - c3 y U - coo UU V o • C�4 cV _ 0 0 0 0 woo 0CU G :n Q • > o r• frAbJ cl fad woo - `; �.. L-a Q ►-.� PON* to cry -- -� O N c'n 00 � O o0 cM O O O O O cr to o0 O O c� oo G1 cV M 'I• 404 G\ w La w w w w w w w w w w 0% L. �' OO V M N V O � to d' M N 00 V V G*N t� [� N O C\ d' N M N V NO f C io4 4y4 N �--+ O O 07 d-. O O inO t� G1 ^ o 00 d• G\ 00 •-� 00 00 . 00 op p oo r1 N c'� O � Ln O O c: en (n O to to �' N V M d• G1 � oo � O � � "T ..� O c� N ^ N N d. M oo Gti O .� w fn cM N\M rood V c� N o0 C1 M 00 N ct' cn 00 [� r� G1 C N N O Ln VI N kn o0 00 en 00 M ton M N .d" V .•-. C*1 r-. .-� N .--• Wit' Nl' qrm� O w • v z Ln ^ V o0 N o0 [� d' d' Cs V r�-•1 cn M k r r'y N O o0 O inC1 M CN N �n d' G1 G1 G1 V M *-' O r-N4 00 d' O cS• '-- d• 00 00 d' �t M M G1 O O [ •-- T-•+ a0 ►_� -�= d' c*1 V '�' G1 O c*1 [� G1 N [� G1 O ct O cc N N N O M kn � 00 VO) Om Nr� en cn Ln b4eel cn ww G � � ROMA rcow N }' • cn > Ono CA) n J y roe a psi bi � .�PW CZ� Uc2i=,, C7C7 � = Q � U o .�. r r o 11 � 00 00 cn 00 V) O O o tn c*A 00 O ioim p �. oocc tn �• M "W"mom ra -" P" w V - - - cn 00 O 00 t� O O I� 0 0 N au t "ft to N O O e O COW ' O r C \ C\ 00 O O O Oin OQ O V , U N y ^ O cn QC �..� cn N M � r r Vn oo N O O O L� O V O N G1 G1 Ln O rm � ' G1 0c0 O G1 f *7 Oen Ln pp O fn 00 d' 41�r N ^" Ln G M r--� �••� c*; c SFr :J cr v 2) cn r- o C3 umoo CZ cn Noma O - cn .. U O.•, .� --• y _ r Mot Cow G O0 „ i: cn V •-� G1 CN C 00 C % t'41 t'+'� V O O O O c *'� --y (M O m ^+ tP R cs O c+) V c1 G1 cf) to N U" � O �%o V m o0 N O -� O O N4D cn V% 1n N O N O W) oo --+ N m L � N V'1 N c*i O 00 O C\ -•, O w d= \D V O m \O -• M4 to N I�O N � � � 00 00 N N in N � r-+ O N oo r� ioSm - L. U — - - - w en � N O to t� t4 to o0 0o N � N d' [� N N 00 — • \�o V C, r.. 00 N �o d" G\ I w to V N �t O\ V V I� 00 X er oo N —+ c*i 00 N C\ 00 In ( "ONO W" N � � � N in tn d- 4 G=. O CT to cn M 7 -�-� W" . . {,f- 00 � G1 C� G1 C \ a r-•1 � O • i c3 N tin r•-i --•4 • 4 C1 to G1 cn C1 00 *C t` Cl\ m cn do cn 00 V m N CT 'd- I� 00 CT CT Ln kn r� •--� �-' --� cn O G\ Cc to \0 Ln O m to m O ^ PM" CO C\ C\ O (� cn 0o d• V N co m r.0 . � N O O N C\I O c*� �O oo cn VZlo c�*� 0000 On N m •-•i W V y 00 00 In CON C`' C70 c� �'. O W 00 cc n N C1 cn Cy (n �' N • = w4ombtr oU G\ G\ 00 C1 la� N DD —• [1 N C\ d' \%o N r C3 "mmq C\ l` w G1 CT In •Q •-N4 In --+ [�ft G\ N G1 M Vr V O "NEW � Cn .- + tr 0o t� 00 C^ r` N --� O O c*') C\ C\ in V N C\ F'" '7' N N C' --o � •C• n � d' C.\ C\ m --i N —+ 00 00 •--� G; •—+ N [� O --� c*'1 �n C� to d- c•� Ln cn Q O N O kn �t v O CT C cn O cni tr'i • •--` iv+9- ri vl?• .ter 0 r ...+ • w" 0 . Oft .. Ono C-0 } % 4] C O O moo -r U U o v O PW c > -• y y �= Oft • - O O — m% O U O U • C --- • O C C V J O U y ¢ • > 0 C CLOW M) .. Q � J •E PIP > .... 91mob cz _ O r cs r G c3 _ '� C • Uems mmi � UU � UUc� � r� �, U ►� Uf=11=a ►� cr� ►� E— :: goo � . . , *mom =hl , Ono1.. r^-I 113 e^S OMEN to 00 O l� O n et l� r� d- O 00 CT N cn mot• ioll:� . ,., •11 . .• '�t '� c r1 O V O ►f'1 V `O -y 00 � C S C\ V L ^ w .! w • ^ � C7Q � cn N \O o mot- V7 qd' cn N CV oo \0 � G; N ■= ~ 6M• N v en - *-, 0000 oo 'a' cn °o � v� --� ooc� oo � ootin � ao - - O Ln to O t� C \ O W --+ d- r� G \ oo --+ 00 00 00 �. 00 O �--� N m a V O O ---� 00 raft O '�' N -+ d- N COO cnen to -� tin --+ - o N V cn d• G1 t� oo O vn %= N O C� N ~ ---. �cq, N C o h O -N-� 0- 04 00 C\ --i --� V) N CD •d' d• -+ c O r-� cn 00 CN en . � Ln cn .�- OO C1 d- �t cn C1 cn —, —• 00 O cn 00 M en N • V m ftN --� t Ln [w l� N 00 V) V d ; V ~ ^ � 00 ^ .. w w ^ • w C1 cn ON 0o N ct- cn oo � � � C; O CV \�o -- �° CT M \�o N --{ O V7 r� N to o0 00 c*7 00 m Ln eq cn Mtn • ..r � � -+ c*5 [� � v-� --� V oo N o0 C� d' '�t � V � r-� c� c� v� d' . 0o O G1 M G1 N to d' C% C1 rt- V7 r MA 0o "tw 00 00 ',::4" cn m CON •' C\ V '7 CT O cn r� ON N C` C1 O �t CD 00 CV N N O V O V N cV m G1 cn -+ to V 0o • [� V) O (V r� to O d- ^+ m cn cq CA In Ln CGOSE VONA r.. Pon" r_ U y i U Qj O cn `-- Ga cn Ca O v> > U U p em) O en U J O cn ftftft� 0 VMS %MooC O C CNow* .. C c ^ C > Lot po ° Ul:lc, v� c� ,-,..ac, Uc� wC7C7n, ... � � U ..] � U WAWA C7 Usome mono L in to tn C\ \10 V�m O a� o0 00 er • % o o N "to — o L cq 00 O ca 00 si 00 \40 N N O o Ln V G1 G1 00 -•� V� C ^ rl � 0 0 U 00 00 \0 N C:1 C \ O 00 00 _ C, N � � O O r-^ -' N 'O cr U U N N o O C\ inr� 00 N O O O C1 C\ pp ^ O V O N G1 G1 Ln? to co cn in M Cl\ O O G . 00 G1 00 fn O C"'� � C) r en 00 'S N ba "6 ;fj• Q o d' U U cr • U U r-• r• C O U U O v j - "Ewa c r o y o cA •-• c r- o o c wn now Cr r— 0� V ?� V rr rCZ � " � • p • O U C i r O v mot! G "�•' .Vr Cu7 .P"MONO 0 —r O rr U :3 115 1 � 6 ORANGE , COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To . Commission for the Environment From : David Stancil , Environment and Resource Conservation Director Rich Shaw , Land Conservation Manager Date : October 3 , 2001 Re : Lands Legacy Action Plan for 2002 - 2003 Once again , it is time to begin the process of developing next year 's Annual Action Plan for the Lands Legacy program . The plan will identify natural and cultural areas that the County will work on protecting through land acquisition or other means during FY 2002 - 03 . Please review the process outlined below in anticipation of the September meeting when the CFE will begin to discuss ideas for what sites it might recommend including in next year 's plan . Recommendations from the CFE should be finalized by its October meeting . August Staff begins workto identify possible projects , BOCC asked to provide initial guiding thoughts prior to advisory boards September Inlbal discussions by the Commission for the Environment ( natural areas/ wildlife habitat, riparian buffers , parklands ) , Agricultural Preservation Board (farmland ) , Historic Preservation Commission ( cultural and archaeological ) , and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council ( parklands ) October Staff works with each advisory, board to . finalize proposed projects for coming fiscal year . November Advisory boards approve recommended projects ; staff develops into draft Annual Action Plan . December . t Draft Annual Action Plan submitted to BOCC as part of retreat materials . . March -April B000 reviews draft . and revises` as desired May Annual Action Plan adopted concurrent with CIP discussions 1 �. 7 lie Additional Information Items Commission for the Environment Agenda August 13 , 2001 Remarks of Linda Fisher Deputy Administrator of the U . S . Environmental Protection Agency, at the National Watershed Forum Arlington , Virginia June 28 , 2001 - Good morning, everyone , and welcome to the National Watershed Forum . I ' m delighted to be back at EPA, working for a President and Administrator who are committed to improving environmental quality and raising the quality of life for all Americans . One of the best things about my job is that it allows me to meet people like you, people who are working hard, giving their personal time and energy, to make a real difference in their own communities and neighborhoods . You are already putting into practice some of the most important environmental principles of our new Administration . Today I want to thank you, encourage you, and promise my support in the years ahead . You are living examples of what President Bush, Governor Whitman, and I believe is the best hope for our environmental future . Let me tell you why. A few weeks ago I was sitting with my children leafing through some old photo albums . And I was struck by how many of them included some kind of water. Kids splashing in the tub , swimming in a lake in Michigan, canoeing on a river, the ever present squirt guns . It reminded me once again of the critical importance of clean water in our daily lives . Not just in terms of our health, but as an integral part of what brings us joy and happiness , and what makes life worth living . And I used the opportunity to explain to them one more reason why I want to return to EPA, to help . protect our nation ' s precious water resources so that every family — today and in the future — has the opportunity to enjoy clean water in all its many uses . Because of my earlier career at EPA, I thought I knew the Agency and its issues fairly well In fact, when I was invited back to become Deputy Administrator, I thought my EPA experiences would make my new job a lot easier . Yet when I got back I was surprised to discover how much the world has changed, and how much I would have to scramble to catch up . This conference , and the way people like you protect watersheds today, are excellent examples of the kind of constructive, hopeful change I see at EPA . Ten years ago , when we thought about �, 21 protecting water quality, we looked at the major sources of specific pollutants , the uses of particular rivers and streams , and the requirements of federal water quality law . All that is still important . EPA is very proud of that fact that over the past 30 years we ' ve put in place a strong foundation of pollution control, particularly for industry and wastewater treatment facilities . We ' re proud of the accomplishments that flow from federal law . But as you well know, the problem is a lot bigger than that . It includes sewage sludge and industrial grease and oils and heavy metals , to be sure . But it also includes habitat loss and fragmentation, suburban sprawl, invasive species , air deposition, the concentration of population along shorelines , the proliferation of home septic systems , and many other issues we were barely aware of ten years ago . In the years that I ' ve been gone from the Agency, you all have made remarkable progress in redefining the problems plaguing watersheds in this country, and expanding the range of solutions . You ' re thinking more holistically than we did back in the 1980s . You clearly understand a fundamental premise that too often gets lost in the Agency ' s daily grind to put out rules and regulations and enforce the law . That fundamental premise is this : the environment is a delicately interconnected web of life , and the web is greater than the sum of its parts . So to protect any particular part of that web , you always have to consider the web as a whole . The watershed is the web of life . The watershed is greater than the sum of all the individual streams , lakes , wetlands , and groundwater that flow through it . And to protect any part of the watershed, everyone who affects any part of it has to be involved . You understand that well . And because of your understanding, your knowledge, your commitment and hard work, you ' re providing all of us with a lot more hope for the future of America ' s water . Since I ' ve been back, I ' ve noticed another big change in the way the environment is protected these days , another change that ' s evident in this room today, another change that the President and Administrator strongly support . And that ' s the extensive , roll-up -your- sleeves involvement of state and local governments , communities , businesses — in fact, everyone who has a stake in the health of a watershed . The federal government, and federal laws , are necessary, but they ' re not sufficient . By themselves , they will never be enough to protect all the watersheds , in all their differing circumstances , across this great country of ours . Those of us who work in Washington simply don ' t know enough about the complex problems facing our watersheds , problems that are rarely the same in any two places . But you do . Not any one of you, but all of you taken together, and others like you . You represent every imaginable perspective within a watershed — from agriculture and forestry and mining to state and local l governments and environmental groups . You bring a collective perspective to the job that no federal agency could hope to bring . They say that many hands make for light work . When it comes to watersheds , many eyes make for clear vision . And you have demonstrated your clear vision many times . The grass roots watershed movement that has sprung up across the country, the grass roots movement that is so clearly present in this room today, is making great things happen . And you ' re making more things happen more effectively than the federal government ever could, no matter how big our budget . Over the past decade you ' re changed the face of our national watershed protection and restoration efforts . According to EPA ' s Adopt a Watershed data base , there are now more than three thousand local groups working to protect their communities ' streams , rivers , and lakes . These productive partnerships include local governments, local businesses , and local environmental groups united to protect watershed health . These grassroots watershed partnerships are democracy in action . They' re the lifeblood of our democratic system . That ' s why I think it ' s no exaggeration to say that your grassroots partnerships not only improve the health of watersheds , they strengthen democracy itself. As you know, both President Bush and Governor Whitman came to their current jobs from state government . They both believe that the federal government does best when it encourages and supports those closest to environmental problems to have a big hand in designing solutions . They both want to see more authority shifted to state and local governments , and they both want to see much- expanded partnerships among government, business , and environmental community groups . They both want to see the work of grassroots watershed partnerships expand . This is not to say we ' re abdicating the federal role . Far from it . We ' re going to do everything we can to make your job easier. We ' re absolutely committed to tough federal enforcement, for example . We ' re developing nutrient criteria that can be applied in every watershed . We ' re working with USDA, states , leading academic experts , and other stakeholders to develop better ways to protect watersheds from animal wastes . We ' ve joined with state and local governments to control pathogen and nutrient pollution from septic systems and other onsite sewage management . And we ' re working across the board with all stakeholders to assure effective implementation of the Clean Water Act ' s TMDLs , which provide the technical underpinning for our mutual efforts to protect watersheds . And in all our watershed protection activities at EPA we ' re going to take advantage of the growing environmental expertise found at the state and local levels . We intend to give you more flexibility to pursue our shared environmental goals in the ways that you think are best . There ' s L2 � another role that the federal government — particularly EPA — can play, a role that the President and Governor Whitman are committed to strengthening . And that ' s the collection, aggregation, and distribution of environmental information . The great thinkers who founded this country knew that knowledge is. a fundamental prerequisite for a democracy, just as the free flow of information is a fundamental prerequisite for a free market . At EPA, we believe that complete, accurate , and easily accessible information is unquestionably the bedrock of effective environmental protection . So we ' re putting in place new and innovative technologies that are revolutionizing the way environmental data is collected and disseminated. This is another remarkable difference between EPA today and ten years ago . And it ' s a difference that will make your job a lot easier . For example , EPA has modernized STORET, the nation ' s largest data base on water quality, so that citizen groups can readily access the data. This data base makes it easier for everyone to understand local water quality— whether they ' re government officials , community activists , a high school biology class , or girl scouts working to earn their water drop patches . It makes it easier for everyone to know what they can do to protect it . EPA and our federal partners are also developing a new internet-based Watershed Information Network. It is accessible by the public and provides consolidated information about programs and resources available to help you. This network links users to financial, technical, and hands - on assistance available from EPA and other federal and non- federal partners . Another thing : EPA and our partners are working to improve publicly- accessible information about the quality of the nation ' s surface waters through the development of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results information system, called WATERS . WATERS displays geographic water quality information and allows citizens to quickly identify the water quality standards , impaired waters , and TNIDL status of surface water across the country. We ' re doing all this , and more, so that you have more tools to do your job . Information is power, and in the years ahead you ' ll have more and more power to take the actions necessary to protect the water that flows through your neighborhoods . You ' ve come here to Washington to discuss the barriers that impede watershed protection and restoration efforts across the country. That ' s an admirable goal, and I look forward to hearing about your findings . I intend to consider them carefully as EPA designs its own watershed agenda for the future . Under Governor Whitman, EPA will make every effort to ensure that our 124 work at the federal level dovetails with yours . We will continue to do the job entrusted to us by the American people . We will still take the lead in many of our traditional areas of responsibility. But the real leaders on the ground, and along the shoreline, are you . So we ' re counting on you to form the partnerships and tailor the actions to meet you unique local circumstances . We ' re counting on you to share your experiences at conferences like this . We ' re counting on you to learn from each other, draw information and strength from each other, so all of our efforts are smarter and more effective . We ' re asking a lot from you, but I ' m confident you ' ll deliver. Because of you, I ' m confident that some day my children will sit with their children on their knees and look back .with smiles and wonder at all the blessings that clean water has brought to their lives . Good luck over the next few days , and thank you very much for inviting me . a_ ) ave Stancil Forum Press Release 7 5 01 doc Page 1 4 i 125 NATIONAL Wn% a F RR KnE.M., FORUM Building Partnerships for Healthy Watersheds PRESS RELEASE July 5 , 2001 National Watershed Forum recommends actions to improve the nations waters . The National Watershed Forum was held June 27 — July 1 , 2001 with about 500 community leaders and senior decision makers from around the country meeting in Arlington Virginia to develop recommendations for cleaner and more abundant water in watersheds around the country. The Forum resulted in a tidal wave of energy and good ideas for protecting and restoring watersheds and for supporting the work of local watershed initiatives . A report summarizing the Forum deliberations and outlining the recommendations of the Forum delegates will be available in four to six weeks . The Forum focused on collaborative approaches — getting industry and environmentalists , local and federal agencies , scientists and local citizens , to work together to solve the problems facing our nation ' s watersheds , Among some of the major themes apparent in the Forum deliberations were . • the desire for a national media campaign to highlight the importance of watersheds , • the need for a significant federal role as well as active State and private sector participation in enabling and supporting local watershed efforts , • the importance of tribal lands and waters and the need to recognize and support tribal watershed protection and restoration initiatives , and; • the value of disseminating information and sharing knowledge about effective watershed management strategies , and the need for a "clearinghouse" strategy to enhance the flow of information about watershed protection and restoration . The Forum was . held because it has become evident that the traditional regulatory tools and billions of dollars invested over the last several decades in reducing pollutants from point sources are not alone going to completely achieve clean waters across America. There are still problems with siltation, nutrients , organic enrichment, pathogens , and metals , as well as critical habitat loss and endangered species . Improvements need to be made at the local, state , tribal, regional and national level by government, private industry, non- governmental organizations and local citizens . Overcoming these complex problems requires the commitment of local people who have a stake in the creeks , rivers , . ., ., , , Dave Stancil Forum Press Release 7 5 01 do_c Page 2 lakes , estuaries , and groundwater flowing through their neighborhoods and their communities . Citizens are recognizing the need to organize into local watershed groups and seek collaborative partnerships . The EPA estimates there are more than 3 , 000 such efforts nationwide . The proliferation of watershed efforts has changed the nature of - environmental protection . The government is increasingly turning to local citizens to help address the complex problems of meeting our clean water goals . This shift in regulatory culture has given those people who depend on aquatic resources for their health , livelihood, or quality of life a voice in decision-making processes and a responsibility in the management of these resources :' The National Watershed Forum gave local watershed groups and private sector and government leaders a unique opportunity to identify and start taking important steps together to improve the nation ' s waters . Additional information about the National Watershed Forum can be obtained from Connie Lewis at the Meridian Institute 970 - 513 - 8340 ext . 202 . She can also be reached be email at connielewisQmerid . org . 10 1 �7 Meridian .institute " Connern.n9 Peaplc to .Sobe .P'roblems - � :_ P . O . Box 1829 1101 141h Street N. W. , Suite 420 Dillon, CO 80435 Washington DC 20005 Phone : (970) 513 - 8340 Phone : (202) 354-6440 .. _ ._ :4 _ ., _.A _ . y _ _ . , _ ) ave Stancil - [Nwfdelegates] National Watershed Forum Follow-up . Page 1 From : " Heather Arnold " < harnold@merid . org > To : < nwfdelegates cr merid . org > Date : 7/21 /01 1 : 05AM Subject : [Nwfdelegates ] National Watershed Forum Follow- up Memorandum To : National Watershed Forum Delegates _ From : Connie Lewis , Sara Suriani , Molly Mayo , and Sarah Walen Date : July 19 , 2001 Re : Forum Follow- Up Thank you again for attending the National Watershed Foruml We at Meridian Institute feel honored to have had the opportunity to work with such a wonderful and dedicated group of people . Thanks also to all of you who took the time to fill out evaluation forms . All of your comments are being shared with the Forum Steering Committee and will be used to help guide future endeavors . We are now working to integrate the work of the Discussion Groups into a first draft of the Report . Our plan is to ask the members of each Discussion Group ( including the facilitator and resource people ) to review their section for any inaccuracies and /or omissions . That draft will be sent out in approximately two weeks . We will incorporate the comments we receive into the final version , which will be sent to all of you in both electronic and hard copy . In addition , we are planning to establish an electronic mechanism for all delegates and other interested people to continue the dialogue on the Discussion Group topics after the Report is distributed . We recognize the desire many of you had to participate in more than one Discussion Group at the Forum . An electronic mechanism will provide a venue for you to add your thoughts and ideas on other topics beside those your Discussion Group addressed , as well as for continuing the exchange of ideas among Discussion Group members . We will notify you once the details of that mechanism are worked out . In the meantime , we want to provide you with a number of documents that have been requested . Attached are : • A copy of Linda Fisher' s keynote speech , delivered at the beginning of the Forum . • A list of discussion group participants with their emails , to help facilitate on - going communication of group members . • A copy of the press release that was distributed to the media after the Forum . • A copy of the Resolution that was presented during Saturday' s closing session . Dave Stancil [Nwfdelegates] National Watershed Forum Follow up Page 2 128 Please don 't hesitate to contact us with any questions or other needs . Again , we want to thank you for attending the Forum , and for the contribution you made through your participation to watershed protection and restoration . We hope to be able to work with many of you again in the future ! Heather Arnold _ Project Coordinator Meridian Institute 1101 14th Street , N . W . , Suite 420 Washington , DC 20006 Phone : 202 - 354-6442 Fax : 202 - 354 - 6441 www , merid . org �, � g Im S11 �.LINN kC r i All IL P `q. . 3 f r , ON es� i T 2 000WaterQuality fi. : I me I . ,-mfW a 0 Not4 .k qT ' Ike — --- - I. - .�1 - - - me tor me rem 0 No4 mi. I fee I I, ,. . � mom "fh.,r�+}Rr OWASA MEETS ALLme DRINKING WATER STANDARDS In 2000 , the Orange Water and Sewer Authority provided Inside this report: more than 3 billion gallons of drinking water to the Carrboro - Chapel Hill community in accord with State and Where our water comes from . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 2 Federal standards . Where contaminants come from . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2me ti p . eme Our Laboratory staff tested our drinking water for more than Types and levels of contaminants found 100 substances , but only 13 were present at detectable levels , in treated water and the related As shown inside this report, the substances we detected were drinking water standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p . 3 ' well below the limits set under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act . How drinking water is treated, . a 0 a 6 a 9 6 0 0 a a V P M ff 0 top . 4 IF Regular testing of our drinking water indicates that it is healthy and safe for almost everyone . However, people with weak orme What is Cryptosporidium ?. me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p . 4 developing immune systems may need to take special Feeme I ' m precautions . ( Please see the additional information below. ) How to get involved in water issues . . . . . . . . . p . 4 For people with special risks of infection . . . Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in risk of infection by Cryptosporidium ( please see page 4 ) drinking water than the general population . Immuno-com - and other microbial contaminants are available from the , m me promised persons such as persons with cancer undergo- Safe Drinking Water Hotline ( 800 -426 -4791 ) . me me I = - ing chemotherapy, persons who h'ave undergone organ transplants , people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system, To assist people with these infection risks , OWASA offers tem disorders , some elderly people and infants can be water treated with extra filtration , a reverse osmosis pro- mi particularly at risk from infections . cess and final disinfection with ultraviolet light . This water is available from an outdoor water vending machine on - These people should seek advice about drinking water from the west side of our Operations Center, 400 Jones Ferry4 . me their health care providers . Guidelines from the U . S . Envi- Road , Carrboro . The cost is 35 cents per gallon . The wa - I me ronmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and Centers for Dis- ter vending machine can fill a customer' s container up to ease Control ( CDC ) on appropriate means to lessen the 5 gallons . te Igo , FOR MORE INFORMATION : i , . , s me If you have any questions about this report or concerning your water utility, please contact the Water Treatment Plant ',a ;; me I Chemist at ( 919 ) 9684421 , ext . 227 , ( Our U . S . mail , e- mail and fax numbers are also listed below. ) We appreciate '1 - . . me me the opportunity to respond to any concerns or questions t}, me me you may have . ed � me "smelllie . . I Nome mm rim:� _ANN ..mmtLm� role �F _ _ VNIL Im . ff memo me I . '. .. • 1, YI I. Este documento contiene inforniacion importante acerca .,.._ de la calidad del suministro del agua publico . Si necesita v- 1. - _ _ mile ~-�1 4 - I ayuda para traducir este documento , llame por favor a la ' '. - -. - ., 1. Impresa de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado de Orange al Sandra Bradshaw, OWASA' s Laboratory Manager, 9684421 . collects a water sample at University Lake , Orange Water and Sewer Authority Public Water Supply No . : 03-68-010 EPA' s Drinking Water 400 Jones Ferry Rd . , Carrboro , NC 27510 Telephone: (919) 968-4421 I Hotline: (800) 426.47911 Fax: 968-4464 E-mail: webmaster@owasa . org Web site : wwwoowasa . org I . Nell me Net. I .y This report oil the quality of drinking water in 2000 was distributed in May, 2001 . Printed on recycled papeJ: 164% _ .. _- . .. . I . - - - 1 . .__ .- - . _. . . _ - - - - -- - I _ I I - me - _ --- - - - -- -- - - - e -- - - - - - - - - - - - - :% _ i i f l:j . W. r � . J ell rIWol} 1r . ----- - —.-..� _ _._ —_._. ___ram.._ . ._ _ - "- - - - - - - - - - - - - Weal. e. r __ � _._ � -- - -- - -- - - - - y - - '3 - - I . _ :r=• 1 I We WWW I, III Wl WrjrW`We I. IV uollllq aad shed 5 ' 0 Io lanai algeloa}ap ay } nnolaq senn � 81W : s6u ! pu !j }sal an0 • uol6aa albue sa !}!n!� 6ui n oui saoanos as eM awos ul -oe 6ululw pue uollonpoid se6 pue l ! o to Ilnsaj ay} j0 6uu Ia1 ay} ui sllaM le� anas p l } -m000-Alleinleu aq ueo yolyM ` slueulweluoo anil0eolpe21 puno} ueaq sey } ey} anI } ippe au11ose6 a ' ( DeiA ) Jay13 We lAlne fuellaai AgjaW ao} aa}eM 6ul �luup ano pue se el ano pue `llounj jalennwjols pue suollels se6 wool awoo ul as}eM ay} palsal am We ` OOOZ ` }snbny pue tienigad ul osle ueo pue ' uollonpoid wneloiled pue sessaooid leul -snpu ) to slonpoad-�(q aje yolyM ` sleolwayo olue6Jo alllelon W .F . _ WI 381W a01 SISal VS` MO pue ollayluAs 6ulpnloui slueulweluoo leolwego olue ip I e We We spaepuels - W. a oa o� u oe aasn lelluaplsa� el 4 asayl y6no � yl saoanos � aleM oygnd yI } } d of s o !l pue llounu jaleMwiols ' emllnou6e se yons saomos to A4a alayl jol spjeoq 6ulwano6 leool ay} spuawwoa VSVMO -1Jen a wal awoo �( ew yolyM ` saplolq� ay pue saplo ! }sad " '�(IunoO weyley0 ui paysjeleM a�leq AIIsJanlun to :ped ° 6ulwiel ao 6ululw ' uollonpoid se6 I We r ay} col same Z jad llun 6u ! IlaMp auo of }uawdolanap I! w ! I pue l ! o ` sebleyoslp jaleMalseM ollsewop io leu}snpu ! `llo yolyM spaepuels Mau pa}dope osle sjeuolsslwwoO A(lunoO -unj jaleMwnols waI llnsaj Jo 6uujn000 Alleinleu eq ueo weyleyO ay} ` 666 � ul ' paI ! w ! l Allua6ul�Is sI luawdolanap yoiyM ' slelaw pue sues se yons slueulwe} uoo olue soul e We = ; leloaawwoo Mau ` uolllppe ul ' saseo awos ul PSM011e slot aaoe- Z jo aagwnu pa}! w ! l a y}! nn ` sajoe c aad }! un bu ! llamp lel! lpl !m pue suoljejado �loo}sanll lejn}lno !j6e ' swat auo }o Aj ! snap a o} } uawdolanap Isow }Iwtl ojogjaeO }.o -sAs o !}des ' s}ueld juaw}eeil a6emos woj} awoo Aew yoigm unnol ay } pue AjunoO a6uea0 Aq paldope spaepuels ayl ` eualoeq pue sasniln se yons slueulweluoo lelgaalW - Wt We ' salllnlloe asn puel aay}o pue ajnllno !j6e se : apnlou ! paleeil s ! I1 ejolaq jaleM somos r Ilem se seoelJns snomiedw ! pue }uawdolanap to } unowe u ! }uesaid aq Aew }eyl slueu ! weluoo •�(IInI}oe uewny jo We ayl of palelaj Al}oajip s ! aaleMwjols ul uollnllod ley! umoys slew lue to aouasaid ay} woal 6ulllnsai saouelsgns do Mold aney salpnls snojewnN ' salonaasaa ayl oI aaleMw� ols ueo pue ' lelJa}ew anlloeolpe� ` saseo awos u ! ` pue slew W. WWI- ul pauaeo uollnllod to lunowe ay } aonpa� oI pau6ls - u ! w 6uum000 /� ile� nleu sanlossip � aleM ay} ` puno� 6 ayl -ap We spaepuels }uawdolanap ayl ' suollolpsunf 6uluueld y6nayl ao pue ! ayl to aoe}� ns ayl aano slene�l aaleM sy '. play} ulyllM seaJe paysJa}eM N99JO aueO pue a�le-1 fglsJan -lull jo; sliwll pue spaepuels } uawdolanap paldope aney as pue s6ulads �} O yl y0 P q O �(} O ` salonaasa� ` spuod ` weals ` sa�lel ` sJanu apnlow (Jalenn s}uawuJano6 uno we a ue ojo aje uno abue " l Weir -ap ayl ` sallddns � aleM ano jo �l! lenb ayI Ioa}o � d dlay of pallloq pue aaleM del yloq ) jaleM 6u1�{ uup to saoanos ayl j • sallddns je4em ano aol asualap jo ouil Isig eqj u�os,�' awoo sjuvulluv; uO.1 op 3.1aqm We We : uol }oaload paWsaa}eM �� _- el AINI100 NIVH.IVHO e.Wes �.I,NIl00 WVH"Hf IG oc,WW �y fWe ., . r Z'IIH I�dHHO ALNf100 aJN�'2i0 : _ _ t r d eA f >�sa �u Will We { f 1v5 ci �ZN110O W Wed z non rasa " J� aON�'I/�I�''IV a � ► auoa fee III W We ;a s � F �05 � .uon a ;, r ' `; � � iaa.� �ue ti I 5 �C .1BWWII If Woe, Sm . W4 punogi � P9gs10 uAk : ;: ofuessooeu }i asn aanlnl aol a �leq uepiop wojl uolleoolle JaleM e sey VSVMO '�(IunoO weylego pue y6nojogsll ! H to uMol ayI ` weyjna to 4113 ayI yl! m suolloauuoo Wi. { aull aa} eM Aluo-�(ouabaawa sey VSVMO ' saoanos esay } of uolllppe ul ( ' ss000id luawleeilialeM ayl uo uollewjolut jol v - - abed eas aseald ) a 88.1O s, llyd MA GNe -1 �(Ilsaanlun of padwnd eq ueo alonuasa�l AGjenO auo} S ay } wojl aaleM ' oaogaaeO ul lueld Iuawleaal aaleM peo I Aaaad sauop ay} of Alloajlp padwnd s ! a�lBI AIIsaanlun pue �{ aaaO aueO wool ja} eM = ' suolleb uo ! II ! w OOZ Inoqe sploy yolyM 'alonaasaj Aijen0 euolS aq; Wei pue ` suolle6 uolii ! q C to Alloedeo a sey yolyM `alonJasa �l �{ aaJO au2O ayI " - : suolle6 uo ! ll ! w 09t Inoge ploy ueo yolyM ' GNBI AllsJanlun : sjlonaasaa aaleM aoejjns aaayl woal aaleM sasn Allunwwoo II ! H ladeyO- ojogijeO ayl ^f qua ® jj owoo jejem an ® soolo onLi ll Drinking Water Quality : 2000 Test Results PAGE 3 . In 2000, OWASA tested drinking water for over 100 substances in accord with State and Federal requirements , 1 : 3 2 Listed below are the only substances that were detected, all of which were below the regulatory limits. To get a list Joe : rgoo-g-f go - Wgggl! of all test results including substances not detected, please call us at 968-4421 or see our Web site, www. owasa . org. Glossary : Definitions for words and acronyms used below Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - the level of Picocuries per liter (pCYL) - a measure of the radioactivity low a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no in water. (A picocurie is one quadrillionth of a curie . ) known or expected risk to health . MCLGs allow for a margin o. of safety. Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) - a measure of the clarity of water. Turbidity over 5 NTU is just noticeable to thege Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - the highest level of average person , a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are 0 go go go set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best avail - Action Level (AL) - the concentration of a contaminant which , able treatment technology. if exceeded , triggers treatment or other requirements which - _ a water system must follow. Parts per million (ppm) - one part per million corresponds We to one minute in two years or a single penny in $ 10 , 000 , Treatment Technique (TT) - a required process intended to o reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. we- go gww. - Parts per billion (ppb) - one part per billion corresponds to one minute in 2 , 000 years , or one penny in $ 10 million . Below Detectable Level (BDL) - a concentration that is be- low the level that can be detected with required tests . go Levels and Types of Substances found in 2000 Drinking Water Tests Substance Highest Level Range Maximum Max . Con - Major Sources in , ( unit of measurement) Detected ( ex- Detected Contaminant taminant Drinking Water cept as noted ) Level Level Goalgo Microbiological Substances = Turbidity ( NTU ) 0 . 33 0 . 01 - 0 . 33 TT = 5 n/a Soil runoff All samples 5 0 . 5 . Radiological Substances ' - _ ; ::: .; . Beta/Photon Emitters 4 . 34 no range 50 0 Decay of natural and artifi - o ( pCi/L) ( last tested in 1999) cial deposits googgoogg_ Inorganic Substances Antimony ( ppb ) 0 . 001 BDL to 0 . 001 6 6 Fire retardants ; ceramics ; electronics ; solder ere Barium ( ppm ) 0 . 017 no range 2 2 Erosion of natural deposits - Corrosion of household Copper 90 % of samples Action Level : plumbing systems , erosion ( ppm ) _< 0 . 193 ** ; none 0 . 016 - 1 3 1 . 3 of natural deposits , leaching ( last tested in1999 ) ** F lee above AL . 0 . 339 from wood preservativesgoo Erosion of natural depos- Fluoride 1918 0 . 96 - 1 . 18 4 4 its ; water additive which ( ppm ) promotes strop teethgo ge Lead 90 % of samples Corrosion of householdgo . ono ( ppb) 5 3 * * ; none 3 - 7 Action Level : 0 plumbing systems , eroge go - (last tested in 1999)** above AL . 15 sion of natural deposits Sodium ( ppm ) 22 18 - 22 not regulated Occurs naturally in soils grog Volatile Organic Substances . F go Total Trihalomethanes 64 . 7 41 . 3 - 105 . 0 100 0 By- products of drinking ( ppb ) yearly running avg . *** yearly running avg . *** water chlorination . go - Unregulated Volatile Organic Substances Bromodichloromethane (ppb 7 . 1 Components of Chloroform ( ppb ) 27 . 9 no range trihalomethanes , a by- not regulated product of drinking water Chlorodibromomethane (ppb ) 1 .4 chlorination Ig go Sulfate ( ppm ) 28 20 - 28 Occurs naturally in soilsof *Test required every four years . ** Tests are done in the water distribution system every three years in accord with federal standards . ** * Listed on a 90th percentile or running average basis in accord with federal requirements . i T � . � In February and October of 2000 , we tested for arsenic m go in our drinking water. of go " go The result : arsenic was below the detectable level of 5 parts per billion . q go All drinking water, including bottled drinking water, may be reasonably expected to contain at least small amounts of somego contaminants . The presence of these contaminants does not necessarily pose a health risk . The Environmental Protec- go go tion Agency limits the amount of certain contaminants in water from public drinking water systems . The Food and Drug Administration sets limits for contaminants in bottled water to provide the same protection for the public health . 4 Woo f j/ . IV 1 I al I 7. J.:�_.�-,..F..�. .:. ��r� _..-_ _ _ .. - . .. ." .. " . _ ... _. _ .. _ . ... .. _ _ . .. _ . . -mac _ _1..._ , . _ _. _ _ _ __ _ _ .. _ . .. _ . _. ._ / 3 1 . . .,1 . �► m tadvd a od .?a t iro ajupt `d v in a; n !4Ez sutra in .imm aup u1 c o dp mb ail uo jJoda 1 sit/ �� p 1 1� d ' IOOZ Llt 4. 1� OOOZ ! . 1� 1 ! t L Fee `0 IV I 9 �-896x3• 1a • � n s ; ! 16L -9Z- (008) : aur)(�oH m7 VV896 (6W . auoudapjL OlSLZ DN ` o.�ogi� eD ' vpu �ua3 sauof 00 - IF F IV aaW& 9URFU RIG ScvclS 010-89- 0 ' oN ddnS ioj7gA& Dr nd i ig huaojnv jaAsas pug acajuAAL Auujp 'IF •8uldvospuv1 maiolf a -aalmit 2u2sn 1 uv `Sa.(njx1 F2u1 u[n d ; ua1o1 a a po oaogaaeO p 4 1 �� PUB IM IadeyO ul swals/( s uoislnelal algeo ay } uo sbulleaw ` ~ i Zfv S1a 10� sn Mo Ru2sn 9av I p 1 7 1 PaeOB `dS`dM0 yolenn ueo nog( sAepsjnyl y}ano} u0 ' IIeH unnol L j s9nhzugoaj uotiveuasuoo yuvpodua II ! H Iadego ayl le sAepsanyl ylJnoj uo pue : oaogjaeo ' peo�j tijaA IF ry Isow ail; fo oM,l sa�v� �o1(s .�a� vnt sauop 0OVr 6ulpling suoljejado VS`dMO ayj ui wood{ Aliunwwoo qpM adoo puv juana.�d dpa1� uvo jvz1j ayl ui syluow lsow jo s �Cepsanyl puooas uo wd L le slaaw uolinpos pvoyomd v s p - -vap1 pooh v AIlensn paeog ayl • soomies aalemalsem pue aalem ino aol 196pnq iSn�lou s1IVOI.LY'112L�S�I00 2I�,LY'� ayl sldope pue salollod slas yolynn ` sao}oaaiQ jo paeo8 b' Sb'MO aLp jo sBuileaw uie4edioiped pue pualle o; nog( a ; inui OM • wnippodsoldfjo lnoge uoilewaolui aaow a�{ il pinonn nog( 3! 6Zbb-896 le sn loeluoo aseald pasodo� d F. ' =-= � o papaau aje Alilenb ielem builoage spiepuels pue salollod 1 M9U ` sluawanoadwi uagm luelaodwi si Role ` spoigo ollgnd Moloupel luawleeil paleoilsiyd -os pue uoiloaload jalenn aoanos }o uoileulgwoo 6uiloeluoo Aq ` sbuileaw ollgnd le snnaln anon( 6uissajdx3 e gbnoayl wnippodsoldfuo loiluoo aM • se el PUB sweeils leool ul in000 Aew pue salsenn ( 6ao esenno@aajsewgann : clew lewiue pue uewny woal sawoo wslue6ao ayl -a : 6ao esenno nnnnnn : ells qaM t Zt�t�-896 : auoydalal ) b'Sb'MO 11 builoeluoo Aq pue : suoilezlue6ao Jaylo pue uolleloossy s J0 aalenn paleaal ui ll paloal aaleM ueol� awy `�(oua6y uoiloalad leluawuainu3 . S . n eqi -ap aanau sey pue ja}enn pa}eaal pue silomasaj 10 asoy } se yons sails qaM : Ajeagll aye ui silooq : elpaw snnau ano ui wnl laodso dti ao a sa se woal sanssl aoinosaa aalenn pue jalenn lnoge weal ueo nod IV P O P y dSdMO V. palse5ui ji swoldwAs ieuil luedlol}aed aniloa}}a ue buiaq ui dels lsail ayl si pawiolui 6uiwooaq 0004 -sal1U10alse6 aaylo pue canal ` eayaaeip asneo ueo Ile � -; IF I leyl wslue6ao oidoosoaoiw e si wnipiaodsoldi( i0 & SABM leJanas ui slanal leuoileu pue alelS ' leool ayl le sanssl aoanosaa jalenn ui panlonui lab ueo noA IF cuntpuodso; dAJj IF AIR r0 IV , sanssl Aiddns as; em pue Ajilenb iejem u ► lVV:�Fl : ; - - ; '` � SI leuM panionui 19B ueo noA MOH I F. • saull aalem 10 Niomlou � . . IV . : - alp snld -ppg e y6noayl del anon( of paJaniiap aq ueo jalenn payslull os aanssaad apinoad yolynn ` ( g ) s�{ uel a6ejols ' ; palenaia ieaanas Jo auo of Aliep padwnd uayl aae suoile6 jo suollliN • abeaols ijeaodwal jol ( L ) Ilamjealo u010 uollllw so ayl of snnol} uayl Jalenn ayl • pappe eje seouelsgns jaylo pue epponlj aaagm ` ebels luawleajl-}sod ayl sialue ' :`V''., FV_ dr, aaleM ayl ( g ) panowaa We saloilaed 6uluiewaa aaaynn ` ( leoo alloeaylue pue pues ) saall !i elpaw lenp y6noayl paennuMop Fm IV snnoll jaleM (S ) • uoiloaluisip col pappe si ( yoeelq ) auiaolyo jo wo} pinbil e ` saallil of padwnd si aalem sy (t,) • allies of spilos ao; awll molle pue aalem ayl xlw yoigm ' suiseq uoileluawipes jo aolesind aql jaylia of padwnd uayl si aaleM *I ... :. :. :.: . . ::. ( £ ) •jopo pue alsel anoidwi pue aayla6ol dwnlo salorped pilos a �iew of PaPPe aae sleolwayo oixol- uou ajagm `Alliloel " ;r;:: ;..-:; s�{aonnpeay ayl y6noayl saalua ( Z) pue lucid ayl of padwnd si �{ aa� 0 aue0 � o/ pue a�{ e � �(lisaaniu � woJ1 Jalen� mej f ( 6 ) ; = Fef - = := :;; Ilt.grUP.trl /.anil O /'OM+lm.,gl ,•.r.ylrl © . . I OF IV IFFIF © I V. 14 VFF,-.F I F F.. Vp 3 Fp [7 -=- VII. N, Q fi�.,n,nlq,,,rl pu'/rl - IV IV 1 - - "IF? llamloa�� �' OF Q _ 1p l -' / l:. �V" Itlril O nnn,an�lal� j r777777777 le '! © ' .'� i • '`: �IV �, IF -VVV.V,AF IF F ^ t 1. IV y FIFFIFFIF al VrVA ,; - ,.ton( 0 IF I I IV I Fr I IV :yl IFIV,W . } ; r; IFIFF CID1'r' 3 �I1 . SI j D1�'M (�� O MAW t g O `dd IV _ . More N . C. trees cut than grew wysiwyg://3 /http : //www. charlotte. com/0718timber.htm oil charlotte . com ONEThat' s Racin ' - Yellow Pages - Entertainment - Travel - Community �' 3 Local Guide - Weather - S orts - Health ONE Careers - Real Estate - cars . com - Classifieds i a . r Posted at 10 :49 p . m . EDT Tuesday, July 17, 2001 ` E - mail this story to a friend i - f More N . C . trees cut than grew • I Storms, development blamed as region 's forests shrink Front Page Local News By BRUCE HENDERSON Schools Mecklenburg ' Gaston ` Harvests in southeastern North Carolina outpaced tree growth during York the 1990s , reversing a trend at least 25 years old, says the first Cab arrus inventory of N . C . forests in more than a decade . Catawba IredelI Union The report adds definition to a debate in North Carolina and the South, Obituaries the nation' s leading timber-producing region, over whether forests are being appropriately managed . A section ` Demand for paper and lumber threatens clean water, wildlife and Natlonll II . ; t1. p P 0. 1lnion ' scenic vistas , say industry critics who are pressing for stronger state Siers cartoon oversight . Observer Forum ! BUSINESSa '. mile Industry officials say a greater concern is that development will gobble Business . News up timberland . The southern coastal plain had a net loss of 187 , 000 Business Update 'N acres of timber in the 1990s . Business _ Monday . Click Indust! y news Forestry officials said hurricanes that lashed the southeast region, Stock .Qu 'otes felling trees and reducing net growth, accounted for the Mortgage Rates growth-removal change . Losses of pine trees doubled over the decade , Tax value tsearch while hardwood losses rose by two -thirds . Todav' s Stories " Frankly, it was much more encouraging than I expected, " said Bob Message Boards s Slocum of the N . C . Forestry Association , That' s Racin ' Panthers/NFU ; Hornets/ NBAMENEEMENED . Environmental groups said the numbers show North Carolina is Outdoors cutting too many trees . " If this is any sign of things to come , the t : III numbers are much worse than we expected, " said Dan Whittle of Environmental Defense . Living Health Food Environmental Defense and other groups called for changes in state )re N. C . trees cut than grew wysiwyg: //3 /htJ .4//www . charlotte. com/071 Stimber.htm Fame policy to protect streams and wildlife , and for tax incentives to reward ` Faith - . Ga'rdeningIF I conservation . F. Home Entertainment The report, compiled by the U . S . Forest Service ' s Southern Research Arts IF Station in Asheville , is the first update of forest ownership , timber Book rev :. I F volumes , growth and removal rates since 1990 . Forests in other N . C . Travel IF regions will be inventoried over the next two years . IF Site index The coastal plain is the most intensively logged part of North Carolina, City Guide with most of the state ' s paper mills and large sawmills located there . Contact Pp g us 61 Feedback International Paper, the state' s largest private landowner, owns charlotte com 540 , 000 acres in the southern coastal plain . j, R;: 4IF 1 Forest agency officials will discuss the report at a meeting today in ! Clinton . Among its findings : yy Ma1`+ .t a Y++ ' 11 t It FIFFJ. 04 ,� TIFF Net annual growth in pines increased 15 percent, while harvests rose F 4 . 1 FIT IF 41 percent . Among hardwoods , net growth dropped 34 percent, mostly because of storm damage , while harvests went up 21 percent . j A- =J :. �, - Saplings 5 inches or less in diameter, springing up after trees were to gg Y ed or downed b storms cover more than half the 5 million acres of timberland in the 21 southeastern counties . IF IF About one-third of the region' s pine trees grew in . plantations , which produce more wood per acre but can't match the biological diversity of IF natural stands , up from 24 percent in 1990 . IF IF TIFF IF : T State Forester Stan Adams predicts forest growth and harvests will IF balance out over the long term . Young trees will add a flush of growth IF IF , IT I IF over the next decade, he saidIF The southern coastal plain has only about 8 percent less timber acreage 61 IF now than in 1938 when the first inventories were done . 1 : 1 IF IF I " We 're in this for the long haul , " said Tommy Tew, land manager for Corbett Timber Co . in Wilmington . " Too many people look at a snapshot of the world . " IF IF I This snapshot bodes ill for reports from the remaining regions of the IF state , said Trevor FitzGibbon of the Dogwood Alliance , an environmental group . I IF IF The alliance called for a six -month moratorium on expanding chip and IF pulp mills , and joined two other groups in asking for development of a F . state plan to protect forests , water quality and biological diversity. IF I IF I IF Few state regulations govern forestry. While loggers aren't permitted PF to send sediment into streams and rivers , the industry is excused from F IF IF I IF I IF prescribed erosion- control practices that developers are supposed to More N . C . trees cut than grew wysiwyg: //3 /http ://www . charlotte. com/0718timber.htm obey. 13 IF IF I IF F IF " From a public policy standpoint, it' s been almost totally ignored, " Whittle said . North Carolina allows lower tax values for farms and actively F IF managed timberland . Environmental Defense says the tax breaks I IF should be extended to people who don't want to cut their trees . Bruce Henderson : (704) 35& 5051 ; bhendersongeharlotteobserver. com . IF ' r FFF Send this story to a friend Just enter your email address and the address of the recipient From : Poo ....�. .. To : Send NEWS FEATURES SERVICES IF IF Front page GoI Living T 7Go That' s Racin ' TO 138 a s f s � If No := TM IN IS NNI L IN 4 IN IF Vol . 12, No . 4 July—September 2001 MarylandCreates 3 1 ( T ' b G1� . c- t .KS. 2tiY 5 7.`-bit y'f4 h� .i xfT Y T It f' ter ,t`'' o,s1' . . '. _� y- �- GreenPrint Progra Editorial: Christopher Leinber er of p g Arcadia Co . explains how changing real 0 Maryland ' s new GreenPrint Program aims to preserve estate finance is the key to improving real a statewide network of green infrastructure that links estate development , protected lands of high environmental value . Legislators this spring approved $35 million in first- year funding for Maryland' s new GreenPrint Program Award: International Paper honors T (410 / 260 -8705, www . dnr . state . md . us / greenways / an Oklahoma conservationist and a greenprint), which gives the state a new tool to protect Michigan school teacher for their more of the 1 . 5 million acres of environmentally signifi- environmental efforts . cant, undeveloped land in the state . Lawmakers allocated $ 8 . 75 million of first-year fund- Readings : Reinvigorating urban parks and ing for the state Agricultural Land Preservation Founda- designing safe communities . lion (410 / 841 -5860 ) to buy conservation easements on farm, forests and timberland . The state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will spend the remaining $26 . 25 million on acquisition of land and easements . Gov . Parris Small Tracts : Boise residents vote to protect See GreenPrint, page 8 open space, Pennsylvania ekes out a lead in the farmland preservation race and Americans opt for mass transit over cars . Fund Protects Land in Maryland, Florida , Virginia and California State Action : Legislators in four states DI The owners of a 324- acre farm that harbors nesting bald approve bills to protect more open space . eagles and a rookery of herons along the Chesapeake Bay recently sold their land to The Conservation Fund for pres - ervation. Maryland paid the Fund $7. 25 million to obtain a conservation easement on the Gately' s Holly Beach Corporate Notes : American Electric Farm, one of the last undeveloped peninsulas on the bay' s Power buys Louisiana land for a major western shore . Maryland combined $ 1 . 9 million of Pro- carbon sequestration project, Toyota gram Open Space money with $ 5 . 3 million in federal fund- tabulates its environmental progress, ing from the Interior and Transportation departments to the paper industry nears its 507o paper acquire the easement. The Fund plans to give the farm, recovery target and Kodak donates 2, 500 located south of Sandy Point State Park in Anne Arundel IN County, to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation for use as cameras to help communities envision a an environmental education center . The Fund also has more attractive future , secured a North American Wetlands Conservation Act grant to protect and restore wildlife and waterfowl habitat See Land, page 7 COMMON GROUND VOL, 12 NOr 4 JULY—SEPTEMBER 2001 3 9 ;, " 7 tom. . r2 - .F ' n ;, -:'tR � i� ' �t . _ �., _.. -:•i z.� , ,� ! I .t �:3 k. r*11', ;\l; • 'ic .� . •, , is"�.v;..-n. I, ti, . r�au, iJA T . F 1 ll' ' 1 r `i. S. F Y 1 a:/.r 1 '_ _:N t fi . j� : Jirt•� Y!'4 _ S.Y ...} - ! `f ' f i N�' y. +Y -. . 1 r 1 �'� L M �• . r Esl,. _ lr;:' t.. r. ;"'b3, .;�.y ..,. F . v.:. `.= �;.. . N_ - . -5cS i .zs.^ S ,:" � rN . i•;< •: 'u. ,.`",;,ic..F n ,J.t-}`u";" .^�' i i 4` } t �4 'ai-Fr{• Financin For 50 years, the real estate development velopment, hurting prospects for success . industry has adapted itself to what car mak- This is why Arcadia Land Co . pursues Progewiv . ers, road builders, farmers, local politicians development projects that employ an up- and consumers want—a car- oriented, built dated version of traditional financing that Deenvironment. "il � �� We have standardized this we call " time traunches . " Rather than amor- process so that " conforming" real estate tizing the financing of a project, both equity products—strip malls and suburban office and debt, over the short-term (three-to -five buildings—are commodities traded on Wall years ) as conventional development does, Street, just like stocks or bonds . Arcadia slices its development financing Considerable effort has been exerted into three time traunches . We give short- - over the past decade to change how America term investors and banks short-term re - builds itself. Sprawl' s damaging effect on the turns . We then give mid- to long-term inves - environment and social equity motivated tors the kind of returns they want. Invest- this movement . Consumers also have grown ment time horizons have been lined up with disenchanted with the sterility of the Ameri- investment returns . can built environment, its growing lack of Arcadia is using ttimeAraunche invest- convenience and, most of all, increased traf- ing in downtown Albuquerque on a $30 mil- fic congestion . There is "pent-up demand for lion movie-theater, retail, office and live / ui � a pedestrian- oriented alternative, more in work development. Only 55 % of the cost of taw keeping with 5, 000 years of city-building the project 1s 1n the short-term time is published quarterly 11a:, , a that preceded the current preoccupation traunche, with the remainder in the mid- to service to the conservation with making the world a safe place to park long-term traunche . We can build real build- community by one' s car . The most obvious evidence : the re- ings, with brick and tile facades and oper- The Conservation Fund vival of half our downtowns, particularly in able windows, rather than the substantially Chairman Patrick Noonan the past five years . The remainder should re- cheaper buildings in strip commercial devel- John F. Turner vive themselves over the next decade . opment . Our mid- and long-term investors President Architects, planners and developers are realize returns that put a financial- founda- Mike McQueen trying to relearn how great pedestrian- ori- tion under their organizations . Editor ented places were built, exploring pre-World This approach gives progressive real es- Jack Lynn War II precedents . New Urbanism in ar- tate one thin it needs : time to mature into a Editorial Consultant P P g Meg West ticular attempts to relearn the lessons of the real place, a place where people will have a Art Director great planners and developers of the 1920s . reason to walk around . It recognizes that For address corrections and But conservation development, smart real estate is a 40 -year asset class, not five - information, contact: growth, urban revitalization, New Urbanism year . It gives patient capital—a very rare April Berry and other forms of progressive development commodity today—superior mid- and long- Circulation Manager all et hung issue : financing ' Pro - term returns that real estate has historically The Conservation Fund g g up on one 1800 N. Kent St., Suite 1120 gressive development does not conform to shown itself capable of producing. Arlington, VA 22209 Wall Street expectations . The result : many —Christopher Leinberger 703 / 525-6300 proposed projects will not get past the plan- The author is a partner in Arcadia Land Co . in COMMON GROUND routinely pi grants permission for reprints . ng stage . If they do, the cost of financing Santa Fe. , N. M . , and a member of the National Address editorial correspondence will be much higher than conventional de- Council of The Conservation Fund. and reprint queries to : COMMON GROUND 940 Stillwater Lane Earlysville, VA 22936 804 / 973,,7324 coground@aol. com E COMMON GROUND is available on the World Wide Web at http: // www. conservationfund,org Printed on recycled paper. c nilo o Uat at at j.' Val � O "Someday, all this will be infrastructure ." F ' tip.=.y !+ © U • t COMMON GROUND VOL. 12 NO}. 4 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2001 r ; WALTZ tr, hp,• 3 . a,Z�- .s' •i` t• k ,f `t' rt =1={•r i' /�' i . . \: tr .\ 4. D1 International Paper Awards $ 20, 000 in Grants 1 N International Paper and The Conservation for Excellence in Environmental Education. Fund presented the 2001 Environmental Etheridge created the Murphy Model for Excellence Awards, accompanied by $ 10, 000 Environmental Education, a comprehensive grants, to an Oklahoma conservationist and program to integrate environmental educa- a Michigan school teacher . tion in the elementary school curriculum . The model involves students in resolving William Crawford of Frederick, Okla . , thorny business / environment issues . He also earned the Alexander Calder Conservation designed and obtained funding for environ- Keith Etheridge Award for leading a six-year, $ 10 million ef- mental workshops that provide teachers with designed fort to restore the 7, 600-acre Hackberry Flat the tools to " refute the myth that we must wetlands in southwestern Oklahoma . choose between a healthy environment or a environmental Crawford helped forge a partnership among strong economy, " according to the Michigan workshops to local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, Environmental Council . provide teachers nonprofit conservation groups, and the lo - The Calder award, now in its 13' year, with the tools to cal, state and federal governments . is presented to people who protect wildlife The wetlands, once drained for agricul- habitat through partnerships between busi- refute the myth ture, now support 30, 000 Canada geese, ness and conservation. The Cartledge award that we must 30, 000 sandhill cranes and 50, 000 ducks and honors individuals who encourage a better choose between shorebirds as they migrate through the understanding of the complex relationship nation' s heartland . A half-dozen species also between business and a healthy economy . a healthy nest there . The town of Frederick donates The awards are named after former ex- environment or a water year-round to maintain a 400 -acre ecutives at Union Camp, which merged with strong economy. lake that supplies the wetlands . The restora- International Paper in 1999 . The International tion project—considered the most ambitious Paper Company Foundation provided the ever undertaken in the state—now draws $ 10, 000 grants . Christie Whitman, adminis- tourists from around the state and nation, trator of the Environmental Protection boosting the local economy . Agency, recognized the winners and pre- Keith Etheridge, a fifth grade teacher at sented the keynote speech at the award Murphy Elementary School in East Lansing, ceremony, which was held June 21 at the Mich. , received the Gene Cartledge Award National Press Club in Washington, D . C . MT R . TTRW917NVRMU tst DI: J . f - �' ?� -l_y�` o . . y� Ls'` - L`. �'�{� 6 � '� : ➢• ty�. - L. - '�i` . '[ .' v� '' :P�J. p� . 5�. - �i: . -:-ec'. r.�• _ I i^ Parks, Recreation, and Open SafeScape : Creating Safer, More Space . A Twenty-First Century Livable Communities Through Agenda Planning and Design by Alexander Garvin by Al Zelinka and Dean Brennan American Planning Association American Planning Association (312 / 786- 6344 ), 2001, 72 pp . . (312 / 786- 6344 ), 2001, 285 pp . Code 1AG-D . $ 30 . 60 . Code 1ZB -K. $ 70 . An outgrowth of APA' s City Parks Fo - With help from 17 case studies and 450 rum, this report details the century-long photographs, these Arizona urban planners impact that Frederick Law Olmstead had give thumbs up and down analyses to hun- on America' s urban parks and how subur- dreds of design features encountered on the banization has altered the role that parks, street that signal safe or unsafe environments recreation and open space now play in in urban and suburban settings . They focus Americans' lives . Garvin, a New York City on Jane Jacobs' " eyes on the streets" values Planning Commissioner, Yale University that say no to windowless walls and opague professor and principal author of The Amen fencing and yes to porches, lighting, attrac- can City: What Works, What Doesn ' t, uses case tive landscaping and other visual cues that studies to argue for a more businesslike ap - show community residents care about their proach to park management . Officials must homes and neighborhoods . The book builds maintain clean parks, upgrade them so park on the Crime Prevention Through Environ- activities interest the public, and market mental Design approach, which emphasizes them to surrounding neighborhoods to de- access control, natural surveillance and terri- i velop grass roots support, Garvin says . torial reinforcement . COMMON GROUND VOL , 12 NO. 4 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2001 ry ^u•i 3 ati • . + �.'. �,.,,:-, . i"`-Rll . LG , •r^.t- 4 :t ::J� 4- _l r ✓x. ,ry "•�i: P.n 2 a n'. d -'tt 1. • t' ••i 3J - ';3.. .D ' 7 ^ ��li ;, f , lt r y "Y hf !Rid, 4'' •,'Vnp . l - .f. ems• ,^rJ �r . , 1�- ..i„ 1 ' -t�' Si': ;t•�.. ..�., .s :rG� rt . `;': r3 - �12 - � .�i # .iv . l. . '+: ^ %r. .� -.i "zw �, , 'te. F;.�..J<.itJ ' ..•7 rt,�. . - �. .�,.. ,.. - •t. - y' - 'S•=Pr: ^ t. �i f' . ' •- t: SMALL Pennsylvania now rivals Maryland as a States authorized a record $ 565 million in The Conservation Fund national leader in farmland preservation, spending last year on bicycle and pedestrian Vital Statistics according to the American Farmland Trust facilities, rail-trails and other federal trans - Land protected by TCF (www .farmland . org ) . As of February 2001, portation enhancement projects . But more and partners, 2001 . Pennsylvania had protected 186,321 acres of than $ 1 . 45 billion in available federal fund- Acres protected: 60,226 farmland through the acquisition of agricul- ing remains unobligated . Alaska and Puerto Est. value : $ 120, 616,884 tural conservation easements purchased Rico have obligated 100 % of their apportion- Cumulative land protected, with $495 million of federal, state and local ment while Wisconsin ranked lowest with 1985-2001, by TCF and funding . Maryland, a much smaller state, has 337o of its $ 109 .5 million obligated, accord- partners * protected 185, 872 acres with $233 million, i Acres to an annual tally by the National Trans followed protected : 3, 020, 012 followed by Vermont ( 88, 281 acres, $45 mil- portation Enhancements Clearinghouse Est. value : $ 1 ,446,388,470 lion), New Jersey (70, 950 acres, $295 million), (888 / 388-6832, www . enhancements . org ) . TCF' s three-year average Colorado ( 65, 265 acres, $32 million) and Nationally, 67 . 9 % of $4 . 52 billion in avail- fund-raising cost: Delaware ( 60, 619 acres, $ 61 million) . able funding from fiscal 1992 to 2000 has 217o of total income been obligated . Bicycle and pedestrian facili- The Conservation Fund For the first time since the introduction of ties and rail-trails comprise $2 billion of the is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit the automobile, transit use has grown faster total, with historic preservation ($778 mil- organization established to than drivi advance land and water ng in the U. S . for more than 3 years lion) and landscaping and scenic beautifica- conservation in America . in a row . Recent government and industry tion ($ 547 million) the next most popular The Fund is a member of figures show that in the past five years, trap- projects . Other state obligation rates and Earth Share and participates sit use jumped 217o but driving rose 11 % , rankings (which include Puerto Rico and in the Combined Federal Growth in driving was flat in 2000, the first Washington, D . C . ) * Wyoming-99 . 37o (3 ), Campaign as # 0936. time in 20 years, while transit use grew 3 . 57o . Minnesota-99 . 1 % (4 ), Florida-95 . 1o' (5 ), The figures represent a turnaround from the Maryland-67 . 6 % (32 ), Massachusetts— early 1990s when driving grew steadily and 41 .37o' (50 ), Texas-39 . 2 % (51 ) . P. Earth Share. transit use plummeted 11 . 8 % , according to p g the Surface Transportation Policy Project The double- digit annual hikes in environ- - Conservation Leadership (202 / 466-2636, www . transact. org) . mental giving over the last few years Courses slowed to a more moderate but still healthy Laurance Rockefeller has completed a half- 5 . 71/o increase in 2000 . Environmental giving " GIS Design for Regional century of family gifts to Grand Teton topped $6 . 16 billion last year, up from $5 . 81 Conservation Planning, "Nov. 5-9, Shepherdstown, National Park in Wyoming by donating the billion the year before, according to Giving W . Va. Contact National remaining 1, 100 acres of his JY Ranch to the USA ($65, 888 / 544- 8464, www . aafrc . org), Conservation Training National Park Service . The ranch "will stand published by the AAFRC Trust for Philan- Center : 304 / 876 -7452 . for two principles essential to the long-term thropy . Of eight subsectors, hikes in dona- "Environmental Ethics" well-being of our national parks, " Rockefeller tions for the environment ranked second in (interactive TV workshop ), told Vice President Cheney, Interior secretary 2000, just behind the 5 . 8 % hike in giving for Sept . 26-27. Norton and others at a May 26 ceremony. public or social benefit. Total giving reached Contact NCTC : 304 / 876- "The importance of balancing preservation of $203 . 45 billion in 2000, a 6 . 61yo hike over 7439 (content), 304 / 876- the land with public use and the importance 1999 . Giving by individuals rose 4 . 9 % , to 7480 (registration) . of private-public partnerships . " The gift, val- $ 152 . 07 billion and giving by foundations "Land Acquisition Law for tied at $30 million, comes 52 years after the jumped 19 . 6 % , to $24 . 5 billion . Bequest giv- Federal Natural Resource family' s first gift-33, 000 acres—that created ing rose 2 . 6 % , to $ 16 . 02 billion, and corpo- Projects (Basic)," what is now the heart of the park. By 2006, rate giving rose 12 . 1 % , to $ 10 . 86 billion. Sept . 10-12, Albuquerque, private funding and an endowment will help N .M . Contact NCTC : return much of the JY Ranch to a more natu- Calling all conferees : The Land Trust Alli- 304 / 876-7455 . ral state and build an interpretive center and ance will hold its 141' Land Trust Rally 4 . 5 -mile nature walk. "Laurance' s magnifi- (www . lta . org, 202 / 638-4725 ) Sept . 29-Oct . 2 cent gift to the nation culminates a legacy of in Baltimore, Md . The Terrene Institute Rockefeller conservation in Grand Teton Na- (703 / 548-5473, www. terrene . org) will hold tional Park, " said John Turner, president of the Th National Mitigation Banking Confer- The Conservation Fund and a Jackson Hole, ence in Washington, D . C ., from Feb . 27 to } Wyo . , native who attended the ceremony . In March 1 , 2002 . Scenic America and EDAW ,y. the 1980s, the Fund facilitated a conservation Inc . will host the Scenic Summit (www . easement on the JY Ranch in an exchange for scenicsummit . org, 303 / 494- 1246 ) from April mineral rights in eastern Wyoming . 21 -24, 2002, in Denver, Colo . COMMON GROUND VOL, 12 NO. 4 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2001 tT_t - 1' � > 1 . ,� S , . J'tcy4- . �d'iti.w"�;. -;.%y�' Lilt ::�F. • 'k�. ' . _ �` ' �-r.t{. Lis Z� v r • .d t TRACTS In the first major open space vote in Idaho of pollution control actions known as Total history, Boise voters approved a $ 10 million Maximum Daily Loads . The agency will up - property tax in May to protect land in the date the site as data becomes available and foothills . The area, highlighted by the mile. eventually cover all 50 states . New links will high Shafer Butte, contains 68, 000 acres of be added to data on ambient water quality, public and private land and a 78-mile net- drinking water quality, polluted runoff, fish work of _trails . The city plans to buy ease- consumption advisories and facility dis- ments or fee title to expand existing public charge outfalls . lands and trails, protect scenic viewsheds and vistas, acquire lands facing immediate President Bush has nominated Fran development pressure and preserve wildlife Mainella, the director of Florida' s division of habitat and riparian areas . The Foothills pro- recreation and parks since 1989, to serve as vide winter range for elk and mule deer and the 16th director of the National Park Service , support more than 250 species of wildlife In Florida she administers a 1 , 000-employee and 170 species of birds . agency that oversees 155 state parks covering " We 'Ye really 500, 000 acres . Previously Mainella served as sorry to lose her. " The Environmental Protection Agency has executive director of the Florida Recreation launched a Web site (www . epa . gov / wa- and Park Association ( 1983-1989 ), director of —Charles Lee, ters ) that combines water quality informa- recreation in Lake Park, Fla., ( 1978-1983 ), Audubon of Florida tion previously scattered among individual and assistant center director with the Talla- state agency and other EPA Web sites . The hassee Parks and Recreation Department Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environ- (1977-1978 ) . A native of Connecticut, mental Results site allows users to identify Mainella, 54, taught physical education there the status of individual water bodies and for seven years before moving to Florida . generate summary reports on all waters of a Mainella holds a master' s degree from state . It includes information from EPA' s Central Connecticut State College and a new Water Quality Standards Database, bachelor' s degree from the University of which identifies a water' s designated use— Connecticut. Although she comes from a drinking water, recreation or fishing—for recreation background, she has been very waters in 16 states . It also lists impaired wa- strong on preservation as well, said Charles ters in all states except Alaska that don' t Lee of Audubon of Florida. "We' re really meet water quality standards and the status sorry to lose her, " he said , . \'Y (•: 'r�;al (�"..,: (�) jr {3 �` i _ .c .j} .r . i . At . E tij•^c. �rffi ,r t•'f.-f �. 'v 71 a,} J`srr, .;z: , 7 S}. ? r : r,. yr, 4r .�,�,- tK � t. ?:.CY .- fi E. : r. .. t :: ?.Y a a-,.u. d ' ' .r ,: - } . +, - i . • i' � . . _ . {- ., !-r-: iicf.6 � . `s_ , ir '.- a. r , sa rr t t nr ,a,.. rfi� » ,a. # "X" ('• ' .E:+�e� ? ,yff Lawmakers Support Conservation Easements IN Lawmakers in Colorado, Maryland, credit to $5, 000 per year with any excess to Florida and Montana approved new legisla- be carried forward up to 15 years, for a maxi- tion this spring to protect open space , mum credit of $80, 000 . Florida: Lawmakers, OK' d a Rural and Colorado : Reacting to escalating devel- Family Lands Act aimed at protecting large opment value of ranch and farmland near timberland and cattle ranches in central the state' s fastest growing areas, legislators Florida with conservation easements . After boosted the maximum tax credit for the do - rule-making is completed, conservationists nation of conservation easements to $260, 000 will ask lawmakers next year to devote $ 100 from $ 100, 000, with a $50, 000 annual cap , million a year to fund the program. Maryland : Landowners who donate Montana: Owners of ranch and farm- conservation easements to the Maryland land in the state will be exempted from any Environmental Trust (877 / 514- 7900, property tax hike instituted to pay for open www . dnr. state. md . us / met) or the Agricul- space preservation. tural Land Preservation Foundation (410 / For updates on state open space legislation, 841 -5860 ) are eligible for a state income tax visit the National Association of State Legislators credit under a new law signed May 30 by Web site (www. ncsl , org/programs/esnr/ Gov. Parris Glendening. The law limits the growthdata . htm) . COMMON GROUND VOL, 12 NO . 4 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2001 'FI e:'� +: �. r ��' w _:l`• ?' r . +z,Cj. e- ::r . z .ts :s} .F i� } _ 4;1 �'��.;-':Ci,'GY` ._ Sri : }. . F; f l - ,, „R1. . .1" �: . •.- r-CQn ? i� . n '� �._ - fr i: rxb . � , r. uKa �. , 53,s;•. , , - - r5t �� >a .z .�i a �f +. e .y�, • [ -f_ K ` � u c ce `. - i .c S Ty� Lfi. .`Ll: ;j , �`•:r "', •L, 2 American Electric Power (AEP ), the U. S . will donate a portion of the proceeds from 2001 Kodak Photo Fish and Wildlife Service and The Conser- sales of Natural Light and Natural Ice beer Voice Award vation Fund recently acquired an 18, 372- acre to the Fund . In South Carolina, the promo- RecipierltS tract near the Catahoula National Wildlife tion aims to boost citizen and corporate 1n- Refuge in Louisiana in the first large - scale ef- volvement in the completion of the 400-mile The Parks and Recreation fort to combine land conservation and vol- Palmetto Trail and preservation of the 240 - Board, Eufaula, Ala.Friends of the Tule River, untary carbon sequestration in the United mile Savannah Heritage Corridor . In North Springville, Calif. States . The Fund bought the land in March Carolina, proceeds will promote the preser- San Juan Mountains from the Tensas Delta Land Co . It then sold vation of river corridors and communities . Association, Durango, 10, 257 acres to AEP for restoration to bot- Colo . tomland hardwood habitat and creation of a M The U . S . paper industry is closing in on its Conserving Tolland, sink for atmospheric carbon . AEP expects to goal of 507o paper recovery it set in 1995, re- Tolland, Conn. plant 3 million trees on the land by spring of ports the American Forest and Paper Asso - Abacoa Partnership for 2002 . After reforestation, AEP will transfer ciation (www . afandpa . org / recycling, 202 / Community, Jupiter, Fla. the land to the refuge , "We believe that large 463 -5162 In 2000, Americans recycled 49 . 4 National Community g g ) • Y Building Network / reforestation programs can offset a great million tons of paper and paperboard con- Collins Center for Public deal of the carbon dioxide released during sumed in the U . S ., a 487o recovery rate . In~ Policy, Miami, Fla, the combustion of fossil fuels, " said E . Linn creased export demand for recovered paper Pine Jog Environmental Draper Jr ., AEP' s chairman. The Fish and and more domestic consumption of recov- Education Center, Wildlife Service used a $ 1 . 5 million grant ered paper accounted for a spike from the West Palm Beach, Fla . West Palm Beach Public from the Migratory Bird Commission to ob - 457o recovery rate in 1999 , The paper recov- Library, West Palm taro the remaining 8, 115 from the Fund for ery rate was 307o in 1988, when the industry Beach, Fla . the refuge . Acquisition of the tracts will began keeping track of the waste stream. Dalton Whitfield Chamber triple the size of the refuge . " The Catahoula of Commerce, Dalton, Lake region and the Catahoula National L9 Thor Heyerdahl and the Norwegian Ship - Ga . Wildlife Refuge are among the most impor- owners ' Association recently presented the Canal Corridor tant wetland habitats for waterfowl in the first Thor Heyerdahl International Environ- . Association, Chicago,Ill. world, " said Interior secretary Gale Norton at ment Award (www .heyerdahlaward . com), Miami County Swan a June 27 news conference in Washington, accompanied by a $ 100, 000 grant, to the River Museum, Paola, D . C ., also attended by Sen. Mary Landrieu Green Award Foundation (www . green Kan. (D -La . ) and Rep . John Cooksey (R-La . ) . award . org) . The Netherlands foundation City of Arnold, Mo . encourages ship owners to protect the ma- Boone Area Chamber of LM Eastman Kodak Co . and The Conserva- rine environment by awarding certificates to Commerce, Boone, N . C. tion Fund have chosen 19 organizations i Town of Silver City, N .M. n vessels that meet strict environmental stan- Center for Photography 14 states to receive the first-ever Kodak dards . The program has led to a similar pro- at Woodstock, Photo Voice Awards . Kodak will donate gram run by the Coast Guard (QUALSHIP ) Woodstock, N . Y. more than 2, 500 Kodak Max Flash recyclable and others in Australia and Sweden . Cornell Cooperative cameras to the groups to give "voice" to Extension, Tioga County, their vision of how their communities should Indiana Gov . Frank O'Bannon recently N .Y .City of Oberlin, Ohio be conserved . Awardees are on the left. helped NiSource Inc ., the utility holding Huron Chamber of company, dedicate the Coffee Creek Water- Commerce and Visitors 12 Toyota Motor Manufacturing North shed Preserve on 167 acres in Chesterton, Board, Huron, S .D . America has released its first Environmental Ind ., donated by its subsidiary, the Lake Erie Lead Area Chamber of Manufacturing Report (www . toyota . com / Land Co . Restoration activities at the site Commerce, Lead, S .D . environment) that includes a plan to cut included replacing exotic vegetation with water and energy usage by 15 % per manu- native species to help increase the water factured vehicle, volatile organic compound retention capabilities of the land . NiSource emissions by 30 % , toxic emissions by 40 % also plans to expand the Environmental and hazardous waste landfilling by 957o . The Challenge Fund run by its subsidiary North- company already saves more than 111 tons ern Indiana Public Service Co . to include of coolant a year during engine testing by the company' s nine-state service area . filtering and reusing it . By improving waste NIPSCO has awarded $234, 249 in habitat segregation practices, Toyota also recycles restoration grants through the program. Two 2, 628 tons of wooden pallets annually . years ago, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee honored 0 Anheuser- Busch Inc . and The Conserva- NiSource with a National Great Blue Heron tion Fund are cosponsoring a four-month Award for its donation of 700 acres of wet- " Keep It Natural Carolinas" promotion that lands, prairie and black oak savanna as part ends Sept . 30 during which the company of the Grand Kankakee Restoration project. 14 � 11 COMMON GROUND VOL , 12 NO . 4 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2001 '.�, © i tin, c' • , �f. ;.;j '•F � .. i t ti f e � 41 ' j . } [r � � r � 3° ) , l4, N Y . -. ' 'i � p �,. d� �..�p K. C��- .�, ;4. v � z3u yn�P. ^f v '.. :f � rr d�i Ysf `Nj +1, a 1i a i i. . �V'�r/ y a �•1:.. - Land , from page 1 long-range plans of local governments as a at the farm . At a June 13 dedication, Lt . Gov . first step to implementation . The Conserva- Many thanks to these recent donors to the Kathleen Kennedy Townsend praised the tion Fund administers the network and pro - COMMON GROUND partners for the acquisition, which launches vides support for the collaborative . Research Fund : the Fund' s Chesapeake Bay Initiative, a 10 - year effort to protect $ 100 million of land in M With support from the Richard King Mr. & Mrsrs Lois Renthal Charles the bay' s watershed . Mellon Foundation, The Conservation Fund - Steffens Jr. will convene afirst-ever meeting of natural Elizabeth Warrick 0 The Conservation Fund recently acquired resource leaders of all 50 states . The summit, four key parcels in Palm Beach County' s to be held Oct . 1042 at the National Conser- Twelve donors have Agricultural Reserve, protecting another vation Training Center in Shepherdstown, given $ 695 to the COM- 1, 200 acres of open space and farmland from W . Va ., will provide a forum to define conser- MON GROUND Research sprawl . The land also provides an important vation priorities, new strategies and models Fund this year . If you buffer along the Loxahatchee National Wild- for collaboration among public, private and have not made your gift, life Refuge, the northern component of the nonprofit sectors , John Oliver, secretary of please don' t delay, Everglades ' "River of Grass . " The acquisi- Pennsylvania' s Department of Conservation Send your check The Conservation Fundd,, tions, to be transferred to the county, con- and Natural Resources, serves as chairman isoo N . Kent St ., Suite tinue a $ 100 million farmland protection of the summit' s steering committee . Other 1120, Arlington, VA effort approved in 1999 by county voters . committee members are Sara Taylor-Rogers, 22209-2156 . Earlier Fund-assisted acquisitions protected secretary of Maryland' s Department of Natu- 990 acres in the reserve . ral Resources, Brent Manning, director of Illi- nois' DNR, Lonice Barrett, commissioner of EM Virginia has acquired 8, 300 acres near Georgia' s DNR, and Mary Nichols, secretary Wytheville, one of the largest privately-held of resources in California , tracts of unfragmented wild land in the state . Working with the Western Virginia M The recent purchase of the 225- acre Lost Land Trust, The Conservation Fund bought Coast Ranch in Humboldt County, Calif., the land with $3 million in state funding and will provide public access to a mile of coast- transferred it to the state department of line and protect grass and forestland, creek The recent game and inland fisheries . The department and wetland habitat . The California Coastal purchase of the will manage the tract—its largest acquisition Conservancy provided a $ 1 million grant to in two decades—and open a network of The Conservation Fund to buy the property, 225-acre Lost trails to the public for hunting, hiking and which was given to the Bureau of Land Man- Coast Ranch in trout fishing . The department has identified agement in July . The ranch, just south of the Humboldt County, the land, which surrounds a 1, 874-acre tract Eel River near Ferndale, supports Northern that protects the town' s water supply, as a California steelhead trout, northern red-legged Calif. , will provide priority for protection. "This model coopera- and foothill yellow-legged frogs, golden and public access to a tive effort allowed us to accomplish what bald eagles, bobcats, coyotes and mountain mile of coastline . never could have been done individually, " lions . The acquisition begins an effort to pro- said Michael Van Ness, the trust' s director , tect 600 acres in the Lost Coast Headlands . ® The Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network (989 / 662-6024, www . saginaw The Conservation Fund wishes to baywin . org) has awarded a $ 130,428 grant to thank supporters who contributed more than $200 000 throu h Earth Share work- the Saginaw Bay Greenways Collaborative � g (www . saginawbaygreenways . org, 989 / 797- place donations in 2000 . For every dollar 6800 ) to develop a green infrastructure plan contributed, 97 cents has funded land for Bay, Midland and Saginaw counties in protection. Since 1988, Earth Share Michigan. Collaborative members, who have campaigns at companies such as Dell, pledged $ 137, 030 in services and funding to Louisiana-Pacific, Toyota, and American match the grant, include nonprofit groups, Airlines have raised more than $90 mil- local foundations, state and local govern- lion in payroll donations to support the ments and the National Park Service' s Rivers work of environmental and conservation and Trails Program . The Saginaw County groups . Fueled by workplace giving, the Metropolitan Planning Commission and the Fund protects 1 , 000 acres a day-3 mil- lion acres since 1985 . To make a gift to the East Central Michigan Planning and Devel- opment Region (www . ecmpdr . org) will Fund, look for # 0930 on Earth Share' s list complete work on the plan . The collabora- in the Combined Federal Campaign cata- tive hopes its work will be incorporated into Logue or visit www . earthshare . org . COMMON GROUND VOL. 12 NO. 4 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2001 rfflrrn;, r.,; l :; yriFi: Cvi�a r' "-1 - 4_•-1ya'•.?c kAk. .-'rt..L . -x:: :y..t. . _.,.. . i . .. 'art•.. .'..r-. 4';iy. _ :1E':•� t :i_.. .- - :.�;, ' C :ty�,, xf. , , .r.-�. ..tIj w ' . 4iE- t r -;.v : '�i•.s - Z;t �c.-.yt.. 't� r_ .•.,sr�c .S..��J t t, . 't ir�i .�• .i . .n.r v":Gr .'a �: "t , , c,;..,:. -Y� r _,i`,• : . tip'. 'vi • �';-� . - - ^��' d.. '�. Maryland to Preserve Its Green Infrastructure GreenPrint, from page I plants thrive and keep streams and wetlands Glendening has proposed spending $ 145 healthy by protecting adjacent vegetation . million on the new program over five years . Collateral program benefits include im- " The GreenPrint framework represents proving the state' s air and water quality and " The GreenPrint an open invitation to landowners, conserva- protecting a land base upon which tourism tion groups, land trusts and government and the forest products and seafood indus- framework agencies to use their resources and ingenuity tries depend to flourish. GreenPrint also will represents an to collectively create an irreplaceable ecologi- help the state fulfill its commitment under open invitation cal legacy that will protect Maryland' s di- the interstate Chesapeake Bay Agreement it t0 landowners , verse natural resources for generations to signed last year that calls for protecting 207o come, " said David Burke, the director of the of the bay' s watershed lands and reducing conservation Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service the rate of sprawl development by 30 % over groups , land trusts at the state DNR. Although the funding is an a decade . and government important new catalvc+ *protecting the state" s The new program also will provide an green ;nfrastrto :ulre 1 .erwork won' t be ac- overarching plan that will help coordinate agencies to use complished by the state alone, he said . The ongoing public and private sector land pro- their resources enormity of the -task—protecting 1 . 5 million tection activities in Maryland . The state cre- and ingenuity t0 acres—requires the public and private sec- ated Program Open Space (410 / 260- 8403, g y tors to use an array of land protection tools— www . dnr . state , md . us / pos .html ) in 1969 to collectively create open space bonds, conservation easements, fund state and local parks and conservation an irreplaceable zoning and subdivision set-asides, he said . areas . The Agricultural Land Preservation ecological legacy . Using satellite imaging technology and Foundation has purchased conservation input from scientists, local governments and easements on farmland since 1977. As part —David Burke, conservation organizations, Maryland al- of Smart Growth legislation, the state cre - Maryland DNR ready mapped its important unprotected ated a Rural Legacy Program (410 / 260-8403, natural lands . The state envisions protecting www . dnr . state . md . us / rurallegacy ) 'm 1997 much of the remaining green infrastructure to protect agricultural land, natural re- through acquisitions and easements that will sources and cultural heritage through the link large protected areas—sites of several preservation of greenbelts, forests and farm- hundred acres or more called green hubs— land around municipalities . Combined local, through a web of " green links . " The connec- state and federal efforts have protected a tors will form habitat highways—stream half-million acres in the state . valleys and mountain ridges that allow safe For more information on green infrastruc- passage for wildlife through natural habitat, , tune, visit The Conservation Fund 's Web site— facilitate seed and pollen transport to help www . greeninfrastructure . net . 111 I ' l l ' 1111 187 8 - SLSLZ ON ' HHONO8S11I H 58T8 X08 4d ldU H3SNOO S3N I a I AN3 AID 3ONVH4 QH1SHf1021UNOI.LOS?INOO SSHUMV 84103HIC 11ONb1S Q1AVG HW 60ZZZ VA ` ue1DUj1JV ' D'Q ' NOLLONIHSVM OZIZ alms " IS luax ' N 0091 CHE ' ON ,LMINHd QIVa HOVISOd 6S * O 03HO 11,4O Id - NON